Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 9, Parts of the Central Valley Project Referendum (June 1982)
| California Proposition 9 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Water |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Veto referendum |
Origin |
California Proposition 9 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on June 8, 1982. It was defeated.
A “yes” vote supported upholding the Act passed by the state legislature, which was designed to establish certain facilities and programs, including a peripheral canal, as part of the Central Valley Project. |
A “no” vote supported repealing the Act passed by the state legislature, which was designed to establish certain facilities and programs, including a peripheral canal, as part of the Central Valley Project. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 9 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,049,042 | 37.30% | ||
|
|
3,444,483 | 62.70% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 9 was as follows:
| “ | Water Facilities Including a Peripheral Canal | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | WATER FACILITES INCLUDING A PERIPHERAL CANAL. REFERENDUM STATUTE. A "yes" vote approves, a "no" vote rejects, a law that will: Designate additional facilities and programs, including a peripheral canal, as units of Central Valley Project. Specify requirements regarding feasibility, environmental impacts, design, construction, operation, financing, and protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife for project units. Require Water Resources Department to contract with named delta agencies regarding users' rights, water quality, and benefit payments; and to immediately proceed with specified prerequisites to construction of peripheral canal. Require compliance with designated water quality standards and conditions. Specify other responsibilities and matters. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: As Project has been planned and operated to be self-supporting, implementation under present policies would not require increase in state taxes or reduce funds for other state programs. Potential construction costs at 1981 prices are in excess of $3.1 billion plus. unknown additional costs, plus interest, to be financed by increased user charges. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For veto referendums filed in 1982, at least 346,119 valid signatures were required. Proponents of the veto referendum had 90 days from the date that the bill was signed to collect signatures.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
