Resolution No. 3088
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
:12
13
14
15
16
17
18
... ... ..., -
JIi-'-" :. ~ --, .,
'1"
~",'"
19 urges each voter of the Ci tyof Vernon and each voter of. the
20 State of Cali.fornia to approve Proposition '7 on the June 2, 1970
21' p:x:imary election pallot.
22
""1 ~I
RESOLUTION NO. 3088
A RESOLl)WION~OF:''.I;'~~1'TYfCOUNCIL OF THE CITY.'OF VERNON, ,URGING
VOTER APPROVAL OF PRbPOSITION 7 ON THE PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT
OF JUNE 2, 1970.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLL'OWS:
:'r' '
WHEREAS, the state Water Project of the State of
California has been heretofore approved by the voters of the
State of California, and
, .
WHEREAS, a portion of said Projecft requiringlU'gent
funds is thecone;truction of the peripheral Canal, whiCh Canal
will avo~d saltwater contamination and will further release
freshw.,ater to enhance fish, wild life, recreation, andagricul-
turein the Delta"'area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, and
WHEREAS, prevailing interest rates have rise~',to the
detriment of those selling publiC bonds, aJld a ceiling on said
interest rates shouldneceljilsarily be increased in order.. to sell
the 'remaining 600 million dollars of State Water Project bonds,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Vernon
SEC'l' ION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
23 cer.t'i,fy to the passage of this resolution and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full forc.e and effect.
2~ '
27
28
2'9
,30
ADOPTED and APPROVED this 7th day of April, 1970.
., ~j
ATTEST' .
~CitY
Clerk
;~,
;; ~~. -I
F~'
1.
.... .. ... -
... '!" .... IIii
11
:3
3
~ I, F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
5 hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
6 No. 3088 , was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
7 Vernon, and approved by the Mayor of said City, at a regular
8 meeting of the City Council held on
April 7, 1970
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
~itY
Clerk
2.
Ivy BAKER PRIEST
TREASURER
RECEIVED
0-).0-76
F. A. Z.EiAit.:R
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OFTHE
'Q}t"~ Ctg1tt"~t"
SACRAMENTO 96809
April 15, 1970
Mr. F. A. Ziemer, City Clerk
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058
Dear Mr. Ziemer:
Governor Reagan has forwarded to me a
copy of the resolution recently passed by the
City Council of the city of Vernon, and I
would like to add my thanks for your support
to that of the Governor.
Proposition 7 is vitally important to all
of us and the Treasurer's Office is dedicated
to making every effort to create interest and
bring a greater understanding to its issues to
the voters of our State.
Your interest and the reassurance of your
support is deeply appreciated.
with all good wishes and kindest regards.
SincerelY'f .,~
/J ,Ita..... / {i'.) ,~
""" . .' . /.. / /'/ ,
CY"'71/-';t' /~ 4/li/1/ /1.1?~~<2/
/ ,f (/
/ f
IVY Baker Priest
State Treasurer
RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR
j)tatt cf <qaHfcrnia
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
SACRAMENTO 95814
RECEIVED
f-)~',rtJ
F. A. ZlHAER
CITY CLERK
April 13, 1970
Mr. F. A. Ziemer, City Clerk
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, California 90058
Dear Mr. Ziemer:
Thank you for your letter, on behalf of the
City Council of the City of Vernon, in support
of proposition 7.
I have taken the liberty of sending your corre-
spondence to our State Treasurer, Ivy Baker
Priest, for she is coordinating the effort to
gain the needed increase in allowable bond
interest rates.
Again, I want to thank you for letting me know
of your strong support and I can assure you that
Mrs. Priest will welcome any help you can give
her.
Sincerely,
<R '--'-l C2-r
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
.
DIRECI'ORS
MILO DELLMANN, P,esident
ROBERT J. FURLONG
CLINTON O. HA1uus
CLAIRE S. THOMPSON, JR.
FRANK H. WHEELOCK
CENTRAL BASIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICf
7439 EAST FLORENCE AVENUE
DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90240
927.2611 . 773.5790
March 19, 1970
,~p I?
~ 7/970
i ) 3o~p
a/~.~ ,.y"
? r 'i '
~ '" "Vtvr
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, Calif. 90058
Attention: Mr. Frank A. Ziemer
City Clerk
Gentlemen:
At its last meeting, the Board of Directors of Central Basin Municipal
Water District instructed me to write to all cities and Chambers of
Commerce in Central Basin to invite attention to the paramount
importance of securing authorization for construction of the
Per~pheral Canal as an essential feature of the State Water Project,
and to urge voter approval of Proposition 7 on the June 2, 1970,
Primary Election ballot.
The Peripheral Canal is needed to divert water from the Sacramento
River around the Delta of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers to the
pumping plants of the Central Valley Project and the State Water
Project near Tracy, thus avoiding salt water contamination from San
Francisco Bay. Releases of fresh water from the canal to natural
channels in the Delta will repel the intrusion of salt water and
enhance fish, wildlife, recreation and agriculture in the Delta area.
Proposition 7 will raise the ceiling on the interest rate for unsold
State general obligation bonds from 5% to 7%, and if necessary, it
will permit the interest rate to be further raised upon 2/3 vote of
the Legislature with the approval of the Governor. The remaining 600
million dollars of State Water Project bonds cannot now be sold
because of the 5% maximum interest rate limitation. The bonds must
be sold to complete the project.
We are enclosing factual information and sample resolutions supporting
Proposition 7, and the Peripheral Canal Project, and we hope you will
take favorable action soon by recommending voter approval of
Proposition 7, and requesting the Governor to support the Peripheral
Canal Project.
iD~-'
ca~~tte
Secretary
CF:gb
Encs.
, I
.,-."
..
..
BIARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1800 EAST WARDLOW ROAD
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNI,A 90807
Telephone 426.5951
February 9, 1970
Central Ba~in Water Association
7439 East Florence Avenue
Downey, California 90240
Attention: Mr. Carl Fossette, Executive Secretary
Gentlemen:
The Board of Water Commissioners of the City of
Long Beach, California, at its meeting of February 5,
1970, adopted the enclosed Resolution No.74l giving
its unanimous support to the proposed construction
of the Peripheral Canal as an integral part of the
state Water Project.
Yours very ~Ul:~ .
~lJ~;1, . ~'. ,65~
IJ; J ~&n,(t}:r, ~ecretary
BOARD (3!/ WATER COMMISSIONERS
IJS:pfs
enc.
...
; .'
,;. ,,,,"
..
5
6
7
8
9
lO-
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
..
.
RESOLUTION NO. 741
1
2
3
4
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL, AS
. A KEY FEATURE OF THE STATE WATER PROJECT
WHEREAS, 'legislation authorizing construction of the
Peripheral Canal as an essential feature of the State Water
P~oject and the Federal Government's Central Valley Project, is
being considered; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report on this canal has been
app~QV64 by ~he Secretary of the Interior and transmitted to the.
State of California for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Senate Committee on Water Resources and the
~
....
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California is vitally concerned with the construction of this canal
which will bring two million acre-feet a year of northern water
for the more than ten million people living within its boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, av~gorous campaign is bei~g waged by opponents
'-1-'
"
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
, 9
'10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
,18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
j..
,
of the canal who claim that it will "destroy the deltall by
diverting the entire flow of'the Sacramento River and by reduci~g
by 80 per cent the present freshwater flow into the delta and
San, Francisco Bay; and
WHEREAS ,the truth is that, in 19.90, when the maximum
amounts of State project water' presently contracted for will be
exported to Southern California, the net central basin depletion
at the delta for export to ALL of, Southern California will be less
than ten per cent of the total supply of water from the Sacramento
and San Joaquin river systems, and
WHEREAS, studies of unprecedented scope and depth have
determined that, by providing regulated releases of freshwater
to delta channels at more than eight different points, the canal
will also serve to protect and improve the environment and ecol~gy
,of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and, in fact, is the only
practical way that this can be achieved;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of 'Water
Commissioners of the City of, Long Beach, at its regular meeting
I
held the 29th day ,of January, 1970, does hereby affirm its
vigorous support of the Peripheral Canal and urge Governor Re~gan
'to give prompt approval to the feasibility report sent to the
State of California by the Secretary of Interior; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Co~gress of the United
States is st%o~gly u~ged to enact legislation authorizing the
Peripheral C~nal as a joint-use facility of the Federal Central
Valley projeQt and the State Water project, as l~gislation which
-2~
r..
,. ..
<t' ·
..
. .
1
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~
(',
'..
is essential for, the best interests of the> citizens of Southern
California and of the Delta area; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be
transmitted to the Governor of the State of California, to the
Honorable Joseph M. Kennick, Senator from the 33rd District, to
the Honorable George Deukmejian, Senator from the 37th District,
to the Honorable Ralph C. Dills, Senator from the 32nd District,
to the Honorable James A. Hayes and Mike Cullen, Assemblymen from
I
the 39th and 44th Districts, respectively, to the Honorable Mayor
and City Council of the City of Long Beach, and to such other
legislators, both State and Federal, as may be deemed advisable.
I hereby certify that the foregoi~g resolution was adopted
by the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Long Beach at"
its meeting held February 5, 1970, by the following vote:
Gerken, McNulty, Mulvey,
O'Hare, Munholland
NOES: Commissioners: None
AYES:
Commissioners:
'.
ABSENT: Commissioners: None'
.'
",\"
-.3-
N
11
i;j
%
;{
()
o
J-:.
l[
f};
/!j
!2
it
-<:'
Q!
v
0'
SOUTH BAY AQUEDUCT
o Tracy
DEL TA-MENDOTA CANAL
(Central Valley Project)
1l
#"
s:s
cS)
Alignment of proposed Peripheral Canal is shown by heavy black line at right. Arrows
along canal indicate turnouts for releasing fresh water to improve delta water quality.
Proposed Kellogg Project, which would deliver additional fresh water to Contra Costa
County, is indicated at lower left.
."
RESOLUTION 7237
Whereas, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California has entered into a contract for a supply of water from
the State Water Project that is vitally needed for the District's
continuing population growth, and
Whereas, the District has contracted for more than two
million acre-feet a year of northern water -- nearly twice the
amount the District is currently bringing from the Colorado River
for the more than ten million people now living within its
.
boundaries, and
Whereas, the Peripheral Canal, which will transport water
around the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, is an
essential feature of. the State Water Project, and
Whereas, the feasibility report on this canal, which will
serve not only the State Water Project but also the Federal Government's
Central Valley Project, has been approved by the Secretary of Interior
and transmitted to the State of California for review and comment,
and
Whereas, both the Senate Committee on Water Resources and
the Assembly Committee on Water have held public hearings on this
report and have endorsed early authorization of the canal by Congress
as a joint-use facility of the State Water Project and the Central
Valley Project, and
Whereas, the Peripheral Canal offers by far the best solution
for the problems of both water supply and water quality for the
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, and
~
-2-
Whereas, many years of study of unprecedented scope and
depth have determined that, by providing regulated releases of
freshwater to delta channels at more than eight different points,
the canal will also serve to protect and improve the environment
and ecology of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and, in fact, is
the only practical way that this can be achieved, and
Whereas, this underlying necessity of constructing the
canal for the benefit of sport and commercial fisheries, wildlife,
recreation, agriculture and other interests in the delta is being
completely ignored by a few self-appointed "saviors of the delta"
who apparently believe there is some temporary political advantage
in blind opposition to the canal, and
Whereas, typical of the wild distortions these opponent.s
are circulating is that the canal will "destroy the deltall by
diverting the entire flow of the Sacramento River and transporting
it directly to Los Angeles, and by reducing by 80 per cent the
present freshwater flow into the delta and San Francisco Bay, and
Whereas, the truth is that, in 1990, when the maximum
amounts of State project water presently contracted for will be
exported to Southern California, the net central basin depletion
at the delta for export to all of Southern California (not just to
Los Angeles alone) will be less than ten per cent of the total
supply of water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems,
and
Whereas, these irresponsible attacks on the Peripheral
Canal have reached such proportions that the widest public attention
/
-3-
. ~
must be called to the immense benefits the canal will provide for
Central and Southern California and also the delta itself;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Directors
of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California does
hereby re-affirm its vigorous support of the Peripheral Canal and
urge Governor Reagan to give prompt approval to the feasibility
report sent to the State of California by the Secretary of Interior,
and
Be it further resolved that the Board does also urge all
citizens of the District to write Governor Reagan asking him to
approve the report now on his desk regarding this key component
of the State Water Project.
"" c \; ...
-4-
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California at its
meeting held January 13, 1970.
~;(~
'Executive Secretary
The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
RESOLUTION 7238
Whereas, the June State primary election ballot will
include a measure designated as Proposition 7 which will amend the
State Constitution, and
Whereas, approval of this measure by the voters will
ratify legislation enacted in 1969 which raises the maximum interest
rate from five per cent to seven per cent on general obligation bonds
of the State already authorized by the voters but not yet sold, and
Whereas, adoption of Proposition 7 will also enable the
Legislature by a two-thirds vote with approval of the Governor to
raise this maximum rate even further if this proves necessary in the
interests of the people of California, and
Whereas, one billion, 300 million dollars of bonds
authorized by the voters of California cannot be sold at this
existing legal ceiling of five per cent because of the depressed
money market, and
Whereas, the inability to market these bonds has endangered
programs vital to the people of this State, including completion of
the State Water Project, Cal-Vet loans, acquisition and development
of beaches, parks, recreation and historical facilities, State aid
to local school construction and higher education construction, and
Whereas, 600 million dollars of these bonds which cannot
be sold are needed to complete the State Water Project, and
Whereas, these water bonds are self-liquidating, with the
principal and interest paid by the water users and others benefiting
from the project, and thus an increase in the interest rates on
.... III
-2-
these bonds would not cause an increase in State taxes, and
Whereas, if Proposition 7 should fail, the already over-
burdened taxpayers of the State might be required to provide the
funds needed to complete the State Water Project, and
Whereas, even a delay in completing the project could
result in additional costs of more than 200 million dollars as a
result of inflation and the wastefulness of shutting down and then
re-starting construction, and
Whereas, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, by far the biggest contractor for State project water,
is relying upon this new source to meet the needs of its continually
growing population, and
Whereas, failure to complete the State Water Project on
schedule could cripple not only the economy of Southern California
but also that of the entire State;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Directors
of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California does hereby
go on record that it regards the passage of Proposition 7 at the
June State primary election as an overriding necessity in order to
protect the welfare of the more than ten million people of the
District, and
Be it further resolved that the Board does hereby urge all
citizens of the District to join in casting a "Yes" vote for
Proposition 7 in order that the semi-arid coastal plain of Southern
California will continue to have ample supplies of water, and
Be it further resolved that the Board urges each of the
District's member agencies to adopt a like resolution supporting
Proposition 7.
-3-
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of
T~e Metropplitqn Water District of So~thern California at its
meet~ng held January 13, 1970.
~~K~
. Executive Secretary
The Metropolitan Water District
of Soutbern California
~ffi]i)~ ~[PYES on 7
..
Southern California Headquarters: 6380 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 1113, Los Angeles 90048 . Phone 653-5970
Preston Hotchkis, Chairman. James Warren Beebe, Finance Chairman. Franklin Stockbridge, Vice Chairman
No. California
Headquarters:
Flood Building, Rm. 828
San Francisco 94102
W. F. Bramstedt
Chairman
Alan K. Browne
Finance Chairman
Fact Sheet
WHAT IS PBOPOSrrION 71
Proposition 7 is a proposed constitutional amendment which will appear on the
June 2nd State primary election ballot. It increases the max~ interest rate on
State leneral obligation bonds from 5'1 to 7%. This provision would affect only bonds
which have already been approved by the voters but are still unsold. the proposition
would also permit this maximum interest rate on these and future bonds to be raised
even further, if necessary, but only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and
approval by the Governor. those familiar with the workings of the State Legislature
know that a two-thirds approval by both the Senate and the Assembly is highly unlikely
unless the issue ia non-controversial or of the most compelling urgency.
lntY IS PROPOSITION 7 ESSENTIAL?
Right now, one billion, 300 million dollars of bonds that you have voted in
recent years cannot be sold at their legal ceilinl of 5'1 because of the current money
market. this has caused vital California prolrams to be imperiled or placed on the
shelf while construction costs continue to mount astronomically. If Proposition 7
fails, there will be one sure loser: you, the citizen.
.D
, \
WHAt WILL BE THE EFFECT OF ProPOS ItIOO 7
ON THE StAm "lAma PROJEct?
Six hundred million dollars of bonds needed to complete construction of the
State Water Project are among the bonds that cannot be sold. These bonds, approved
by the voters, are self-liquidating, with principal and interest to be paid by the
water users and landowners benefiting from the project. As a result, an incre~se in
interest rates on these bonds WDuld not cause an increase in state taxes.
How lmDortant is the State Water Proiect?
It is now more than two-thirds completed and is scheduled to bring needed water
to 13 million people in many areas of California by 1972. In Southern Californis
especially, water is the lifeblood of our economy -- the key to our continued growth.
Are Present Water SUDDlies Adeauate for the Future?
Almost every Southern Californian knows they are not. BUt completion of the
State Water Iroject will help us to cop~ with continued poptllation growth, to meet the
needs of industry, agriculture, the individual consumer and our entire economy.
Is the State Water Pro1ect in Anv Dan~er?
Indeed it is -- II the water bonds are ~ sold. And they cannot be sold at the
present interest ceiling. If they are not sold, construction of the State Wate~
Project could come to a complete halt. the consequences would be extremely serious.
The State would face enormous claims for damages from concrectors on jobs that would be
shut down. Also, it would be unable to meet its commitments for water deliveries
which would deprive it of revenues needed to pay the interest and principal on bonds
it has already sold.
- 2 -
Flacing the State Water Project in mothballs could be disastrous in other ways,
too -- aside from the fact that water is needed for our survival. 110thballing for even
~s short a period as 18 months would add upwards of 200 million dollars to its eventual
cost...another potential burden for citizens of California. Inflation alone adds 5%
each y~ar to the cost of const~ction. And, if the project were hal~edt only to be
restarte~ later, the skilled workers now employed on the project would have to be re-
cruited allover again.
What doe~ this Mean to the TaXDaver? To the State's Credit?
You, as a State taxpayer, could be hit in several ways if Proposition 7 sho~ld
fail.
1. If the remaining $600 million of water bonds can't be sold because the interest
rate is not high enough to attract buyers, you, the taxpayer, will have to make up the
deficit in order to complete the State Water Project. The money would come from the
tax dollars in the State's General Fund.
2. If the deficit is not made up immediately and a short shutdown is required,
the loss of revenues from sale of water could necessitate use of t~payers' dollars to
pay interest on the bonds. This, in turn, could have a very serious impact on the
credit rating applied to all State bonds since the one billion dollars in water bonds
might no longer be classified by financial rating services as self-liquidating but
would be classified as part of the tax supported debt of the State. By reason of
classifying the debt as tax supported, tpe total tax debt of the State might result in
a lower rating being applied to all future State bonds, and the lower rating would
compel payment of higher interest rates. The total future increased interest costs
cannot be calculated but it could be very substantial.
- 3 -
3. If the deficit is n~ve~ made up and the facilities for deliv~ry of water to
Southern California for any reason were abandoned, the result ",ould be financial
chaos for the entire State. It is hi8hly probable that the Southern California water
service contractors would refuse to make any further payments to the State because the
contracts had been breached. In that event, the State's taxpayers would have to make
principal and interest payments on the bonds that financed the unused and incomplete
facilities. This could ~ount to several billion dollars. Further, this failure by
the State to live up to its contracts would ruin the State's credit and the market
for all of its bonds.
OTHER PROGRAMS AFFECTED BY PROPOS IT ION 7
Cal-Vet Loan Program, $200 milliqn of bonds to help veterAns acquire a home or
!arm of their own. Like the vater bonds, these are also self-supporting. More than
ZOO,OOO veterans have beep h,~ped ~n the past. Especially hard-hit by a curtail~ent
in this program would be veterans returning from Vietnam, who certain~y have earned
the right to buy homes with Cal~Vet loans.
Proposition 7 affects bond int~rest rates only. It does not authorize a change
in the !2!n interest rate cei~ing in the eJcisting home loan contracts between
veterans and the California Qepar~ment of Veterans' Affairs.
Beaches,Parks,Recreation and Historical Facilities, ~75 milliQn. This bond
PrQgr~ provides funds for ~he early acquisition and development of state and local
regional parks. Available beaches, shoreline and park property are rapidly disappear-
ing while co~ts escalate rapidly. ~ach year that we delay adds materially to costs.
Projects already committed but aWai~~ng completion include: Huntington State Beach,
~lt. Tamalpais State Park, Gaviota Refugio, ~lsa Chica State Beach, ~~ntano de Oro
- 4 -
II""
, '.
State Park, Point Mugu State Recreation Area, Ano Nuevo State Reserve, Pfeiffer Big
Sur State Park and Old Town San Diego. Approved projects \vhich have not been
committed because of lack of funds include the Calaveras Big Tree Project, among others.
State Aid to Local School Construction, $270 million. This program finances
classrooms for impoverished school districts experiencing rapid growth in enrollment.
Unless the State can market the bonds authorized by the voters in 1966 for this
program, vitally needed classrooms will not be built, and school children will suffer.
Other bond programs: Higher Education Constructioo,$78 million; Junior Colleges,
$50 million; and $30 million for other State facilities.
California's excellent program of higher education is already jeopardized.
Classrooms are bursting at the seams, labs and other essential facilities are criti-
cally needed, and the capital construction program of the University of California is
almost at a standstill. Nothing less than the future of our country and a know-
ledgeable, trained citizenry is at stake here.
IMPACT OF PROPO~ITION 7 ON TAXES
Stated sUnply, your ~ vote on Proposition 7 will avoid the necessity of
financing construction programs through higher state and local taxes. These pro-
grams are essential and must be financed.
UOULD PROPOS tTtON 7 AUTHORIZE ANY NEH BOND PROJECTS?
Absolutely no! No new general obligation bonds at all can be issued in the
future without prior approval of the voters.
- 5 -
-; { ~..
\~HA't IS THE ALtERNATIVE 'to PROPOSITION 7?
The ~lternative can be suaJDe.c:l up in one word: DISAStER. Failure of
Proposition 7 could mean that our waterprogr8lll would grind to a halt...our returning
veterans would be unable to take advantage of the Cal.Vet Home Loan Program...our
children would be denied classrooms, especially in it~overished areas...needed facili-
ties at our state colleg~ and university campuses would not be provided. And our
recreation and parks program ~~uld be handed a crippling setback.
All residents of California, regardless of political affiliation or geography,
can agree on at least one issue: Proposition 7 is vital to our continued growth
and prosperity.
:ff Ii Ii 1J /I: if
- 6 -
'f1J
~
~
?
I.
u
CITY OF VERNON
CALIFORNIA.
April 9, 1970
Governor Ronald Reagan
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Sir:
Enclosed i. a certified copy of Resolution No. 3088 - A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON, URGING
VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 7 ON THE PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT
ON JUNE 2, 1970. which was adopted by the City Council at its
regular meeting held April 7, 1970.
lL
enc.
Yours very truly,
F. A. Ziemer. City Clerk-
Director of Finance
'r
~
CITY OF VERNON
CALIFORNIA.
April 9, 1970
Central Basin Municipal Water District
7439 East Florence Avenue
Downey, California 90240
Attention: Carl Fossette
Secretary
Gent lemen.:
Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No._ 3088 -A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON , URGING
VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 7 ON THE PRlMARYEJ,.ECTION BALLOr
ON JUNE 2, 1970. whieb"a,. adopted by the City Couneil.at it$
regular meeting held April 7, 1970.
Your s very tX'U 1 Y .
F. A. Ziemer,City Clerk-
Director of F.inanee
ll.
enc.