Destruction in Arroyo Park

Dr. Billy Rogers must be spinning in his grave. A big fading sign by the tennis club reads "Billy Rogers Nature Preserve". It was installed by the Friends of the Arroyo. Along Robinson is another sign which is the official park sign. It reads "Billy Rogers Nature Preserve".

Nature Preserve? Not according to Joel M. Ehler who is adding a big structure on the bottom of the arroyo below his Rim Road property. To do the construction, the contractor carved a road straight down the hillside. A city official told me that "the conservation overlay for the neighborhood does not regulate viewshed/arroyo side." The question remains why Ehler does not have the sense of civic duty to preserve the arroyo. How will he remediate?

Nature Preserve? Not according to the El Paso Parks and Recreation Department. Also not according to the EPWU before they were confronted by neighbors. Here's the story:

EPWU has a right-of-way in the arroyo to work on a water line which supplies Upper Rim. Not only did they plow through their rightaway, they plowed a new road inside of the park destroying plants, the biocrust and wildlife. Rim Road Neighborhood Association leaders, Bob Brannon and Richard Teschner, protested and demanded at a meeting with the head of engineering at EPWU, Alan Shubert, that the land be put back the way that it was. EPWU agreed and has hired Mike Gaglio to remediate. Of course it will take generations to restore the biocrust, but at least the road can be erased and new vegetation planted all at EPWU's expense. One wonders, however, whether EPWU would have done anything to remediate had the neighborhood association not acted.

The ultimate culprit seems to be the Parks and Recreation Department which never came to the Rim Road Association (or any other stakeholders) about any work inside of the park in spite of a park partnership agreement which had been renewed by former President Richard Teschner. Parks and Rec ignored that agreement. Dr. Teschner, who is now the President of the Neighborhood Coalition Council, said: "This whole affair shows just how important neighborhood associations are." 

EPWU has agreed to to remediate since being confronted. Parks and Rec was negligent by not informing and working with the neighborhood association with whom they have an agreement. 

Again, will the City of El Paso and far too many El Pasoans ever come to value nature preserves, open spaces and our living, breathing, natural Chihuahuan Desert? Will they ever really care?

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.

Overcoming Myths about Conservation Easements

Mike Gaglio, the President of the Frontera Land Alliance, sent out an email on Wednesday. At issue is a story on FOX News that misrepresented land trusts as eminent domain schemes to take land from private owners. In his letter he quotes from email news from the Land Trust Alliance. Here's is what he wrote:

Dear Frontera Supporters,

I want to alert you to an issue that may come as a surprise if you plan on speaking to property owners about conservation easements as a land preservation tool. Please be aware that there IS recent bad press about land trusts out there, however it is false, misinformation. On Feb 15th, Fox news aired a short piece in which land trusts and their activities were misrepresented as participating in eminent domain, working with government agencies to take land away from private property owners. This is simply not true. The following is an excerpt from the national Land Trust Alliance newsletter (copied below) about the issue. We at Frontera can provide correct information to interested land owners.

"On Monday, a Fox Cable News interview accused land trusts of working “in cahoots” with the government to condemn private property. This reckless misinformation has caused its own blizzard of outrage from the land trust community, and the Land Trust Alliance is working quickly to set the facts straight. Just another example of why we are stronger when we work together.

"On February 15, Fox Cable News broadcast an interview with Becky Norton Dunlop, vice president of external relations at The Heritage Foundation. In it, she states that land trusts are “in cahoots” with the federal government to take private property from unsuspecting landowners. While many of the statements made are untrue, this allegation has the potential to hurt the reputation of land trusts and land conservation.

"Alliance President Rand Wentworth is asking for a private meeting with Ms. Dunlop to discuss how land trusts respect private property rights, only enter into voluntary agreements, provide property owners with additional choices for preventing development on their land, do not participate in eminent domain, and, in fact, offer the kind of private sector action that is widely supported by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats. Times like these emphasize the need for the land trust community to build strong relationships with their representatives in Congress, as well as deep and wide support in their communities to ensure that private land conservation is impervious to misguided attacks.

"To reiterate, here are some talking points if you are contacted about this piece:

· Land trusts save land that provides important public benefits, including fresh water, clean air, local food and places to explore (or insert your particular benefits)

· Land trusts respect private property rights

· Conservation easements are private, voluntary agreements

· Land trusts do not participate in eminent domain actions

· Land trusts offer the kind of private sector action that is widely supported by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats"

Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if you like.

-Mike

The bad press from FOX makes it difficult for private owners to understand how land trusts can actually be advantageous to them.

In my recent Sunrise Hikers e-letter, I wrote this about an excursion to the A on the mountain:

“'A' Mountain is part of 588 acres of the privately owned land of the Coles. (Picture here.) The Coles have not been willing to discuss a sale of their land in order to preserve it as open space. They lease the ridge to communications companies purportedly for a substantial sum of money."

Gaglio responded:

"The beauty of a conservation easement is that the Cole's, would continue to own the land, they would continue to reap the benefits of the lease of their land to the tower/communications companies, AND they quite possibly would enjoy the federal income tax benefits of a charitable donation of a conservation easement on the surrounding land...an incentive that would reduce their federal income taxes related to the purported "substantial sum of money" they receive on the same land."

Sensational news stories such as the one that aired on FOX do not help.

Negotiations with land owners are often difficult because of the poor understanding about conservation easements. "In our experience so far, it is a very delicate and touchy process," Mike Gaglio tells me. "The word 'conservation' rings in the ears of some with skepticism and sometimes disgust, inciting visions of eminent domain and other myths."

Mike is a co-owner of High Desert: Environmental Consulting and Native Plants.

Star on the Mountain Comments

My entry regarding the Star on the Mountain received a number of comments - all of them quite good. Mike Gaglio's comment was spot on and I hope everyone gets a chance to read it. Of course the bigger concerns are the waste of energy, local pollution and litter - although I wouldn't minimize the concern that mercury is being absorbed by plants, eaten by animals, and vaporized into the air (not enough really to probably be a major concern.)

Mike owns High Desert Environmental Consulting & Native Plants. He's an expert and does great work even just with excavating. He and his trusty Bobcat helped to rescue cactus last year where EPISD is building two new schools. He also "plowed" the way for the new cactus garden at the Lee and Beulah Moor Children's Home. Mike serves on the Frontera Land Alliance and did a bang up job at their recent fundraising gala at Ardovino's Desert Crossing.

Of course, I hope that you read Mike's comment as well as the others. PeiHaus offered, I think, the best recommendation. I did want to flag her proposal and repeat it here:

"I recommend that the star's functioning CFLs be given free to the poor so they can reduce their electric bills. Wire in good shape and any other materials should be re-used for the benefit of the community. Then, the star area should be cleaned up and returned as much as possible to its original state. That should be funded by El Paso Electric as they have been the entity responsible for maintenance of the site."

I do hope that elpasonaturally will be a great place for all the Mikes and Bobbys and Bills, etc. to give their input for a better environment. There is just so many in our community who care about the environment and making a difference. It would be great to give them a place where their voices can come together and be heard by a wider audience.