Lingering Doubts about EPWU and Rio Bosque Are Much Ado about Nothing

Just in the past week I have written two posts about the great news coming out of the El Paso Water Utilities regarding the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park. You can read those posts HERE and HERE. A new authorization for reclaimed water is found in the first of those two links or you can go HERE. 

In spite of the good news and the new authorization, some in the environmental community have continued to have doubts and suspicions. What everyone needs to know is that the new authorization supersedes "all of the above".

Better than my explaining, here is how EPWU CEO John Balliew answered the questions in separate email messages that I have combined together. I have also clarified when necessary by using []:

"Many have seen the proposed TCEQ language [in the current and previous authorizations] and are questioning whether or not it gives EPWU authorization to discharge effluent to the Rio Bosque. As a point of clarification, 'effluent' becomes 'reclaimed water' when it is beneficially used. So, any time you take effluent and put it to a beneficial use rather than to a disposal situation, it becomes reclaimed water. So, the use dictates the distinction[my emphasis]. When we take effluent and put it onto Rio Bosque it becomes reclaimed water.

"Once you are talking reclaimed water, which we are, then you next talk about quality. Reclaimed water can be Type I or Type II depending on quality measurements. Type I is the higher quality designation. There are three measures: Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Turbidity and Fecal Coliforms. Type II has only two measures: Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Fecal Coliforms. There are numerical standards for these parameters. We feel the effluent from the Bustamante plan would meet Type I requirements most of the time. However, we only need Type II for this purpose.

"A question has arisen about the term 'rapid infiltration' [my emphasis] and that is something different from what we have talked about in terms of Rio Bosque and effluent. We did not request authorization to do rapid infiltration because that has some specific connotations and it is likely approval of that use designation would require soil modification to the Bosque and further treatment at the Bustamante plant. I do not think any of us had in mind that kind of drastic changes to the Bosque nor were we thinking costly treatment. Based on the quantities of surface water applied to the Bosque by the District, we know that application of reclaimed water to the Bosque is going to result in recharge.

"The term 'Rapid Infiltration Basins' in TCEQ lingo is something very specific and refers to a method of effluent disposal. Rapid infiltration basins are typically artificial creations. We have several in the NE part of town. Our primary purpose with the Bosque is to supply water to the wetlands. Secondarily, we recognize that some water will infiltrate. We know from the water that EPCWID#1 has provided in the past that the amount of that recharge is significant. But, we are not going to alter the Bosque to accomplish more recharge than would naturally occur. So, we did not apply for a rapid infiltration permit because that is not our intent."

The new authorization again supersedes previous documents. It is a blanket authorization which includes the Bosque or any other wetland for that matter. As the semantics shift with the new authorization, a permit for a third, fourth, fifth . . . tenth turnout is not needed. It is authorized. Period. No further authorizations, MOA's, whatever are required. 

As I reported in my last post on this issue, Balliew stated and he stated again to me today in a telephone conversation: the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park will have 3 sources of water including the turnout which is ipso facto authorized.

Here's what I wrote which was almost verbatim from Balliew:

"Bottom line: the Rio Bosque will have 3 sources not just 2 for water: directly from the Bustamante, from the turnout at the Riverside Canal as it currently gets from the WID#1, and now water from the ponds owed to EPWU by the WID#1."

All of the above is not just good news but great news. If some find it necessary to continue to look for cabals and hidden agendas, I am powerless over them and their distrust. The sky is blue. There is no attempt to make it just seem so. It does not help our cause for the environment and conservation to see things in every instance as dirty dealing - to see things broken and demand that those things be fixed by the very system one can't trust. (Never mind taking personal responsibility with lifestyle choices.) I'll agree that institutions have inertia and much too often people seek and hold power to control policy for special interests and reap personal benefit. But keep this in mind: CEO Balliew is the same guy who instituted a policy to save wildlife habitat and has already put it in action at the Charl Ann Pond, a natural bird preserve. When habitat was being destroyed this past summer in the Upper Valley, Balliew responded by bringing together wildlife experts and ecologists with an EPWU attorney and an environmentalist along with crew members. They crafted good wildlife and conservation policy. I do not recall many in the environmental community speaking out. In fact, I remember lots of Chamberlain whispers and inaction. The proof is in the pudding. Balliew is making lots of pudding.