Positive News on Water Management from UTEP

In Tanzania holes are often dug for water which is often contaminated.

[This bit of positive news from UTEP just came to my attention. According to the U.N. "(w)ater scarcity already affects every continent. Around 1.2 billion people, or almost one-fifth of the world's population, live in areas of physical scarcity, and 500 million people are approaching this situation. Another 1.6 billion people, or almost one quarter of the world's population, face economic water shortage (where countries lack the necessary infrastructure to take water from rivers and aquifers)." The problem is also right here at home. Check out which city is number 5 in this 2013 Huffington Post report.]

UTEP to Offer New Water Resources Engineering Management Track
Last Updated on July 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm 

The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) now offers a Water Resources in Engineering Management (WREM) track within the Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering program.

The WREM track will prepare students with the necessary abilities to understand and manage resources in a water-scarce world. It will be led by WREM Coordinator and Clinical Professor Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D., and Edmund Archuleta, director of water initiatives at UTEP.

“The long-term vision for this program is to prepare engineers to solve complex problems in an increasing water-short world and to establish UTEP as a preferred university to study water,” Archuleta said. “UTEP is already a well-known leader in water resources with a diversified research and teaching portfolio in desalination, reuse, advanced water treatment, sustainability and related topics. This degree will provide the student with the important engineering and management tools to work in various facets of either the private or public sector.”

Click on image to enlarge.

Across the developing world, there is a shortage of fresh water supplies free from pollution and there continues to be a lack of development of these resources. Given its geographic location in the Chihuahuan Desert and need for integrated water resources, the El Paso region is perfectly situated for students to study and learn about the need for water sustainability.

While there have been continuous education advances in the field of water use and desalination, there is a need to better define the water resource curriculum to meet today’s challenges and expected future challenges so that our water resource workforce is better prepared at the technical and management level.

Out of necessity, El Paso has had to diversify its water resource plans. The city has been successful in developing and implementing water conservation, ground water management, surface water rights, reclaimed water use and desalination.


“Water resources management is a critical need across the U.S. and the world,” said Richard Schoephoerster, Ph.D., dean of the College of Engineering. “El Paso and UTEP have developed unique expertise in this area, and this program will help to share our expertise and knowledge. I am very grateful for Ed Archuleta’s leadership and the effort of the faculty to get this program off the ground.”


Please support elpasonaturally©. Go HERE to donate and help turn El Paso "green".

Please Support Public Education in Our Community

The following is an emailed newsletter from El Paso Grassroots written by Xavier Miranda and published yesterday, April 13, 2014. Sustainable communities need great education. Investments in students, teachers and classrooms are critical. Spending money on top heavy administration and frivolous remodels while imposing austere measures on teachers and our children (our future) is unsustainable. Clearly the El Paso Independent School District is in the hands of the 1 percent oligarchs. It is time for a change. Read Mr. Miranda's excellent letter:

Please Support  Public Education in Our Community

Dear:  Your support is requested at the EPISD Board of Managers Meeting on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 5 PM. Teachers, parents, and students will be speaking at the meeting, in addition to holding demonstrations in support of public education.   Issues plaguing our community are having a detrimental effect on our children. The struggling middle class is having to contend with the rising costs associated with ineffective operations at government levels, judicial courts, stadium projects, and school districts with some of the highest administrative expenditures in the state. Meanwhile the solution is inevitably the same: a prescription of austerity cuts. Whether it is increasing workloads, raising teacher-student ratios,  imposing parking fees, re-allocating Quality of Life/School Bond monies to build swimming pools and stadiums at affluent parts of town, or having the audacity to propose tax increases via Tax Ratification Elections (TRE)---the debt incurred now belongs to our children. Business-model reforms demonstrate little nurturing or compassion. Rather, these reforms are manifested by $100,000 renovations in buildings where the lease will not be renewed, exorbitant contracts, and corporate tax breaks. Little wonder our citizenry is absent at the voting polls. Former Director of the U.S. Census Bureau and renowned demographer, Steve Murdock has presentedto El Paso legislators, educators, and business folks of the changing demographics in Texas. Mr. Murdock stresses investment in education. Unfortunately, Texas ranks at the bottom of education attainment levels, which is already having a negative impact on our economy. An apartheid model is evident, wherein Latinos and African-Americans are denied equitable educational opportunities. Current political divisions detract from a glaring reality: the key to economic prosperity is through education. Sadly, education funding has not been restored to 2010 levels despite increasing petroleum revenues. As stated in previous emails, trust in appointed and elected officials is waning. In context to the appointed EPISD Board of Managers, the following concerns exist: Board Manager President Dee Margo---a campaign contributor to conservative Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, has re-structured teacher contracts; is proposing privatizing custodial services; limiting citizen input at Public Forum; and is on record for slashing education funding when serving as a Texas State Representative from 2010-12. Mr. Margo is now determining the 2014-15 EPISD budget. Board Manager Carmen Candelaria-Arrieta---serves as the City of El Paso Chief Financial Officer, of which appraisal figures and baseball stadium costs have been glaringly inaccurate. Ms. Arrieta is also determining our EPISD budget. Board Manager Ed Archuleta--- previously served as president of the Public Service Board, wherein questionable policy allowed for construction contracts awarded to PSB members. These individuals are responsible for the $480+ million EPISD budget. Educators and administrators in our district are very concerned how our students will be affected by the Board of Managers' next steps. Once again, the call goes to community to show up in support of our public education system. Regards, Xavier Miranda El Paso Grassroots

Below is  copy of my address at Public Forum to the Board of Managers on Tuesday: I've attended town halls where Mr. Cabrera, Board Managers Candelaria, Margo, and Archuleta have all claimed to heed the voice of our community. Yet discontent, fear, and anger are conveyed in letters to the editor, news reports, blogs, forums, and in this meeting room, by employees and community members facing austerity measures. It is quite evident, the Board fails to acknowledge its constituents.  Your primary goal as a Board was to restore the integrity of our school district, yet you've taken punitive steps in applying business reforms to our education system. You've demonstrated a desire to dismantle and privatize public education.  I view democracy and social justice as integral components of education. Sadly, what is being modeled by the Board of Managers and District Administration is just the opposite. You show contempt for teachers by restructuring contracts, you raise teacher-student ratios, you mandate instructional models without paradigm support, and you have arrogantly dismissed educators when asking for inclusion. As a Board with extensive business acumen, you must realize that policies crafted without educators' input simply hurt our children.  Despite the exploitative practices of your predecessors, the teachers and staffs at each of our schools remained steadfast in providing authentic learning opportunities for our students. We took the helm when leadership was in transition and moved this district forward. You simply need to spend a day in our schools and classrooms to see for yourselves.  At the Coronado High School Community Meeting, you smirked at my response to your question of me, Mr. Margo, when I stated that I wanted my students to be critical thinkers. Indeed, I want my students to question why individuals entrusted with our school district, disregard taxpayers, and unilaterally re-allocate bond monies to build stadiums and pools on the affluent part of town. I want my students to see how a profit-model denies health and retirement benefits to our custodians, and subsequently hurts our local economy. I want my students to understand how our constitutional rights are infringed when duly-elected officials are denied a seat at the table. More importantly, I want my students to be critical of oppressive systems, and uphold democratic ideals that are equitable for all.  To Mr. Cabrera, it is appalling to witness the expensive remodeling of your office, in a building with a short-lived lease, when 130 educators are being surplussed. It is disheartening to see you add more six-figure salaried administrators to an already top-heavy district.  Please serve our children before profit.

Open Request Records on UTEP Project Come Up Short

On September 4, 2013, I emailed the following open records request to John Balliew, CEO of the EPWU:

John,

I would like to examine the following documents:

1. All emails, letters or any form of correspondence, memos, notes, etc. since Sept. 1, 2012 between anyone from the EPWU or any member of the PSB (past or present) with/between/among each other or with faculty or administrators at UTEP regarding the Reclaimed Water Project and/or the Water Initiatives Project.
2. A copy of any research contract between the PSB/EPWU and UTEP with regard to the Reclaimed Water Project and/or the Water Initiatives Project.

After examining the documents I may ask for copies.


Thanks.

Yesterday I received and reviewed the documents and asked for copies of all the pages presented to me. Here are my observations:

I received copies of responses from CEO John Balliew, CFO Marcela Navarrete, Economist David Torres and the following Public Service Board members: David Nemir, Henry Gallardo, Mayor Oscar Leeser, Terri Garcia, Richard Bonart and Katherine Brennand.

I received NOTHING from PSB Chairman, Richard Shoephoerster, who is also the Dean of Engineering at UTEP.  I saw two emails from Dr. Shoephoerster - one to John Balliew (8/29/13) and another to Bob Andron with a copy to Mr. Balliew (8/13/13). Both emails were part of the CEO's response to my ORR. But NOTHING from Richard Shoephoerster himself even though he was obligated to turn over the same email just mentioned. How curious! The lack of anything from Dr. Shoephoerster reminds one of the 18 minute gap in Nixon's Watergate tapes. Is Rose Mary Woods not deceased? Is she now, in fact, the Administrative Assistant to UTEP's Dean of Engineering?

Former CEO and now head of the UTEP Water Initiatives program at UTEP, Ed Archuleta, is referred to in emails. But again NOTHING from Ed Archuleta even though he remained on the EPWU payroll for a greater part of this year.

The Timeline:

Pre-October 2012: The Plan for the Water Project at UTEP is presented to the EPWU. How this was presented and by whom and to whom is still a mystery.

October 2012: Project brought to EPWU budget meetings according to an email from John Balliew to me on 8/29/13.

October 11, 2012: Slide show at a public Strategic Planning meeting mentions UTEP reclaimed water. See EPWU Day One Strategic Planning Slide Show #22/64. 

November 19, 2012: according to an email to me from Balliew, UTEP project presented at CIP Budget meeting.

Finally, Economist Torres probably best explained the institutional reason for the UTEP project in an email to CEO Balliew with a copy to Marcela Navarrete:

"I think the real value of this project is not in the financials it is in the intangible opportunity this project has. UTEP is celebrating their 100 year anniversary and this is a great way for EPWU to be showcased as a partner in the community providing an innovative supply of water that other communities don't have. There is no monetary measure of this, however it is something that will bring positive news for EPWU as UTEP will be promoting their 100 anniversary and the information will reach alumni and individuals all over the world."

Let us forget for the moment the grandiosity. It is doubtful that this project will ever have the kind of marketing value Mr. Torres claims. When AT&T branded the Dallas Cowboy Stadium with their name, you can bet that AT&T had a very good idea about the marketing/PR/advertising value of naming the stadium after themselves. 

Although this project is presumably dead (but one never knows with such powers behind it), the proposed location on campus would be far from the beaten path and hidden by traffic routes and parking garages.

Click to enlarge. Waldo would be easier to find.

Where's Waldo?

Here is my new ORR complete with preface:

Yesterday I received documents related to my request, I reviewed them at the EPWU administrative building and was given copies of all pages. I believe that the documents that I received are not the total number of documents that actually exist. It is curious that all members of the PSB responded with the exception of Dr. Shoephoerster, Chairman of the PSB. In fact, I see no email from Becky Lopez to him requesting any documents related to my 9/4/13 request. There are two emails from the PSB Chair which were part of CEO Balliew's response. If nothing else, I would have expected to get the same copies of those emails from Dr. Shoephoerster but I do not. Mr. Archuleta is referenced in email suggesting his involvement in the project. I believe that he continued on the EPWU payroll until this past July. Surely during the last months of his tenure, he should have had documents related to my request or someone at EPWU would have documents from Mr. Archuleta relevant to this request.  The UTEP Reclaimed Project was mentioned in a slide show to the PSB at a Strategic Planning meeting in October of 2012. Am I to believe that the project just popped up at that meeting without any prior discussion without a paper trail of that discussion? 

I respectfully submit this new ORR:

1. Copy of communication between Becky Lopez (or another person at EPWU) to Dr. Richard Shoephoerster requesting a response to my 9/4/13 ORR and copy of Dr. Shoephoerster's response.
2. In an email from David Torres to John Balliew on 8/23/13 at 9:59 AM a file is attached: UTEP reuse project.xlsx. Please furnish a written copy of that file.
3. All documents for the presentation of the project, including any budget numbers, at the 2012 Strategic Planning meeting and CIP budget presentations or any budget presentation to the PSB.
4. With the exception of the documents that I have already received, copies of all communications, emails, letters, memos, notes between and among EPWU and UTEP persons regarding the UTEP Reclaimed Water project and/or the Water Initiatives Project from January 1, 2012 to the present. (This includes EPWU to EPWU communications and EPWU to UTEP communications.)
5. All communications between Ed Archuleta and anyone regarding the UTEP Reclaimed Water Project and/or the Water Initiatives Project during his tenure at EPWU beginning on January 1, 2012.
6. If Mr. Archuleta's tenure at EPWU was shorter than 7/13, then payroll records showing his last day of tenure with EPWU.
7. All communications from or to the Chairman of the PSB, Dr. Richard Shoephoerster, regarding the UTEP Reclaimed Water project and/or the Water Initiatives Project from January 1, 2012 to the present. 

Thank you.

We shall see.

Water and a Great City of Great People

My apologies. It has been nearly a month since I last wrote the elpasonaturally e-letter. I started on the 7th – but never finished. A two-week flu/bronchitis bug bit me and, until this week, much has been a blur. In the meantime a number of you emailed and wondered if I had dropped you off the list or I had dropped off the face of the world. I hadn’t, of course. I was just in the never-never land of chills and fever and coughs. And I had the flu shot in September! Anyway – some words before the year disappears.

First, congratulations to John Balliew who has been chosen by the PSB to be the next President/CEO of our water utility. This is great news. John is a roll-up-your-sleeves and solve the problem kind of guy. He’s affable; he listens; and, most important of all, he’s very, very smart. His selection bodes well for El Paso.

And, congratulations to Ed Escudero who has left the PSB where he has been the Chairman and has accepted a position on the board for El Paso Electric. Ed built bridges between the PSB and the conservation community. He brought that community to the table and made sure it was heard. Like Balliew, Ed Escudero took time to go out to sites and see the situations of concern to environmentalists.

One would have to write a tome on the work and accomplishments of Ed Archuleta. I am so glad that he has been appointed to be one of the Board of Governors that will oversee the mess at EPISD. El Paso will benefit greatly for having his guidance.

I know that I often talk about the PSB or about water – but water is the single most critical issue not just facing El Pasoans but the nation and the world.  Because of drought, climate change, bad water practices in the Western United States for over a century, and just living in a desert where water is a scarce resource, its use, re-use, and conservation must be our key concerns. I do not share the optimism of some that we will have water for centuries to come. Sooner not later there must be a regional meeting of County, City, International, Water Utility, urban and rural stakeholders regarding water. Until then, it will do us good not only to continue PSB’s conservation policies but to make our building codes, landscape codes and so forth much more water smart. (Ed Archuleta’s water smart home project needs to come to full fruition.) Any water that falls as precipitation should stay on the ground and not flood through the streets and down outdated, technologically-dumb concrete canals with tiny culvert trash receptacles. If rainfall stays on the ground, it nourishes landscapes that help cool us (or feed us). If it stays on the ground it eventually helps to restore the aquifers below us.

Sooner not later state and national legislation regarding water rights needs to be drastically re-written. Water belongs to all of us. As it is now in El Paso, water is owned by a few agrarian interests, sold to the municipality (EPWU) and piped (the Rio Grande has ceased being a living, breathing creature and has been reduced to a mere plumbing system) to farms that too often grow crops which require large amounts of water. Thousands of people who previously could vote on water district policies were recently disenfranchised and the ability to vote became more difficult – thus leaving ultimate water decisions in the hands of a very few people. This needs to change and so does much of our crop and irrigation choices.

Learn more about potable re-use as well as non-potable use (purple pipe water). The National Academies has this good introduction:

Understanding Water Reuse

Wetlands can become integral parts of sewage re-use. They are already in use in El Paso. But imagine recapturing the vitality of the Rio Grande as a vast ecosystem performing ecosystem services worth millions of dollars to taxpayers. Mike Landis of the Bureau of Reclamation has imagined such. Read his String of Pearls on the Rio Grande:

String of Pearls on the Rio Grande

LEED, Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development, New Urbanism – the tools are there. Development, economic growth – these are good things if they are done smart with our grandchildren’s grandchildren in mind and not just the instantaneous, private profit as its goal. Encourage infill not sprawl.

More to talk about and learn for sure.

Some final thoughts: Today wasn’t the end of the world. (Did anyone seriously think that it would be?) Some talk about the beginning of new thinking. That’s always good. So let’s give up some bad thinking and get some good thinking. By the signs of the last votes on bonds, etc., El Pasoans are doing just that. I’m tired of those who say “we can’t”, “El Paso is too poor”, “it can’t be done here”. Forgive the language . . . but . . . bullshit and baloney. You’re an El Pasoan by birth or by choice. I’m an El Pasoan by birth and by choice. We know that we can get things done. Our question is “what can’t we do as El Pasoans?” The sky is the limit and we have lots of sky. As our exemplar we have Kevin Von Finger who our County Judge and Commissioners just honored as “friend and environmental activist”.  I’m also tired of scapegoating those with lots of money just because they have lots of money. Let me just mention the medical school, the hospital, downtown re-development, etc. I’m grateful not resentful for philanthropy. I am so thankful daily for people like Eric Pearson, President of the El Paso Community Foundation, or souls such as Dr. David and Carolyn Gough. Politics are in philanthropy too; but in American politics we all have a right to speak up. And, speaking about politics (and sustainable living in El Paso), government is only sustainable and stable in its republican/representative form. As a democracy we elect representatives and we protect the rights of each individual even from majority rule. Petitions are great. I can think of more. But, this notion that we should get rid of a representative just because we disagree with a decision he or she makes can only lead to anarchy and failure of our governments to be effective for any of us. Except for cases of misfeasance or malfeasance, we keep people in office, respect them, speak up when we need to.  We elect people not just because we agree with them on some issues, but because we believe that they will make the best decisions on our behalf. Time with patience is our best perspective. You don’t get rid of someone just because you don’t like this vote or that vote. You can’t keep changing policy on whim. An apology restores harmony. Forgiveness sustains that harmony. Move on.

As El Pasoans what can we achieve?  Everything.  Next question.

Questions for the Candidates for CEO President of EPWU

In less than an hour, the PSB will convene and then move into Executive Session to interview four candidates for CEO to replace retiring Ed Archuleta.

Read more information about the finalists from Chris Roberts.

Here are the questions I want the candidates for CEO to answer and the PSB should ask:

1. Are you willing to use the 10% of the stormwater fee to purchase natural open space as prioritized by the City’s Open Space Advisory Board rather than funding more (frivolous)park pond projects?
2. How do you see yourself working with the Open Space Advisory Board?
3. In what ways do you see preserving natural open space as a land management and a water conservation strategy for the utility?
4. Recently the State Legislature passed a law disenfranchising thousands of people from voting in the WID#1. Will you work for its repeal?
5. Mr. Archuleta envisioned a water smart home project. How will you help move that project forward and what do you think makes a home water smart?
6. What strategies would you employ to postpone or replace the need to import water from faraway to El Paso? What about recycling and reusing water?
7. Can and should El Paso limit growth and sprawl in the interest of conserving the scarce resource of water?
8. How will you work regionally to conserve water?
9. In what ways is water wasted or overused in our region? What can the EPWU do about it?
10. What are your thoughts about rainwater harvesting? About green infrastructure/low impact development?
11. Will you fight tooth and nail for every inch of land in the PSB inventory against conservationists/environmentalists or will you work with them?
12. What is your leadership style?
13. PSB members often complain that they do not get all of the details and facts before a decision on any matter of great or small value. Are you willing to be more open and transparent with the PSB? With the City? With the people of El Paso?
14. How do you see yourself working with the City Manager, Mayor, Council and City departments especially on issues affecting water management and conservation?
15. What improvements can the City and its departments make regarding water conservation?

And, in case you haven't heard, the TEA Commissioner just announced that he has stripped all power from the EPISD Board of Directors and is appointing a Board of Managers which will include Mr. Ed Archuleta. Elpasonaturally believes that Mr. Archuleta will bring the kind of expertise, experience and wisdom that the City and School District sorely need. His appointment is very good news.

Deal for Water Almost Complete on the Rio Bosque

Item #9 on the Wednesday, November 14th PSB agenda regards a simple transaction transferring Rio Bosque to the PSB and having the PSB assume the license with UTEP.  It will be drafted in the form of a Joint Resolution between the PSB and the City and has "obtained approval by the Asst. City Attorney and the Parks Director" according to Open Space Chairman Charlie Wakeem.  "This action will pave the way for reclaimed and/or treated effluent from the Bustamante Waste Water Plant to flow to the Rio Bosque in the very near future." Only City Council approval will be necessary after Monday evening assuming the PSB adopts the resolution. However, all signs point to adoption since helping the Bosque became a major issue at this year's strategic planning meeting as reported here at elpasonaturally in an earlier post.

The PSB/EPWU will continue an unchanged relationship with UTEP according to CEO Archuleta in an earlier email to me. "We have no intention of changing the relationship with UTEP and thus would maintain the license agreement as it," Ed Archuleta told me. "This is also the request from UTEP since I have spoken to Dr. Natalicio about this and also Dr. Schoephoerster. [Schoephoerster is the Dean of the College of Engineering at UTEP and a member of the PSB.] We would simply assume the license agreement."

In an email to Richard Teschner, Chairman of Senator Rodriguez's Environmental Advisory Committee, David Ornelas, the Wastewater System Division Manager for EPWU wrote: "The good news is that we are near an agreeement with the City and EPCWID#1 that will result in a water supply for the Rio Bosque that does not require a permit amendment. An announcement will be forthcoming."

John Balliew, EPWU VP, confirmed what Ornelas said: We [PSB/EPWU] have a verbal agreement with Joyce Wilson and a written agreement will be signed shortly. The irrigation district is in agreement."

In spite of a claim by Ornelas that water is already running to the Bosque "no water releases will be authorized until the City and the PSB approve the agreement," according to EPWU CEO, Ed Archuleta.  

However, it is no longer a matter of "if" but "when" the water will begin running.

There is more to this happy saga to report but I shall do so after the ink is dry  on the resolution and all the i's dotted so to speak. It is safe to say that Mr. Archuleta paved the way for this long-awaited solution through a meeting with the water district. That's a story to tell!

For now, those who have long cared about saving the Rio Bosque may want to attend next Wednesday, November 14th meeting of the PSB at 1154 Hawkins Blvd. The meeting begins at 9:00 a.m. 

Environmental Committee Invites Archuleta

I previously reported that PSB Chairman, Ed Escudero, will be meeting tomorrow (Thursday, August 9) with Senator José Rodriguez's Environmental Committee. That meeting will take place at 2 p.m. at 100 N. Ochoa. Members of the Committee voted unanimously to invite PSB/EPWU CEO Ed Archuleta as well. The vote was held after Mr. Escudero urged the Committee to include Mr. Archuleta. The Environmental Committee wishes to be updated about the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee and attempts to speed-up the process of selling City land managed by the PSB for development. (See post.)

Environmental Committee Chairman Richard Teschner has said that, although he will not go along with the Committee recommending any particular land management plan, he will allow the forum. According to Teschner, ". . . while as chair of the committee I will not go along with our supporting or opposing a particular committee-structure plan, I nonetheless see no harm in our providing a private forum for discussing these vital, water-related concerns."

Unfortunately, he seems to be limiting the forum to the membership of the Committee while attempting not to publicize the event to the general public even though he admits his committee is the only "envirocentric" committee currently meeting to discuss this topic.

This meeting is a good opportunity to encourage the PSB/EPWU to declare land as "inexpedient" to water/stormwater/sewage needs in order to preserve that land in perpetuity as natural open space as part of a water management strategy in light of drought, global warming and water shortage. Removing more acreage from development will only make the market value of developable land more expensive and, thus, more profitable for the water utility and City.

Meetings such as the Senator's Enviromental Community are by law open to the public.

Water Conservation

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 17^th 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.

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 18^th, 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 Rodríguez. 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.

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.

The Petition, Transmountain and the Rio Bosque

Left alone, the natural environment provides us with many benefits including cleaner air and water, carbon sequestration, better soil, greater biodiversity which promotes human health as well. All of these benefits are called ecosystem services – one good reason to preserve open space in its natural state. Other reasons for preservation/conservation include human health and recreation, eco-tourist dollars, and quality of life. Natural open space is good for us mentally, spiritually and emotionally. So where do things stand with three key open space issues in El Paso – the Transmountain West project, the NW Master Plan and the Rio Bosque?

I get more phone calls about the Transmountain West TxDOT project currently than anything else. The extensive and quickening bulldozing is very disconcerting to say the least. So far the Judge overseeing Sierra Club’s lawsuit against TxDOT has not ruled on an injunction to stop work. The contractor plows ahead and many of you have reported the wide devastation including the removal of some foothills.

The NW Master Plan is a separate but related matter. The new plan is the direct result of trying to find a “compromise” with petitioners who seek to preserve in perpetuity 780 acres in the Transmountain Scenic Corridor along with keeping arroyos in their natural state and preventing any major road construction through the area (Paseo del Norte). I authored the petition and coordinated efforts to get the necessary number of signatures to bring it to City Council.  Where do things stand with the petition? Simply put: on-hold as City Planning and Attorneys work out further details of the City Council approval of a Dover Kohl scenario. Understand this: there is no time limit as to when to gather signatures to put the petition language to voters if what the City Council ultimately does is unacceptable. So far, there have been benefits as the City wrestles with the Master Plan so there is reason to be patient.

What are the benefits? First and foremost that a new NW Master Plan was even undertaken with smart growth/smart code in mind is a big benefit. However, smart growth/code is not enough when it comes to preserving arroyos in their natural state. Nature has created ways for water to flow “historically” through arroyos while still maintaining the ecosystem. Any kind of development near or along a development increases that flow rate.  Unless accounted for in some way, the velocity of stormwater can become quite destructive. We all know that rainwater washing off our roofs, sidewalks, asphalt and other impermeable surfaces races downhill. Our urban development has removed many features that can soak-up and otherwise handle stormwater: plants, natural ground, natural swales in the landscape and so forth.  Just like the development that has created urban sprawls of cul-de-sacs and strip malls, smart growth development (although it addresses density and quality of life issues while preserving more natural features) does not address stormwater management. So, whatever the development may be along arroyos, that development impacts water flow in the arroyos and engineers will all tell you that arroyos need to be modified in some way to provide flood control.

A tool for preserving natural features such as arroyos in their natural state is green infrastructure/low impact development which employs more pocket parks and linear parks and shallow depressions to manage stormwater rather than one big drain – the arroyo itself. Such a tool makes all the arroyo modification unnecessary. A benefit of being patient as the City works out issues: the City (at least the Planning Department) is learning about green infrastructure/low impact development. They are learning (as we all are) that before you can Master Plan and long before you can plat, you have to do a drainage study and you have to use your gi/lid toolbox.

Another benefit for waiting before considering moving the petition forward to the ballot is that the City is learning about conservation easements. The internal conversations have been happening. Unfortunately, elpasonaturally has heard that top City officials are still hoping to find a way to do a so-called “conservation covenant” which would ultimately give them an out with preserving natural open space in perpetuity. In the minds of petitioners, that’s the biggest deal breaker and the one that will send them back into the streets. The fox guarding the chicken coop?! Let’s hope the City gets real.

Seeing a potential for possible City equivocation, many, many petitioners have begun asking whether there shouldn’t be a whole new petition – one that calls for preserving all City owned lands on the west side including the NW Master Plan area and all properties north of it.

So, for now, the petition effort waits. There are benefits to waiting. Nevertheless, with the TxDOT behemoth moving closer to the State Park, pressure is being felt to take the next step with preserving land in its natural state.

Oh – one last goodie about the TxDOT project before moving on. An alternative entrance into the Park that would not create the huge interchange that TxDOT favors would cost $2 million. The TxDOT proposal is $7 million and TxDOT is already saying that is what they will have to spend – no modifications. Why should our government spend $2 million of our money when they could spend $7 million?

So what is happening with the Rio Bosque, a City of El Paso wetlands park managed by UTEP’s Center for Environmental Resource Management with huge eco-tourism potential (not to mention its value as a provider of ecosystem services) that only gets a paltry $10,000 from the City’s Parks and Recreation Department budget?  The Rio Bosque is a wetlands area drying up as Water District #1 pumps more water adjacent to the park while denying the park any access to effluent from the EPWU’s Bustamante Treatment Plant.  Possibly two good things are happening now. First, thanks to Rep. Eddie Holguin in whose district is the Rio Bosque, the City Council next Tuesday, June 5^th, will take up this resolution (Item 10A on the Agenda):

Discussion and action that the Mayor be authorized to send letters on behalf of the El Paso City Council to the President/Chief Executive Officer of El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board, (EPWU/PSB) the members of the Public Service Board, the members of the El Paso County Commissioners Court, and the General Manager of El Paso No. 1 expressing the City of El Paso’s appreciation for the efforts of each entity to help find a solution to meeting Rio Bosque’s water needs during the growing season and expressing the City’s strong desire that each continue to work diligently until such a solution is found and fully achieved. 

 Secondly, at the next OSAB meeting, Mr. Rudy Vasquez will present the EPWU’s timeline from a feasibility study that would provide a long-term, sustainable supply of water to the Rio Bosque. That meeting will be held this Wednesday, June 6^th, at 1:30 p.m. in the 8^th Floor Conference Room at City Hall.

Two more things about the Bosque:

I have learned (but have not had confirmed from MCAD/Public Art) that the Heath Satow sculpture intended for the Bosque will now go to the Zoo. The Zoo is a better place to showcase this artwork and, perhaps, it bodes well that the City wants to spend money on the Bosque that will truly benefit the wetlands. As elpasonaturally pointed out before, the City was willing to pay $170,000 for a public arts project but nothing to help with the real issue of water at the Bosque.

Secondly, if you care about the Bosque (and other open space issues), plan to attend one of two public meetings Thursday and Saturday (June 7^th and 9^th) of next week regarding the updating of the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Not on our discussion list today but certainly worth mentioning now and later is the space definitely worth preserving: the Vista Del Aguila National Wildlife Refuge Proposed for El Paso, Hudspeth and Culberson Counties. See Ramón Rentería’s El Paso Times story about the gathering support for this critical refuge just east of us. 

More later on the newly appointed and what seems to be conservation and environment-unfriendly PSB Land Policy and Revenue Sharing Blue Ribbon Committee in response to City Council’s wanting to review its relationship with PSB as its land manager/land designer.

Note one big thing (and I’m sorry it’s at the bottom of the letter):  Ed Archuleta, the CEO/President of the PSB/EPWU is really doing some good things regarding preserving open space. The El Paso Times editorial alluded to it today.  Elpasonaturally has been a critic of some of his policies and leadership style.  It’s time for praise and all I can say at this time is: “Thank You, Mr. Archuleta!”

Finally, although all of us have different religious convictions or none at all, I do think that you will find the Kabarak Call for Peace and Eco-Justice inspiring. I hope you will take just a moment to read this short but powerful statement.

Archuleta's Authoritarian Style Causes Growing Alienation

More frequently now I am hearing from others that Mr. Ed Archuleta, CEO of EPWU/PSB, is alienating growing numbers of people because of an authoritarian style increasingly unreasonable and out-of-control. Let me give the latest example.


Last June, City Council approved a plan to establish hike and bike trailheads into the Franklin Mountains State Park. This approval followed research done by  Parks and Recreation staff and members of the Open Space Advisory Board. I participated and remember well our spending a whole day stopping at each of the many areas all around the perimeter of the Franklins currently used by hikers and mountain bikers for trailheads. Council agreed to begin on seven trailheads and asked Parks and Recreation to work out MOUs for each. Chairman Wakeem asked that PRAD staff give an update on the trailheads at last Wednesday's Open Space Advisory Board meeting. Marci Tuck gave a short to-the-point briefing.
Trail Heads


Mr. Rudy Valdez was on hand as usual from the EPWU/PSB at the behest of Mr. Archuleta. He said that Mr. Archuleta wanted a letter from OSAB explaining what exactly was being asked for regarding the trailheads. Everyone was dumbfounded and flabergasted. Some were clearly angry. Eyes in the audience rolled. City Attorney, Lupe Cuellar, explained that OSAB couldn't write the letter and that City Council had already provided direction and any discussion to be had should be between Parks and Recreation staff and EPWU staff. All agreed. 


Mr. Archuleta's insistence on a "letter" when City Council gave instruction last June 21, 2011 is simply another roadblock to OSAB and others.


Let me give you a short litany of other such roadblocks:


Hunt would like to sell some arroyos in the Franklin Heights area for Open Space. They would be excellent open space areas and they do have storm water applications. Hikers currently begin hikes from these areas. The hold-up: Ed Archuleta.


A good fix for water for the Rio Bosque would be a direct line to the Bustamante Wastewater Plant. At the PSB's strategic planning meeting last September, Mr. Archuleta said that providing water to the Bosque would be easy. Since then, OSAB has invited EPWU staff to discuss the water situation and how to fix it at the Bosque, a very vital part of El Paso's natural open space with huge eco-tourism potential. Time and again the item has been tabled at OSAB because nobody from EPWU has been available to discuss it. The hold-up: Ed Archuleta.


Of course, the most egregious disrespect of the priorities set by El Pasoans regarding purchasing open space was the decision to spend $2.5 million on park ponds before top priorities. The person in control: Mr. Ed Archuleta.


There are other incidents. But it cannot go without notice that City Council in their February 14, 2012 Executive Session passed this motion:
EX 1 Motion From 2-14-2012

I bet there is one reason above all others to re-examine the relationship between the City and the PSB: Mr. Ed Archuleta.

Trust or No Trust

"A lie told often enough becomes truth." This quote has been attributed to several despots so the origin is obscure. The question before El Pasoans is whether the PSB is the trustee of land for the City or merely the manager of such land. Ed Archuleta, the CEO of the El Paso Water Utiliites/Public Service Board has long contended publicly in writing and orally that the PSB is Trustee. But is that true?

The question comes to the forefront again because of a dispute over land at I-10 and Zaragoza that had been designated to be used as a park land and part of Blackie Chesher Park. Item 10D on the February 21st meeting of City Council had to do with bringing the land in question up to code as park land. In the midst of the discussion, Representative Cortney Niland asked the million dollar question and addressed that question to City Attorney, Sylvia Firth - Is the PSB a trustee or a land manager? Sylvia Firth answered, "Managers." Of course, legal will research this and both Representative Niland and Lilly are adamant about getting to the truth.


Here are the facts as I see them: Although the PSB has been called a Board of Trustees, no trust document was ever created when establishing the PSB. Moreover, under Texas State law, the PSB cannot be a trust. Trust law is complicated but it establishes a legal relationship whereby one person or entity (the trustee) holds the legal title to property and another (the beneficiary) has the benefit of the use, enjoyment and income from the property. The beneficiary protects the property in trust from creditors and heirs but gives up decision-making about the property.

DM-444 - Dan Morales 1997

Read the 1997 opinion of Texas Attorney General Dan Morales. Here's a portion of the summary:

"The governing board of a municipal utility system acts as an agent of the municipality that created it . . . A municipal utility system may acquire or hold real property only as an agent of the municipality. Thus, the municipality may use the property or dispose of the property as it wishes. A municipality may not delegate to the governing board of its utility system ultimate control of municipal real property."

Such an agency as described in the opinion is not a trusteeship. Again,"the municipality may use the property or dispose of the property as it wishes." A beneficiary can do no such thing. 


According to the definition of property held in trust, the trustee holds legal title to the property. But DM444 forbids a municipal utility (e.g., the PSB) to hold legal title to property. Thus, it can't be a trustee, no matter if the founding document for the PSB refers to that body as a "Board of Trustees". 


An earlier Attorney General opinion, the Maddox Decision (JM-9971) of 1988 had to do with the sale of PSB managed land to Texas Parks and Wildlife for inclusion in the Franklin Mountains State Park. It was a decision in response to a question by then State Senator Tati Santiesteban whether the City could convey the land to the State for a price under market value. 


JM-997l - Maddox Decision 1988

The ruling was simple: as the property did not generate revenues to pay debt services (money owed to bond holders) and was not useful for water or wastewater functions, El Paso could convey the land for a price (in this case) substantially under market value. The PSB fought this but lost. (Pay attention: Mr. Archuleta always contends that the PSB has already generously given land to the Park when he opposes plans to give up land for the Transmountain Scenic Corridor. In truth, the land to which he refers had to be plied out of the tight-fisted PSB.) But the City had every right to do so not as beneficiary of some trust which has never been created, but as land owner and the PSB as land manager (not trustee) could not prevent it.


Why keep repeating publicly that the PSB is a Trustee? In my opinion, Mr. Archuleta and others are smart enough to know that such a claim cannot hold up in a Court of Law. I believe that the claim is repeated to create the notion that it is true in order to have one's decisions not be questioned by policy makers. Now City Council members are questioning it and they have every right to do so.


Trust or no trust? It would seem there is no trust either as a legal entity or as a description of a relationship with the PSB and the EPWU/PSB CEO. 

Click on image to enlarge.

Under the Open Records laws of the State of Texas I requested some information about the land sales at Johnson Basin: appraisals, sales records, minutes and agenda of the PSB showing approval of the sales, email to and from Mr. Archuleta and so forth. I have been given a cost associated with compiling and copying the records. Click to enlarge the picture above of the letter to me from Mr. Bob Andron, EPWU attorney, outlining the associated costs. It is obvious that the EPWU/PSB does not want me to see the records. So much for open government and transparency. What are they afraid of? What really happened with the acquisition of the Johnson Basin? Why were procedures not followed? 


I did ask by email today to simply view the records. I've been told that they will get back to me. 


Last year, as a member of the Open Space Advisory Board, I requested a financial statement of our Open Space Fund - the 10% of your stormwater fee that goes for acquiring natural open space. I wanted to see income and expenses - a bank account statement basically. Never, ever was there any mention of property purchased as part of the Johnson Basin acquisition even though the El Paso Inc. story by David Crowder reveals that Joseph and Irene Dunn were paid $370,000 on January 9, 2011. That purchase was even hidden from the PSB contrary to the EPWU/PSB Policies and Procedures 31-03 signed by Mr. Archuleta on December 22, 2003.


In addition, the purchase of property acquisitions with open space money made before 2011 was even hidden from me in an earlier open records request that I made about the same income and expenses. Again, nothing about the purchase of property to acquire the Johnson Basin with open space funds even though such an expense was germane to my request.


Finally, in the 12/07/11 minutes of the Open Space Advisory Board, Mr. John Balliew of the EPWU said publicly that he would provide me with a copy of the PSB minutes regarding the Johnson Basin project discussion. This was separate from my open records request.  To date, I have received nothing from Mr. Balliew and emailed him today asking him to send me that information. Mr. Balliew made his promise at the same OSAB meeting in which  he identified the Johnson Basin as natural open space. I'm sure that the black top at the northwest corner of the "basin" is the natural asphalt pavement - a creative act of God.


Again, what are they afraid of? What really happened with the acquisition of the Johnson Basin? Why were procedures not followed? What is this cover-up all about?