Throughout California, dams, dikes, levees and flood channels are falling apart -- weakened by a lack of maintenance and money.

The problem has sounded an alarm among state flood protection experts, prompting several reports urging legislative action.

In 2002, a state task force called for improved local funding and coordinated regional plans similar to those used by the state's model firefighting forces. Since 1950, there have been 12 wildfires that have been state or federally declared disasters. By comparison, 81 floods prompted a state or federal disaster declaration.

This year, the California Department of Water Resources issued a report calling deteriorating flood protection systems a "ticking time bomb" threatening millions of lives and tens of billions of dollars in property statewide.

Among the state water agency's recommendations was a call for a change in the state Constitution exempting local flood control districts from Proposition 218's two-thirds' voting requirement for imposing a special tax.

But such an amendment would face fierce opposition.

The head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association called the effort to exempt flood control from Proposition 218 "a direct attack on the people's right to vote."

"We're not saying you can't do it," said Jon Coupal, president of the association and the primary drafter of Proposition 218. "We're saying you have to get permission from the people that pay the bill."

Coupal said the association would vigorously oppose a constitutional amendment allowing flood control charges to be raised without approval by voters, ratepayers or property owners.

With construction costs escalating, environmental regulations driving the price of new projects up by as much as 30 percent, and the state raiding local property taxes that fund flood protection, there are fewer dollars than ever to maintain the aging infrastructure.

As the funds dwindle, the cost of new projects has grown. Permits from environmental regulatory agencies often cause costly delays and the care taken to protect natural habitats of endangered species can add millions of dollars to a project.

The county has embraced this philosophy -- marked by the name change from county Flood Control to Watershed Protection District in 2002 -- but the funding to make it happen across the board isn't there, said Jeff Pratt, director of the watershed district.

"There is all this talk and want on the part of the community to do a more natural approach," Pratt said. "If we want to do that we have to find some money to do that. Or we have to knock some public safety projects off the list of what we can do in the next few years."

Five years ago, Santa Clara County took a good hard look at its aging flood protection system, declining dollars, and the public and regulatory agency clamor for environmentally friendly measures.

County officials realized a special tax was the only way to prop up the failing system and meet the new demands of modern-day flood protection.

They put together a program that would answer each need and put it before the voters. It passed by a slim margin -- just 1,066 votes over the needed number to meet two-thirds.

"It was very close," said Beau Goldie, assistant operating officer with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. "We had to get a lot of people on board before we took this to the voters. Flood protection by itself is not a sexy issue. We had to also sell the fact that we would protect the environment, create more recreation, keep the water clean."

The measure, called the Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection special parcel tax, proposed a 15-year program to improve flood protection; restore local creek and bay ecosystems; add open space trails and parks along creeks, and ensure the cleanliness and safety of creek and bay water.

The tax costs homeowners an extra $39 a year, raising the total to $71. It produces $25.4 million a year for the water district.

-- Staff writer Kathleen Wilson contributed to this report.

|