Another Letter Supports PSB

Last Friday I published Justice David Chew's letter to Rep. Cortney Niland as well as a letter from Judy Ackerman to elpasonaturally. Both are in response to the attempt to speed up the sale of City land - an idea being spearheaded by Rep. Niland with the support of what would seem to be a majority on the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee led by Ted "TxDOT" Houghton. Houghton's comments in the meetings make it obvious that what is really behind the desire to speed up sales of land is additional income for the City and not just economic development. At issue is the need to be judicious in selling land because of the overwhelming need to conserve water. Elpasonaturally believes that the primary reason for declaring land inexpedient (not necessary for the water utility's needs) is the need to conserve more land in its natural state in perpetuity - a need that supports water conservation while increasing the value of land that could be marketed for development. (It's the law of supply and demand - less land, same or greater demand, the higher cost for the land.) Many, including Niland, do not understand that the water in the bolsons are limited and diminishing as recharge is negative. It's not a matter of drilling more wells. Imagine a big bowl of water. Add more straws and more thirsty mouths and what happens to that glass of water sooner rather than later?


Today the E.P. Times published a letter from conservationist, Dr. Richard Teschner:


"For years, I've stated that the Public Service Board only manages open City of El Paso land and does not own it. 


"That said, I have seldom objected to the PSB's land-management practices, which are mindful of our desert location and our great distance from normally high-volume rivers such as the Colorado or the Mississippi.


"Precisely because of the water expertise of the PSB and its El Paso Water Utilities subset, the PSB indeed 'ought to be in the land-management business' and should definitely 'have a say-so in growth,' to quote in Chris Roberts' July 17 article (El Paso City Council rep seeks to speed up PSB land-use process).


"And while it's difficult to argue against including 'the city's chief financial officer and a deputy city manager in the PSB's financial committee meetings,' it also makes sense for representatives of local land conservation groups to be included there as well.


"We conservationists know where lie the arroyos, the aquifers and their intakes, and we've also had a fair amount of experience defending them."


Richard Teschner


The motion to include the city's chief financial officer and deputy city manager followed the infamous motion to establish a new committee to determine inexpediency - in effect doing what the PSB has done relatively well. The context for both motions was the seeming lack of communication between the City and the PSB. However, that lack of communication is solved by the presence of the city's financial officer and deputy city manager being part of the discussions. A committee is redundant to that end which committee proponents must know. Their real goal is to control land sales in order to gain more money for a City with a tight budget and a soon to be homeless City staff. 


Although EPWU officials probably know better than anyone (or we should all hope that they do) about "where lie the arroyos, the aquifers and their intakes", it is a need for the value of conservation to be primary rather than secondary to the market. The PSB has done quite well horse trading land so to speak. But what should be their first reason for land management is land conservation. It is that value that conservationists could bring to the table. That can be solved by re-defining PSB seats.


It's wrong to react to the PSB's market strategy for land-management by wanting the City to be the land manager. The PSB is a better place for such management as it takes it away from City politics. What needs to become the strategy for land management at the PSB is water conservation and thus land conservation. The biggest reason for declaring land inexpedient is the need to preserve land in its natural state - no development. Economic development can come through infill. More on that later.