Conservation Easement, Petition, Water Improvement District

By now most all of you have heard that City Council last Tuesday (March 20^th) chose Dover Kohl’s Scenario #1 as its preference for a NW Master Plan. Scenario #1 includes development north and south of Transmountain but differs from the petitioners’ request to preserve land in a pre-defined rectangle. (Go here and here to see the different scenarios proposed by Dover Kohl.) Council’s choice was clearly a compromise although the compromise sought by Rep. Ann Lilly meant no development to the north but gave up a bit more land on the south. You can read about Council’s 5-3 decision at an elpasonaturally post and by reading Chris Roberts’ report in the El Paso Times.  What next?

Here’s the time line for moving the preferred scenario to an ordinance:

April 10th, City Council ordinance introduction

April 11^th, Tentative OSAB consideration of the conservation easement.
April 19th City Plan Commission hearing
May 1st, City Council public hearing

As I reported, the motion to adopt Scenario #1 included four caveats one of which was a conservation easement. It is this easement and how it is done that is the most concern to petitioners. I have spoken to a number of them now and most are disappointed with the selection of Scenario #1 but will call it a day if the conservation easement covers all of the open space in the new Master Plan and is a conservation easement not something else. Frontera Land Alliance, a non-profit land trust organization, has information online about such easements. EPWU spokespersons have made some rather misleading claims:

1.       Municipally owned lands can never be under a conservation easement. In fact, there are examples throughout the country and the State of Texas and in El Paso: Thunder Canyon.

2.       The concept of conservation easements came from the IRS. In fact, it comes from centuries old Common Law. It was in the 80s that Congress amended Section 170(h) of the IRS code to give tax credits to property owners for conservation easements.

3.       There is a difference between a conservation easement (for private land only if we are to believe the EPWU) and a “conservation covenant”. May be – but why re-invent the wheel unless the intent is to add an extra gear to control the wheel? For preservation to be in perpetuity, a third party is required. EPWU wants to administer a covenant. A fox would be glad to guard the hen house. Restrictive covenants do not work. Current best example: Blackie Chesher land which was given for the purpose of parkland and an attempt by EPWU/PSB to come up with the smoke and mirrors of this title and that title.  Two good reasons for a conservation easement: people don’t trust the government and the government doesn’t trust the government.

Bottom line: petitioners on the whole can live with the compromise. They will not abide anything but a conservation easement to preserve the land in perpetuity. Several (including myself) have said that, if there is no true conservation easement, new signatures will be gathered for an election immediately. At its Board meeting last Wednesday (March 21^st), the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition members said the same thing. We should know before May 1^st whether to call it a day or hit the streets.

More points to ponder: the City owns double the land north of the NW Master Plan. The development in Scenario #1 is probably just the tip of an iceberg that could go far north. Perhaps a new petition addressing these lands north of the NW Master Plan? One would think that the new Comprehensive Plan (Plan El Paso) will pull back sprawl toward the City center and less to the outskirts (including protecting East El Paso). So perhaps a very expensive Paseo del Norte will be a road to nowhere.

Another immediate concern is the expansion of Transmountain into a freeway-like four lane road. This expansion is a monster. How much open space will be left north and south of Transmountain in the NW Master Plan area after TxDOT plows habitats and environment into oblivion? A thin sliver. A thin sliver.

There is a much bigger issue here that is critical. El Paso owns more land than there is water. And, if the Reyes team (Silvestre and Chuy) have their way with the collusion of State Senator José Rodríguez, a handful of landowners will control the supply of water in our City and region and not hundreds of thousands of people (you and me) in this County and beyond.

In a nutshell this is how it came down: In 2005, Senate Bill 547 (sponsored by a Senator from San Antonio and not our own Senator Shapleigh) attempted to prevent “75,000 El Pasoans from being eligible to vote in all elections involving the management and supervision of the El Paso County Water Improvement District.” Shapleigh put the kibosh on the bill and it failed. Exit Shapleigh. Enters Jose Rodríguez seemingly currying favor with U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes (who is in a fight to keep his seat with Beto O’Rourke) and his brother, Jesus “Chuy” Reyes, General Manager of the El Paso County Water Improvement District #1. (The Water Improvement District owns 171,000 acre feet of water making it by far the largest water owner in El Paso. In fact, EPWID controls the water future of our region.) Also enters Rep. “Chente” Quintanilla who introduced a reincarnation of SB547 on the House side. Rodriquez introduced SB832 which passed the Texas Senate unanimously on 22 Mar 2011 and the Texas House unanimously on 14 Apr 2011.  Gov. Perry signed the bill 29 Apr 2011.  It became law on 1 Sep 2011. 

What does the law do? It disenfranchises 75,000 voters, requires voting registration just as onerous as many that have been recently proposed in State’s seeking to ID voters, and it puts the control of water in the District in the hands of a very few people. (See official EPWID voter information and registration.) What happens when supply is so narrowly restricted? I’ll bet many of you purchase some products and services that just go up and up in price. Why? Rather than many suppliers, you are now dealing with a very few or just one. We are already seeing (although the City and EPWU/PSB – which by the way endorsed SB832 – wear blinders) the effect of the Chuy Reyes EPWID Oligarchy – the Rio Bosque is going bone dry while down the river, reservoirs are full. Cost of your water in the future: Staggering. Keep your eyes on what’s happening with our water. We need a PSB that is a truly public board and accountable to the public and not one that marginalizes citizens. The issue of water supply and control has become more urgent with climate change. (There is a new PBS series on how people are coping with climate change.)

Remember that this Saturday (March 31^st) is the Annual Poppy Fest at the El Paso Museum of Archaeology. See the full schedule of events. Parking with shuttle service will be at 9570 Gateway Blvd. North, the EPCC Northeast campus. (Map)

On Sunday (April 1^st) Scenic Sunday hours will change from 6 a.m. until 11 a.m.  As you know, Scenic Drive is closed to vehicular traffic on Scenic Sundays and it is a great time to walk, bicycle, jog or run this 4.1 mile roundtrip with spectacular views of El Paso, Mexico, the surrounding mountains and 500 million year old fossils.

Finally, please watch this video!