The City of El Paso and the PSB are on an unfortunate course
of rapidly building park ponds while neglecting valuable natural open space
assets. The PSB recently approved $2.5 million expenditures from the 10% of
your stormwater fee to go to park ponds, the lowest items on the priority list
set by Open Space and Stormwater advisory bodies. In fact, as already
mentioned, an additional $400,000 from that fee that should only be set aside
for natural open space was spent on 4 acres of vacant land (the Johnson Basin) with
no connectivity to natural open space other than a two block arroyo fragment
which exists on land owned by the military not by the City of El Paso. It is
walled-off from the view of El Pasoans by a rock wall topped with barbed wire. You
can see pictures
of Schoephoerster's perfect example of natural open space online – the same
space EPWU official, John Balliew, bold-faced proclaimed “natural” to a
December meeting of the Open Space Advisory Board.
PSB/EPWU officials claim that Jim Shelton of EPWU has not
had the time to pursue other open space assets. I would argue that he has not
been tasked to do so.
Johnson Basin may be a drainage asset and a potential location
for a good neighborhood park. Creating that recreational/drainage space should
come from the other 90% of the stormwater fee not set aside for acquiring
natural open space . . . or from the Parks and Recreation budget which seems to
have an additional $2.1 million for park ponds but not a penny for open space and
trailheads.
The problem with park ponds is how they are designed. The Parks and Recreation Department sees
them as traditional turf parks. Without seeking the advice of her Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, Department Director Nanette Smejkal, has plowed ahead now that
she has made away with $2.5 million of open space money for 8 park ponds which
were the lowest priorities on the open space master plan. Unfortunately, that
leadership style does not take advantage of the kind of expertise she could
have tapped into for the design of her parks. Park ponds should be designed for
passive rainwater harvesting. UTEP Professor of Engineering and Hydrologist,
John Walton, explains:
“The ‘park ponds’ should not be
seeded with turf because this commits the City of El Paso to long term waste of
water as well as high maintenance costs. Instead stormwater areas should be
designed to employ passive rainwater harvesting. Passive harvesting of
stormwater flowing down drainages occurs when small depressions are placed
within the flow path that capture a portion of the passing water and infiltrate
it into the subsurface. The infiltrated water is stored passively in the soil
and used to water trees and shrubs. Even in the desert climate of El Paso the
technique produces dense green shade trees with no need for artificial
watering. Passive stormwater harvesting also reduces the peak storm discharges
leading to lower flooding potential.”
Just for established turf (not newly laid sod or seed), AgriLife
(your Texas Agricultural Extension Agency) experts calculate about 1.3 million
gallons of water per acre per year or 27 or 30 gallons of water per square foot
of turf. Warm seed turf grasses can go as much as 58 gallons per square foot. Taking
into account our desert climate and not to mention a drought, what were PSB
members thinking when they agreed to take $2.5 million of open space money (a
cash account) and give it to Parks and Recreation for park ponds? Again note
that El Paso’s Parks and Recreation Department spends zip, zero, nada on any
kind of natural open space.
Keeping all of this in mind, it is much easier to see why
the Johnson Basin purchase is even more egregious. Open Space Advisory Board Chairman, Charlie
Wakeem, wrote in an email that Johnson Basin “meets none of the criteria for
Opens Space preservation.”
Wakeem says that
“OSAB agrees that Johnson Basin is a drainage asset and could
also be a park asset that ought to be acquired” but not
with the 10% of your stormwater fee (on your water bill) that goes into a cash
account to buy ecologically sensitive land. There are several criteria for open
space (none of which Johnson Basin meets in spite of Mr. Shoephoerster’s and
Mr. Balliew’s claims). Wakeem enumerates by quoting the Open Space Master Plan:
·
"Open Space is any area that has not been
developed or that currently has no significant structures on it. These
spaces have some combination of natural scenic beauty, natural resources that
are deemed worthy of preservation, or have a cultural or historic significance
to the area or region."
·
What is Open Space?: "The common
thread in all definitions of open space is the notion of lands that have not
yet been substantially altered by man, or that preserve some vestiges of the
natural environment in the urban area that surrounds them."
·
The Amount of Undeveloped Land Remaining in El
Paso: "Land for open space must be preserved today, or it will be
consumed over the next 20 to 40 years."
·
Mission (in part): "....El
Paso's Open Space Trail Network will be attractive and easily accessible to
all. It will be the site of many kinds of healthy recreational
activities, and provide numerous opportunities for educating the public about
the Chihuahuan Desert ecosystems."
·
The Plan for El Paso & Plan El Paso:
"Goal:
Protect and promote ecologically sensitive areas, such as aquifer recharge
zones, hillsides, bosques, arroyos and wetlands."
It would have been better to fund park ponds (and all agree
that dirt holes should be better rainwater/drainage/recreational assets for the
City) incrementally with other funds since they are at the bottom of open space
priorities. The 10% of the stormwater fee for open space goes into a cash
account at the rate of about $117,000 per month – not enough cash flow to
afford the purchase of open space from a cash account unless allowed to build
up over time. Just the
Palisades cost $2.5 million. With the $2.5 million raid by Parks and
Recreation, the fund is now just above $100,000. Because it is a cash account
with insignificant cash flow, expenditures for projects such as park ponds will
always have the advantage. In short, one wonders if any other natural open
space acquisitions can be made especially since Master Plan priorities are
ignored by City politicians and PSB technocrats.
The fact that the open space account is a cash account goes
under one of Mayor Cook’s favorite rubrics: “No good deed goes unpunished.” Why is the stormwater/open space account cash?
Recall that it was established post-2006 flood. There are two reasons. First, architects of the fund didn’t want people
to feel that open space advocates were taking advantage of the situation and
costing them the extra debt service just to buy amenities. And, secondly, the
revenue was leveraged by the Storm Water utility. It allowed Storm Water to have an additional $4
million up front to do a more urgent CIP project that would have been postponed
too many additional years. The result of the good deed: you, your open space,
your natural open space priorities, sensitive eco-systems, etc., etc. are
getting (to put it bluntly) screwed.
Enough said . . . for now.
