the Title Board must then determine whether any re-proposal of the initiative complies with the single subject and clarity requirements; if not, it must refuse to set the titles. B. Initiative # 29’s Multiple Subjects Initiative # 29 repeats the inclusion of three separate and distinct subjects under the term “judicial personnel.” Use of a generic title will not insulate a proposal from compliance with the applicable constitutional and statutory requirements. See, e.g., In re Proposed Petition (Amend Tabor 25), 900 P.2d 121, 125-26- (Colo.1995) (concluding that umbrella of “revenue changes” did not alter the fact that the measure contained two subjects, tax credit and ballot title procedural requirements); In re Proposed Initiative “Public Rights in Waters II”, 898 P.2d at 1080 (<HOLDING>). The Title Board and the proponents of
holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district holding that any member of the general public can initiate an action to raise issues involving the public trust in air water or other natural resources of the state recognizing the importance of public welfare and conservation of water in administering its public waters holding that water conservation district elections and the public trust doctrine were two subjects improperly grouped under the general category of water