On Tuesday, July 17, Planning and Development staff will
present their proposal to City Council that land in the NW Master Plan be
conserved by transferring the land to the State Park with a reversion clause
that the land will return to the City if it doesn’t remain in use as natural
open space recreation. (Some contingencies will be in the deed to allow utility
infrastructure if needed.) As reported, the PSB unanimously supported a
conservation easement be placed on the land if it should ever revert. Of
course, that only begs the question, why not use a conservation easement now?
On the 17th staff will make their recommendation (see Scribd
insert at elpasonaturally post). PSB will report their recommendation. Frontera
Land Alliance and others will present a case for a conservation easement now. A
good way for you to learn more about these easements is to read an article
published in the El Paso Inc. by Janae
Reneaud Field, the Director of the Frontera Land Alliance: How
land trusts conserve natural areas. Do note that the area being “conserved”
in the NW Master Plan does not include the principal arroyos through the
developed areas. What happened to them?
With water running
again in the Rio Grande, El Pasoans are once again enjoying a normal watering
schedule. However, one word to the wise from EPWU CEO Ed Archuleta after he
recently met with the New Mexico and Texas Irrigation Districts plus Mexican
officials and IBWC: “[I]t looks like the
water from the river will last until September 1. As you know our season
is normally March through October so this season started later and will end
sooner.” No doubt that one of the best
water management strategies is the one Archuleta has used: limiting the use of
water particularly outdoor watering. Along with that restriction has been a
concerted effort to educate the public about water conservation including giving
away water-saving devices. In a recent Texas
Tribune article, confirmation is given to the EPWU’s strategy to conserve
water.
Nevertheless,
fixing leaks, limiting outdoor watering and using water saving appliances and
devices really only postpones the problem of water shortage. It buys time. Some thoughts:
At a recent City
Council meeting, City Engineer Alan Shubert attested that he was already formulating
a new list of park ponds to re-do with turf. Guess where they will steal the
money from for more turf to water – the 10% stormwater fee meant for natural
open space acquisition. More turf or more natural open space? Which conserves
more water? Also keep an eye on the fact that City officials have begun calling
some parks as “open space” parks. It’s propaganda.
The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee looking into PSB land
management and acquisition issues is now meeting. One issue before them is the
method by which land is declared inexpedient by the PSB so that it can be sold.
Besides potential revenue, there should
be another reason for declaring land inexpedient: the need to preserve natural open space for the sake of natural open
space. Some might argue that we would be giving away land. In fact, we
would be keeping land that is ours and increasing the value of our land not
preserved. Why would the value increase? Because land without water is
worthless and, if we keep up the pace of sprawl without preserving natural open
space, we will end up with a lot of worthless land.
Smart growth-smart code is good for long-term water conservation. Just add green infrastructure/low impact development.
Smart growth-smart code is good for long-term water conservation. Just add green infrastructure/low impact development.
Get visionary – really far out there visionary. Los Angeles,
a city built on stealing vast amounts of water from other areas to grow a
population in an arid environment like ours, is trying to be proactive. Learn about C-Change.LA,
a program for water and energy conservation in the face of rapid climate change.
One of the strategies employed by C-Change.LA is the
increase of the urban canopy of trees. Read L.A.
Climate Study Shows Need for Cooling Effect of Tree Canopies. Yet, the City
of El Paso has only maintained as a tree SUB-committee (of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board) what once was a Tree Board. The SUB-committee is
there for mere window-dressing for its Tree USA trophy. Now that Parks and
Recreation is reviewing their Design and Construction Standards, one would
think that P&R Director Nanette Smejkal would have long sought a meeting of
that SUB-committee. Trees must be a huge part of the City’s water conservation,
energy and sustainability strategies. As of now, we have a City Arborist under
the direction of Transportation and a genuine “blue ribbon committee of tree
experts” relegated to sub-committee status.
(Those experts include State Forester, Oscar Mestas, horticulturalist
and curator, John White, tree experts Vern Autry and Lewis Wright, City
Arborist and tree farmer, Brent Pearson, landscaper Jennifer Barr, Master
Gardener President Dave Turner and many other well-qualified persons. AND, they
are a SUB-Committee!)
Do checkout Tucson’s rainwater harvesting program.
El Paso/PSB/EPWU, where are you? (TecH20 does have a short presentation about rainwater capture
on Saturday, August 18th, from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. Presenter Doc Stalker
is quite the expert. Plan to attend.)
Think water footprint. This
way we look at the larger global picture of water and our participation in
waste and/or conservation. Don’t get me wrong. Archuleta’s and the EPWU’s water
conservation program is great and ought to be followed. But in terms of what is
sustainable today, tomorrow and beyond our grandchildren’s great-grandchildren,
there is much more to do and to change.
Do check out your water utility’s Less Is the New More program and get
involved. Like and follow EPWU’s
Facebook page. Finally, if you twitter and tweet, follow EPWU on Twitter.
And the biggest matter when it comes to saving water and
managing an increasingly scarce resource: water law and policy which must
become more publicly directed. The PSB is not “public”. Did you vote for anyone
on that board? Can you the public remove any of them? Water decisions for the Water
Improvement District are limited to a few large farmers and other “water rights
owners” now thanks to “Chente” Quintanilla and Sen. Jose RodrÃguez.
Instead of disenfranchising 75,000 voters, they should have looked at including
all voters. Water law and policy must change . . . radically.
Finally, for what it is worth, my
two cents about the new ballpark.