One slide presentation did raise a red flag . . . or was it a red herring? Whatever, the impassioned defense which followed from PSB Chairman and UTEP Dean of the College of Engineering, Richard Schoephoerster, was out of line. He has or appears to have a conflict of interest. He should have excused himself from discussion and should recuse himself on any future votes if indeed he is, as I suspect, personally involved in a proposed program to be financed by the EPWU to produce reclaimed water on the UTEP campus.
Here is the title slide of the presentation:
Here is the slide that raised the flag:
The project proposed will produce 70 Acre Feet/year of water for UTEP. In the beginning the water was for irrigating Miner Village but that was too little space to justify that much water. So then it was defended to include the new Centennial Plaza (now being constructed). Again, the xeriscaped area will not be enough to justify 70AF. So, an idea was floated to include re-sodding the Sun Bowl with real grass (not astroturf) in order to attract more soccer games. (UTEP Chancellor Arleigh B. Templeton changed the field in 1973 in order to save water.)The idea for natural grass didn't have traction. So, we are left with more reclaimed water that can be justified by the area required for irrigation.
Why? The quid pro quo could be that EPWU with ratepayer funds finances a water reclamation process (such as Ovivio) and, in return gets research. The project coincides with a new engineering program, Water Initiatives, now being led by former EPWU CEO Ed Archuleta.
In an email sent on September 3, 2013, the Consumer or Citizens Advocacy member of the Public Service Board, Dr. Rick Bonart, wrote to me and John Balliew the following:
"The Public Service Board, at the September meeting [Item #3 on 9/11/13 agenda], is being asked to approve what I think is an extremely selfish request from UTEP. It's basically a 6 million dollar toy, disguised as a research project. Needless to say, I'm completely opposed. Let me explain why.
"The request is for a packaged plant to make reclaimed water on campus. To be worthy of funding by the utility, the UTEP reclaimed water project must create value for the rate payer. Unfortunately, the parameters of this endeavor are so ill-defined, that determining if there is any value in this project is impossible.
"What determined the size, and need, and who requested the project? The plant will make 70 acre/feet of water enough for 18 acres of turf. I was originally told the water was for landscaping the southwest corner of Miner Village. When, I questioned why the need for so much water for such a small parcel, I was told the water was also for the new Centennial Plaza. When, I pointed out Centennial Plaza is only 10.6 acres and xeriscaped, I was then told the additional capacity was to provide water that would enable UTEP to change the Sun Bowl's surface from Astro Turf back to grass. Now, in Mr. Balliew's latest response, UTEP will not be changing the Sun Bowl's surface.
"Mr. Balliew admits the project doesn't make economic sense, but goes on to explains "financial reward isn't the only criteria the utility judges and approves projects." I agree financial concerns are not the only consideration for building a project. However, when the agreement benefits just one party to such an egregious degree, it's unacceptable.
"In my opinion, the current reclaimed water system is a logistic and financial boondoggle. Reclaimed water is an inferior product, that can only be used by a few customers, on select vegetation. The utility makes reclaimed water for $496/ an acre foot and sells it for $51 an acre foot. EPWU must annually subsidize reclaimed water with $3 Million dollars of rate payer money (a 90% subsidy). Compared to the current reclaimed water cost, the UTEP project is a quantum leap in the wrong direction. Reclaimed water produced at the UTEP plant will cost about $4500 an acre foot, that's a 900% subsidy.
"While some will defend the above subsidy saying "look how much water it saves", I want to point out that, while reclaimed water saves 6750 acre feet of water, we concurrently and for years, waste 15,000 to 20,000 acre feet of water by giving it away to EPWD#1. Reclaimed water is an evolutionary dead end. Mr. Balliew understands these short comings and thankfully is rapidly transitioning the utility to purified water.
"Finally, we have the theory this is a "research project". At best this project will be a duplication of effort. It will divert valuable resources needed for real research. There is nothing innovative about a package unit designed and built by others with current technology.
"EWPU was recently awarded $100,000 by the Army Corps of Engineers, seed money for such a research project at Bustamante/Rio Bosque. Using those funds at Bustamante makes perfect sense. Processes developed at that facility could easily be scaled up from prototype to production and distributed to all customers without subsidy. Purified water production at Bustamante has the potential to increase our total municipal water supply by 15 to 20%, and it's drought proof. Reprogramming the UTEP reclaimed water funds to the project at Bustamante will accelerate development . Bustamante is a research project UTEP should be willing to both participate in and contribute to. If we truly want to do research on purified water, the project should be at Bustamante/Rio Bosque, where the whole community will benefit.
"In it's present form the UTEP project does not create value for the rate payer.
"As a member of The Public Service Board, I have a fiduciary responsibility to the rate payers, not UTEP. The PSB should not proceed with this poorly conceived project, but focus the utility's efforts and resources on a research facility at Bustamante to innovative purified water production that will create real value for the rate payers and the whole community."
Rick Bonart
Citizen Advocate PSB
This post is just Part 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment