Joe Muench Is Silly

EPWU water tanks above the Coronado Country Club. Click to enlarge.

. . . And wrong. If you haven't read his last editorial piece, Getcher El Paso tap water, only one dollar per glassful, don't waste your time. It's based on the misinformation/propaganda/lie that says that the PSB sells land in order to keep your water rates low. If they don't sell the land in the Scenic Corridor that now just about everybody wants to save, then your rates will skyrocket. 780 acres and you'll go broke. Ask yourself this: the PSB has given other land (not useful for their infrastructure or too costly to develop) to the State Park. When they did so, did your rates go up? No. 780 acres won't kill them - and I'm beginning to believe that PSB members know this and may be more amenable to preserving land in the Scenic Corridor.

Here's what's true about your water rates: Selling land doesn't keep those rates low. In fact, your rates are high because the PSB doesn't want you to use the water - we have precious little of it. They have (and you can see) a tiered water rate structure. This tiered system has worked. Once upon a time (1977 or so) the per capita consumption of water was 230 gallons/customer/day. It is now at 133 gallons/customer/day. That's quite a success but it doesn't have anything to do with selling land. In fact (and I did an open records request last fall) the total land sales by the PSB over the last 10 years has accounted for less than 2% of their budget. Did your rates go down? How's your water bill? And keep in mind when you compare El Paso to other southwest cities you have to account for the median household income: El Paso 37,030, Austin $50,132, Albuquerque $44,594 . . . That glass of water is already expensive because our water is scarce and it takes more of our paycheck to buy it.

If Joe Muench wants to get serious, he would argue for preserving more land in its natural state and not less. He would be straight forward and tell you that the PSB's land sales function was never meant for the benefit of the consumer - it was meant for the benefit of the developer. That's the ugly truth that too many City leaders and the Times have concealed for way too long. It is part of the cronyism and colonialism and corruption that deeply pockmark and scar El Paso politics like a bad case of acne.

Let me say this again: we the people want the land conserved - permanently. We want the arroyos protected which means not building roads where they shouldn't be built or putting up houses, stores and businesses where they shouldn't be. There are better ways to plan and currently the discussion is leading in the direction of better planning and conservation - permanent conservation.

The entire debate has changed. The question now before Council and others is how to preserve the land in the petition - and perhaps more - in perpetuity. If there is anything that I could report more about last week's Council session it would be that there has been a sea change in the direction of conservation.

I, for one, want to see that change given a chance. However, if there is the slightest inkling of double dealing or wiggle room or proposing plans after the people keep saying that they want conservation, then there is another petition to be signed - one that calls for a ballot referendum. You know what? We will win there. I just hope that we can all be reasonable and that we can all start playing by the facts and not by the propaganda and misinformation.