Editorial: Flood tax frustration understandable, but push to remove San Anselmo isn’t a fix

Few issues generate as much prolonged debate and frustration as flood control in San Anselmo.

To many, the estimated nearly $100 million in damage to homes, businesses and public buildings caused by the 2005 New Year’s Eve flood should be enough to justify bolstering local flood control.

But even with some close calls in recent years, there remains considerable political clout behind the thought that there is no practical solution and those that are advanced won’t be effective and are a waste of public dollars.

Simply put, the argument is that downtown San Anselmo was built in a flood-prone area and flooding is a natural risk faced by homeowners, business property owners and the town.

The debate has been waged for decades, even before the 2005 flood. More than 15 years later, there is still consternation over the 2007 vote that imposed an annual Ross Valley flood-control tax and launched improvements aimed at providing protection up and down the valley.

That the tax has been raised several times over the years even though there’s been little to show for it has fueled criticism. Few actual improvements have been constructed.

It’s frustrating – for both the initiative’s supporters and stalwart critics.

The debate over the county’s fencing off of a creekside parkade and bridge that county engineers have deemed unsafe is just another example of this prolonged public discord.

Now there’s a push to remove the town from the county Flood Zone District 9 that is in charge of the flood-control tax and deciding how it’s better used.

Leaders of the petition drive have been fighting the district’s flood-control proposals for years, including derailing plans to create emergency stormwater detention ponds at San Anselmo’s Memorial Park and Lefty Gomez Field in Fairfax.

A string of emergency stormwater detention ponds was advanced as a realistic alternative to widening the creek, which is lined by homes.

Only one pond has been created – on the old Sunnyside Nursery growing grounds just outside of Fairfax.

Those battles consumed a lot of the tax dollars petition signatories complain that the district has wasted.

Now the debate has turned to the San Anselmo bridge, which county engineers say impedes the flow of stormwater, causing it to spill over the creek’s banks and flood homes, businesses and city buildings.

Removal of the bridge is being held up by yet another study, this one looking at the possibility that replacing the bridge and the impediment could increase flooding risk to 20 parcels downstream.

Backers of pulling San Anselmo out of the district argue the old bridge, which could be 80 to 100 years old, can be repaired rather than replaced.

There’s no question that the zone’s mission has taken a lot longer and cost taxpayers a lot more than was ever anticipated.

Besides prolonged political debates at almost every step, the district has had trouble keeping the public informed and mobilized. And the cost of consultants, studies, reports and staff work has mounted as steadfast challenges have derailed plans and forced rethinking strategies.

The petition drive likely is not going to save taxpayers any more. Before they collect signatures, backers should inform voters of their plans for solutions.

It appears to be just another political hurdle to prolong the task – and tax – by making it more difficult and undermining a regional approach to what is a regional problem. Eroding an existing regional partnership and significantly reducing its funding just delays progress toward needed remedies.

Costs are not going to go down by increasing the time it’s going to take to come up with plans that meet local, state and federal approval.

Debate and frustration have already taken a costly toll. This petition drive doesn’t look like a promising alternative.