Untruths Continue to Circulate about Conservation Easements

From a story (Saving water, preserving land) by Colin McDonald in today's San Antonio Express-News, is this strategy for ensuring clean water:

"Levels of a colorless solvent that the Environmental Protection Agency links to liver damage and possibly cancer recently spiked in a monitoring well of the Edwards Aquifer on San Antonio's North Side.

"San Antonio's only defense against this and other pollution reaching its production wells is dilution from the clean water flowing into the aquifer from the rural land west of the city.

"To ensure that there is clean water entering the aquifer, the city's Edwards Aquifer Protection Program is about to spend an additional $90 million from a voter-approved one-eighth-cent sales tax to buy conservation easements over the aquifer's recharge zone. So far, the program has spent $135 million from the tax, protecting more than 90,000 acres."

The italicized letters are my emphasis.


San Antonio has had this enlightened, progressive program going for a number of years now. When the President of El Paso's Frontera Land Alliance, Mike Gaglio, urged Mayor John Cook and EPWU/PSB CEO Ed Archuleta to consider a similar approach in El Paso, his response was no response. Gaglio tells us:

"A few years ago I sent an email to Ed Archuleta and Mayor Cook about San Antonio's Conservation Easement Purchase Program and urged them to consider something similarly progressive in El Paso.  I never received a response.   It would be nice to talk to them about this and use it to demonstrate the excellent use of CEs by public entities for the purposes of water protection.  Frontera has contacts and maintains regular dialogue with the folks that actually put this program into place."

Again, emphasis is mine.

One of the principal stumbling blocks for finally bringing the protection of the Scenic Corridor to completion is the issue of a conservation easement. Petitioners asked that land in the NW Master Plan be preserved in perpetuity as natural open space along with some other requests. Many, but not all, petitioners are at least willing to see a scenario presented by Dover Kohl and approved by City Council as a compromise plan just as long as arroyos are preserved and natural open space (including the arroyos) are preserved in perpetuity. 

From the very beginning of working out "compromise" there has been a steady misrepresentation of conservation easements by PSB (and elpasonaturally believes) City attorneys. Hired PSB gun, Risher Gilbert, made some inaccurate claims publicly especially that municipally owned lands can never be under a conservation easement. In fact there are examples of such all over the country and in Texas and in El Paso: Thunder Canyon.

Now there are a new set of blatant untruths about the conservation easement process making the rounds in an effort to assure that the final legal product employed is one by which the City and/or PSB maintains control enough over the land to take it out of preservation at a time of its own choosing. 

The lies (and let's not mince words) go like this: Frontera Land Alliance is broke. Their management fees are too high. They have no back-up plan should  they indeed go broke. In an email, Charlie Wakeem, Treasurer of Frontera, repied:

1. Frontera "isn't" in the red!!!!  I should know.  I'm the Treasurer.  There's over $100k in the bank and no liabilities.   
2. Frontera has no management fee for CEs.  There are costs associated with starting up the CE, such as a survey, appraisal, attorney's fees, title search, and an environmental assessment.  Those costs can be negotiated between the Grantor and Grantee.  After the conservation easement is in place, the land trust solicits donations for an endowment to manage the terms of the CE, and not management of the land.  The property owner may or may not choose to donate to the endowment.
3. What happens to the CE if Frontera folds?  The CE runs with the land and another land trust would take over, and could be specified in the CE document, but is optional.

That's the truth. The question is whether members of City Council will hear it or be led by those who really don't want to give up control of the natural open space in question. Just look at Blackie Chesher Park - land given with the clear, unequivocal understanding that the land be used as a public park. In attempt to undermine that perpetual desire, the PSB and the City seem to have problems coming up with a proper deed and cannot even answer Rep. Eddie Holguin's questions. 

One more question: what possibly can be accomplished by spending tens of thousands of taxpayer and rate payer dollars to come up with something that a conservation easement already does? Answer: the top brass will spend your money ad infinitum to get their bloody way.