Excessive Burden on Taxpayers

[Below is another op-ed piece by Charlie Wakeem which appeared in yesterday's El Paso Times. elpasonaturally reprinted the same piece with additions under the title of Political Influence Costs Taxpayers Millions.]

Ray Adauto, who represents the El Paso Association of Builders, wrote a response April 17 to a guest column I had previously submitted to the Times. His response contains so much misinformation that I must respond to it.

Before I do, please remember that I served on the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee with Adauto for five years and we’ve always treated each other cordially and with respect.  Nonetheless, Adauto serves his industry.  I serve no one (except El Paso) when I serve on boards and committees.

I am not now nor have I ever been against development.  Development is vigorous business activity and healthy for any community.  The question is not whether there should be development, but how and where it should take place.
Adauto states that “there are dozens of reasons people live in El Paso.”  He’s right, but one reason should be “quality of place.”

Land development is the industry that is most responsible for our city’s appearance together with good but fair city codes which promote complete neighborhoods, multi-modal transportation and walkability.

Adauto states, “One thing that makes our community special is the ability to find affordable housing…”

Providing affordable housing is important, but it should not place an excessive burden on taxpayers who subsidize it and eventually pay for the infrastructure that the developers leave out.

Adauto states:  “Proponents of impact fees, like Charlie Wakeem, keep espousing the notion that if you raise fees then you can keep growth out.”
That is not true at all!  Impact fees are not designed to punish developers or stifle growth.  They are designed to make sure new growth is financially fair to all stakeholders.  (Why should residents of older neighborhoods subsidize the development of new neighborhoods?)

This concept is set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Adauto states:  “Surprisingly, it is conveniently never explained that a large portion of the monthly water/sewer rate a new home buyer pays goes toward subsidizing replacement of older, outdated infrastructure.”

He should know better.  Chapter 395 strictly forbids the use of impact fees for replacement of old infrastructure.  The fees can only be used for infrastructure necessary to serve new growth.  All taxpayers and/or ratepayers are obligated to pay for repairing and replacing old infrastructure.

Adauto states:  “That’s why the PSB purchased thousands of acres of desert back then (early 1950’s) to have land to sell to try to keep the cost of water and sewer service down.”

Just the opposite is true.  The Public Service Board purchased the land so that El Paso wouldn’t run out of water (as it almost did in 1952).  The PSB determines whether the land is “inexpedient to the system” and can be sold.

When it established the PSB in 1952, City Council wisely assigned it the responsibility for “management and control” of the city’s water and land resources.  The more we sell the PSB land, the scarcer our water resources become.

The PSB Selection Committee met in late 2014 to recommend—to City Council—someone to fill the “engineer” position on the PSB.  David Nemir was the incumbent and was eligible for another four-year term.

A policy states that land-development engineers don’t qualify to serve on the PSB due to a possible conflict of interest.  One of the applicants was such a person.  I pointed this out.

The committee was told that the applicant had recently sold his firm and retired. If he did so, then why is he still representing land developers at the City?
The committee recommended Nemir by a wide margin. However, Council inexplicably appointed the land-development engineer.

Charlie Wakeem

21,840,000 gallons of water from El Paso to frackers per well per year

Water hauling is a legitimate and necessary business. More than just the colonias which need water, the construction, quarrying and other businesses need water to keep dust down. But how much water should go to Torchlight Energy Resources which is fracking just ten miles from El Paso on the Diablo Plateau, the same geographical area as the Otero Mesa depending on whether you are in New Mexico or Texas.

According to the Hudspeth County Journal, Torchlight's first test well required 80,000 gallons of water per day purchased from the City of El Paso. It turns out that the City (El Paso Water Utilities) did not sell water to Torchlight nor has a metered pipe running to the well. The Journal has yet to edit their online story to reflect this fact. Yet, where did the water come from? Water haulers purchase the water from EPWU and re-sell it to their customers. (This does not include water purchased by CEMEX or TxDOT or such.) There are three TCEQ licensed water haulers in El Paso County.

Hudspeth County Journal did do a follow-up story. The drill site superintendent, Jesus Garcia, was quoted as saying that 84,000 gallons of water a day was needed. Rancher John Turner had been supplying some of the water but his well couldn't pump enough water fast enough for the operation and he had to cap sales in order to meet the needs of nearby Deer Mountain Estates. Jobe Materials also could not supply water as needed.

If 84,000 gallons of water is correct, then, in the course of a year, each well being fracked just outside of El Paso will need almost 22 million gallons of water per year and that's just one well. (52 weeks X 5 business days per week X 84,000) Remember that Torchlight could eventually have 2500 wells. That's 55 billion gallons of water each year! And that is the amount of water necessary just for test drilling not for the actual extraction of gas and oil by fracking.

There would be no record of EPWU selling to Torchlight because Torchlight is getting its water from intermediaries - the water haulers. For a city that needs to protect its scarce resource of water, 22 million gallons of water per year per one fracking well is just too much not to mention 55 billion gallons per year if all 2500 test wells are drilled. 

Do not expect Torchlight Energy Resources to go away. According to a recent Market Wired report, Torchlight has maximized its liquidity and limited its exposure to debt. This capital structure has insulated them from the recent price fluctuations in oil and gas. In addition, they have a farm-in agreement with Founders Oil and Gas regarding their fracking in Hudspeth known as the Orogrande Project. "Torchlight will receive payment of $500,000 per well for each of the next 8 wells and through the Farm In agreement the Orogrande project is fully capitalized for development over the next two years."

Expect Torchlight to drill 8 more test wells in 2016.

Shouldn't the PSB consider capping how much water the water hauling intermediaries can purchase over a period of time?

Who To Blame for the Stormwater Fee Going Up

You have probably heard that your stormwater fee will go up 11 percent. If that makes you angry, don't blame the Public Service Board, blame the City Council. 

David K hits the nail on the head. Read Demands made by posturing politicians always cost a lot of money. 

So, the next time Cortney Niland stomps her feet and raises her voice and sanctimoniously wants you to think she is looking out for you, don't believe it. It's another one of her cya's - something she does better than anyone else.

One more point. Real efforts to keep stormwater where it falls either to water the landscape or eventually recharge the aquifer, is also something that the City Council must do and not the PSB. Only Council can change landscaping, building and grading codes. You can also blame some homeowners. Where swales are required, builders at their cost put them in, only to have the owner cover them up afterwards. Council should create a new class of code violations and give out severe financial penalties.

One final question and this goes under the John Kennedy rubric "Ask not what your country can do for you . . . ". What have you done or are you doing to keep stormwater on your own property or even on what you might just lease or do you always expect government to come to the rescue and, if they don't, blame them?

Should We Worry about PSB Agenda Item 15?

Item 15 on tomorrow's Public Service Board agenda reads:

"Discussion and action on direction received from the El Paso City Council, made on March 18 2014, for the City Manager to coordinate with the Public Service Board to determine the feasibility of selling property in 100 acres parcels or less, for property located in the Northwest Regulating Planned area." 

Anytime anything comes up about the Northwest Master Plan, some in the environmental/conservation voice concerns. They should. The questions are always the same: Will the arroyos be preserved? Will bridges be used and not culverts? Will smart code be followed? All as agreed upon following a successful petition to preserve the land.

City Council asked for a study to determine the cost of the development if divided among smaller developers versus the cost should just one developer do the entire planned area. URS was contracted to do the study.

The URS study found that one developer is the best way to go. City Planning recommends this finding and my sources tell me that the PSB will do so also.

EPWU/PSB General Attorney, Lupe Culler, said that the item will not circumvent the Master Plan.

Where Are We with the Petition to Preserve Land?

What's going on with the efforts to preserve land on both sides of the Franklin Mountains? A petition sponsored by Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coaltion, elpasonaturally and others drew more than 6,000 signatures. I personally presented the results to City Council and to the Public Service Board. Since then members of FMWC have spoken with City Council members and other local officials. 

A very significant step in determining what can (and cannot) be preserved was taken this morning. Twelve people gathered at the El Paso Water Utilities to begin discussing a "preservation plan". PSB/EPWU Attorney Lupe Cuellar chaired the meeting. Besides myself, there were representatives from city planning and parks departments, the building and development community, a conservation educator, a wildlife expert, a licensed architect experienced in urban planning, two representatives from the city's resiliency and sustainability office, a land conservation expert along with two attorneys (including Ms. Cuellar) from EPWU.

As the land in question is managed by the PSB, it is appropriate that the conversation begin there and a preservation plan originate there.  The group will work with two foundational principles in mind: there is land that can and should be preserved and there is land that can and should be developed. 

There was some initial discussion about criteria for preserving the land such as ecosystem services. The conservation educator, the wildlife expert and the land conservation expert mentioned ways to quantify those services. The architect hit a homerun when she said that we identify ecologies that we should preserve. 

The group will continue to meet monthly.

I'm excited. Stay tuned. - Jim Tolbert

P.S. You can still sign the petition online.


Please visit www.celebmtns.org for information about 2015 Celebration of Our Mountains events.

El Paso's Natural Open Space: Some Questions for Policymakers and Citizens

Just words on a sign. The picture was taken in 2010. What progress has been made on the Palisades open space since then? Ask the taggers not the City.

[The following was written by elpasonaturally reader, Marshall Carter-Tripp. Not only are her points and questions thought-provoking, they represent the frustratioon that many citizens have with the open space policies of the City of El Paso. elpasonaturally had always looked at the Boulder, Colorado ordinances as the best examples of controlling sprawl and preserving open space. Do not expect the any strides in a similar direction from the current reactionary El Paso City Council. To do the right thing will require a sea change in the next two City Council elections in which conservation-minded persons are elected and the sprawler puppets retired.

The Open Space Advisory Board meets tomorrow, September 2nd, at 3PM in City Building 3, 801 Texas Avenue, in the unmarked Thorman Conference Room in the basement. The meeting is open to the public and there is a public comment section at the beginning of the meeting for any item not on the agenda.]

Through the PSB stormwater set-aside and the City of El Paso’s Quality of Life funding for Open Space acquisition, El Paso can preserve hundreds of acres of undeveloped Open Space, for the benefit of those who live here – humans and wildlife.  This effort began with City Council approval in late February 2007 of a master plan entitled ”Towards a Bright Future: A Green Infrastructure Plan for El Paso, Texas” (the Open Space Master Plan). A few months later the Plan was awarded the Excellence in Planning Award from the National Association of Recreation Resource Planners (This plan, unfortunately, is no longer readily available on the internet.)   Implementation moved slowly; Council created an Open Space Advisory Board some two and a half years later, in June 2009.   This Board makes recommendations to Council about priorities under the master plan.  It has no authority to require that any action take place; even its ability to discuss various is limited. 

The, perhaps inevitable, result is that Natural Open Space is not a priority for city management and the goals laid out in the Master Plan do not appear to be incorporated into city staff activity.  For example, the Open Space Master Plan calls for expansion of Keystone Heritage Park (as does the City’s Parks Master Plan).  In July 2012 the Open Space Advisory Board progress report noted that the city had purchased 29 acres south of Keystone Dam, which could be used to buffer Keystone.  But in early February 2015, supporters of Keystone learned that the city’s Environmental Services was planning to build a large trash collection site on this land. The possibility that the land in question might contain unexplored cultural resources had not been investigated.   Leaving aside the considerable noise and debris inherent in a trash collection station, which could seriously affect the quality of a visit to Keystone, the decision to build it meant that the Keystone expansion goal could not be realized.  The city had already taken no action to buy land to the north of the park, land that was now under development.

Taking a second example, the Palisades Canyon land acquired by the PSB once it had the purchasing power (the Master Plan had considered it too expensive to list it as a key goal).  Hikers and bikers had visited these 202 acres for many years, despite the “no trespassing” signs.  Usage expanded once the parcel was purchased by the PSB in 2010 and a “welcome to the Palisades” sign was installed.  Nearby residents noted, however, that many of the users did not adhere to the announced rules, such as dogs on leashes, and no private motorized vehicles.  Graffiti appeared along the trail and was not removed, even after requests were made to the streets and maintenance graffiti unit. (The city’s website asserts that graffiti removal is done in public spaces, specifically citing parks.  Apparently because the Palisades is not a park, and the graffiti cannot be seen from the street, removing it is not important.)  Trucks and other vehicles go up the trail almost every day, now apparently to service the transmission tower at the end of Sierra Crest, built in mid-2015.  These are not PSB vehicles; who granted an easement for this traffic?  How much such traffic could be tolerated in Natural Open Space? No city agency takes responsibility for what happens in the Palisades – the “official owner,” the PSB, has no component to supervise Open Space, and the Parks and Recreation Department will only occupy itself with the trailhead, once constructed.  To date even a doggy bag dispenser is lacking.  (And as the Palisades is not a city park, the dog waste ordinance would not apply, so could fines be levied?) 

The city has not supplied staff for other components of the Open Space inventory.  Keystone land is owned by the city, but it has been entirely built and maintained by a private charity, and public outreach is through its Friends of Keystone group.  Similarly, the Rio Bosque wetlands, now owned by the PSB, are managed by UTEP, and a private non-profit Friends group manages public involvement.  Park Partnerships are available for designated city parks, for help with equipment, maintenance and cleanup, but these Natural Open Space areas are not city parks.

Let’s consider what has been done in some other southwestern/western cities.  Boulder is perhaps the poster child for Open Space protection.  Voters there approved a city charter amendment in 1959 that restricted the provision of city services to development below a certain altitude, protecting the mountain from development.   In 1967 the citizens of Boulder followed with a special sales tax to provide revenue for Open Space.  Boulder County then created a Parks and Open Space Department, now celebrating its 40th anniversary.  Key to its operation is a partnership arrangement in which businesses, civic groups, and individuals provide financial and volunteer support to monitor and care for the 100,000 acres plus of Open Space now preserved in Boulder County.

http://www.bouldercounty.org/os/getinvolved/pages/ospartnership.aspx
https://bouldercountyopenspace.org/40/

Nearer home, Albuquerque has nearly 30,000 acres of city-owned Open Space, based on the 1988 comprehensive city plan, complete with Visitor Center!  (And there are many more neighboring acres under state or federal control.) Volunteer programs allow for “adoption” of particular Open Space, and the Open Space Alliance serves as a “Friends of Open Space” group.  Albuquerque’s land is managed by a division within the Parks and Recreation Department.  The management principles are to: 

• Conserve Natural and archaeological resources; 
• Provide opportunities for outdoor education; 
• Provide a place for low impact recreation (in some but not all of the Open Space land), and
• Define the edges of the urban environment. 

https://www.cabq.gov/parksandrecreation/open-space


Looking at these success stories, we in El Paso might ask ourselves:

#1  Where does the acquisition of Open Space fit in Council’s Strategic Plan, if it does?  What concern, if any, is there for conservation of El Paso’s unique asset, the mountain range, excluding further development on it?

#2  Is there a schedule for acquisition of land, and what is the goal in terms of acres?  (El Paso is fortunate to have the Franklin Mountains State Park, nearly 25,000 acres, comprising the largest urban park in the country. But these acres are not enough!)  Should Council consider setting aside at least one meeting a year to review progress and remind staff of the Open Space and Parks Master Plans? 

#3  What might trigger creation of an Open Space division, with staff, in the Parks and Recreation Department?  And associated programs for partners for Open Space or Friends of particular Open Space areas?  (The Parks Department page on the city website shows Marci Tuck as the Open Space, Trails and Parks Coordinator.  Ms Tuck left the department in mid-May, 2015.  Apparently her role is not important enough to replace.   In any case she had no responsibility for open space per se, just connections through trailheads.)

#4  How are citizens to interact with the OSAB and the PSB regarding land acquisition or other Open Space concerns if they cannot attend the daytime meetings and speak during the Call to the Public?  Who determines how much of the PSB Open Space fund is used for Park Ponds rather than the purchase of Natural Open Space?  How can citizens affect these decisions?

- Marshall Carter-Tripp

The Monday Links: Trees, Bad Legislation, Best council money can buy

[Monday is "Links Day" with links gathered over the past week to online "stuff" to read and sites to surf that impact us directly or offer information about our regional issues. Please feel free to send me links to any conservation, environmental, simple living, city planning, energy and water, etc. stories that you have come across online.] 

City of El Paso Government, Sprawling and Water:

Best council money can buy (I too missed out on developing our city's strategic goals. However, I'm being told that, as a member of the Open Space Board, I need to follow in lockstep with it.)


Another Reason to Keep the PSB:

Thanks to PSB for Rescue Mission solution


Trees, Smart Growth, Resiliency and Mental Health

Trees and Green Infrastructure Key to “Climate Smart” Cities (". . . using green infrastrucure to make communities 'climate smart,' which can also help improve resilience to natural disasters.) 

Living Near Trees May Reduce Antidepressant Use


Climate Change

Climate Change Indicators in the United States


Learn more:

Water in the Western United States (a free online course)


Get involved:

Restore the Rule of Law in Our Borderlands!
(Proposals in Congress could expand the border waivers. Click for a larger image. A small group of lawmakers have introduced militarization-only bills that would spend $10 billion building a massive industrial complex of walls, roads, towers, drones, bases and other unnecessary infrastructure in our U.S.–Mexico an U.S.–Canada borderlands. Please urge Congress to oppose this destructive proposal.) 

Tell Congress: Reject the “No More National Parks” Bill

Environmenatally damaging border security legislation (Hat tip to Professor Liz Walsh for sharing this info sheet with many links)


Visit, bookmark and surf these sites:

Common Dreams


I Love Parks.com

The Monday Links: Rio bosque, PSB, City Planning and More

[Monday is "Links Day" with links gathered over the past week to online "stuff" to read and sites to surf that impact us directly or offer information about our regional issues. Please feel free to send me links to any conservation, environmental, simple living, city planning, energy and water, etc. stories that you have come across online.] 

The Rio Bosque Wetlands Park

Austin bird lover had great visit to El Paso, wetlands (A must read proving the point so many of us have made. Austinite writes: "The Rio Bosque wetlands were a real jewel that the whole city can be proud of. Please appreciate the intrinsic and economic value of your unique local wildlife, and preserve and restore habitat where they can continue to flourish."

New projects to save water, help bisque [sic] park,

EPWU, irrigation district working together on pipeline, drain, new lake Looks like the Rio Bosque will finally get a steady, permanent supply of water. Birds and birders will flock to El Paso now.

The Public Service Board (PSB)

David Nemir: City Council must leave El Paso PSB alone (online the Times now has it right)

Keystone Pipeline and Climate Change

Heinrich Speech In Opposition To Keystone Pipeline (It's not just the pipeline that's bad. What's worse is the vast ecosystem destruction caused by tar sands mining. We need to realize that we are part of these vast ecosystems that have evolved with us. Destroy them, and we undermine our survival.)

This chart of rising ocean temperatures is terrifying (Drives home more of what Sen. Heinrich was saying)

City Planning

System A and System B

When the research favors compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, why does government favor sprawl? 

Why small will go big in 2015

Green Cities Provide Demonstrable Health Benefits (Note to City Manager Tommy Gonzalez: trees work.)

Brand new apartments planned near the Downtown El Paso ballpark?

Brand new apartments planned near the Downtown El Paso ballpark? (An infill project here in El Paso)

Online course and webinar

Water in the Western United States

WEBINAR: Green Infrastructure and Flood Resiliency – Land Use Management as an Adaptation Strategy in the Built Environment 

January 29, 2015 – 12:00 PM EST

This webinar addresses assessment, planning, and adaptation to not only better prepare for the next emergency, but to sustainably manage flooding, and stormwater to maintain human health and a vibrant local economy. Participants will leave this webinar with knowledge about the latest innovative approaches to understand the effects of inland flooding and apply low-impact development (LID), site design, and smart growth practices at different scales of implementation. There will be reference to pioneering hydrology-based, sub-watershed approaches that have shown mitigation potential not only for storm water and flooding, but to the loss and degradation in water quality. 

Learn more and register here.

City Council Must Leave the PSB Alone

[This is an op-ed piece written by David Nemir who just recently left the Public Service Board. It was published in this morning's El Paso Times. Their title: "City Council must not leave El Paso PSB alone" was a huge mistake. Read David's op-ed piece and you will understand why City Council must leave the PSB alone and not try to take over its management and trusteeship of land nor must it attempt to reduce the EPWU to a department of the City of El Paso. Leave the PSB alone. If you forward any link to an elpasonaturally post, this is the one to forward.]

As an outgoing member of the Public Service Board, I have had a front row seat in observing water management in El Paso, both present and past.   This history guides El Paso’s water future.

In 1951, El Paso was out of water.   Drought, depleting wells and dwindling river allocations compelled El Paso leaders to seek bond approval to acquire needed assets and infrastructure.   When voters said no, El Paso leaders formed an independent Public Service Board and made it custodian of El Paso Water Utilities, the revenue from which could be pledged to servicing debt.   With the combination of an independent management and an independent revenue source, the PSB could raise bond money without voter approval, using bond proceeds to expand water and sewer systems. 

The model has worked well.   For much of the past 63 years, the PSB has used bond funding to leverage its asset base, addressing water needs proactively.   Indeed, strategic planning has been fundamental since the PSB’s inception.    Capital projects are planned and budgeted years in advance and are almost always completed within 5% of budget.   

The result is a water utility that is among the best in the country --- winner of awards and provider of some of the lowest cost water services in the state.   And as part of its planning, the Public Service Board has acquired significant land assets, paid for by ratepayers, that will play an important role in funding El Paso’s water future.

However, water ratepayers are falling victim to this success.   Since its inception in 1952, the PSB returns 10% of all water revenue annually back to the city as a franchise fee.    But recent City Councils have sought to modify that arrangement in order to generate new revenue for the City.  

In 2012 Council formed a blue ribbon commission to analyze the revenue share model and to benchmark it against franchise fee and payment in lieu of tax models used for water utilities in other cities throughout Texas and the U.S.   This resulted in a July 2013 report to Council that concluded that El Paso’s revenue share model is in line with other communities and is fair to both ratepayer and taxpayer.   

Unfortunately, City Council chose to ignore this report and in August of 2014, increased the revenue transfer to the City by a whopping 30%  by imposing an annual  “street rental fee” on El Paso Water Utilities, advocating that this be raised by new fees on non-residential ratepayers (eg: churches, schools and business).  

When City Council imposes a dollar of pass-through fees to the ratepayers, zero cents of that dollar go to meet water needs.  Regardless of whether a new fee is called a franchise fee, a street rental fee or an easement use fee, it is still a cost to the water ratepayer without an offsetting benefit in water services.   And it sets a dangerous precedent.   

Through 63 years of strategic planning the PSB has acquired an inventory of land and water infrastructure which it holds in trust for El Paso’s water future.   Through those same 63 years, City Councils have often had a shorter term, less strategic focus.  The PSB, its asset base and its operations should be left alone until Council can articulate a good reason for change.  City budget challenges are not a good reason.   

David Nemir

The Friday Video: Perspectives:The Frontera Land Alliance

Learn more about the Frontera Land Alliance as well as the relationship between land conservation and water conservation. The latter is critical and is why you don't want City Council in control of PSB land so that they can sell it off for the immediate gratification of instant revenue. Keeping your Public Service Board independent means water today and water for your grandchildren's grandchildren.



Save our land. Save our water. Save our PSB.

The Gloves Are Off

City Council's land grab is becoming more and more obvious. It entails destroying your Public Service Board, the very people who have made sure that all of us who live in this desert city even in the midst of drought have water. Why the land grab? So that they can sell off land in little bits at a time to the sprawlers who are funding their campaign coffers and pulling their strings. What we have now is no longer a representation of us, but an autocracy of a very few people with the greedy intent of getting richer and richer. Damn our children and grandchildren and their children. Let them thirst, they say. Their profit now is all that matters.

Let me give you four examples of the land grab. Pay attention El Paso Times, El Paso Inc., El Paso Diario, KVIA, KTSM, et. al. especially to this first one:

First, Council's most egregious and covert attempt occurred at last Tuesday's City Council meeting. There was a strategic effort made by Rep. Cortney Niland to put control of all PSB managed land under the control of City Council by amending the language in a bond issuance proposed by the PSB. PSB bonds are backed by the assets of the utility pledged as collateral. In the bond language the PSB is referred to as the "system". Niland wants the land NOT to be part of the system but under the control of City Council. The problem with that is the fact that bondholders could then sue the city because there would no longer be collateral backing the bonds. The solution proposed was to alter the language in the bond issuance to prevent bondholders from having grounds to sue. 

24 hours before Council Sylvia Firth, who works directly under the Mayor, announced this new language. In executive session, the Bond Counsel, Paul Braden convinced City Council that it was impossible to make this change with only 24 hours notice. The language was dropped and the usual language remained. HOWEVER, we can expect Niland, et. al. to be better prepared in 6 or 8 months when more bond issuances go to Council.

Know that Niland has been heard in public that she does not care about EPWU's prestige for being one of the best water utilities in the country, she wants the utility to be under the direct control of Council so that our land can be sold for revenue. Her shortsighted plan is completely contrary to the vision for having an independent PSB/EPWU in the first place - a vision that has led successfully to our having water and water at a very low rate. (Those rates will still be lower than the average rates across the country even if it should go up another 8 percent or so. And remember, businesses, that it was Council not the PSB who levied that exorbitant franchise tax - I mean "fee" - on you and not the PSB.)

Second, Council's most egregious and overt action to destroy the PSB and grab land for their sprawler masters occurred just two hours ago. They appointed the third-rated candidate (Bradley Roe) over the first-rated and current PSB member, David Nemir. Why? Refuse the Juice said it the best in a post just minutes after the vote: "[Roe is] clearly a pick that will vote to sell all of the PSB land to home builders in tiny parcels so that parks don't have to be included . . . among other amenities. Smart code is out the door with this guy."

"The fix was in" as Refuse the Juice explained. As soon as the candidates were introduced, Lilly Limon moved to accept Roe. She did her part. It was all orchestrated beforehand. Only Rep. Robinson and Rep. Ordaz voted against the motion for Roe.

Thirdly, last March 18th City Council seemed poised to jettison smart development from the Northwest Master Plan - a plan forged by the efforts of so many El Pasoans. Their efforts were thwarted by an outcry by many of us and they reaffirmed (at least for now) that Master Plan. It bears vigilant watching however.

And finally, the recent attempt to take money from that portion of the stormwater fee dedicated to buying and preserving natural open space for flood control projects was a means of undermining not just the PSB but the Open Space Advisory Board. As an OSAB member I took the position that we could afford to be part of the City's efforts to help flood control. I was wrong. Many of you told me before that I was wrong and now you hear me saying it. It was an attempt to undermine the PSB by taking that decision away from them. It was an attempt to undermine the Open Space Advisory Board by setting the precedent that open space money is merely a slush fund. Hopefully the matter is dead as I posted last week. I can tell you that, when several of us were first invited by the Mayor to his office to discuss his proposal, I asked whether he had spoken to John Balliew about the proposal. Surprisingly he hadn't and he seemed to be caught off guard by my question. He promised to do so but I bet he wouldn't have had I never asked the question. I'll use another post to relate how we were sold a car. For now, know that I will ask that the matter be put back on the OSAB agenda so that we can rescind our recommendation.

I like to get along and always give the other side the benefit of the doubt and believe that win-win solutions are always best. I believe that there is good in each and every person. However, the beliefs, habits and practices of the El Paso autocracy (and the fact that they are an autocracy) - the sprawlers and their Council lackeys (who I will stop referring to as "representatives" because they don't represent the people) - are shortsighted and simply bad for our future. I will for awhile be posting daily about this land grab and the machinations of the autocracy. I can't be nice any longer. 

The gloves are off. It's time to fight back. El Pasoans are about to step up. Save our water. Save our land. Save our PSB.

This Changes Everything

So how did the vote on the open space $3.2 million go today? There was no vote. Instead the item was deleted and will most probably go to a Legislative Review Committee of the City Council. How did this come about? Rep. Emma Acosta has other plans. What are the other plans for the $3.2 million? More park ponds! This changes the calculus completely.

Already the email is flying between current council members and at least one former member. Dr. Rick Bonart, our hero for his open space trail blazing and his days on the PSB, doesn't want to give an inch on the $3.2 million and he has some good reasons.

Expect meetings and for the Franklin Mountain Wilderness Coalition to get involved.

Can of worms? You betcha.

Stay tuned.

Correcting a Misstatement and Focusing on the Real Concerns

I misstated something in yesterday's post and I need to make a correction for the record. In a post published just yesterday but meant for last Friday, I wrote: "Not long ago, City Councilwoman, Cortney Niland, was heard to say that the City needed $3.2 Million to keep a promise made to developers. Amazing how that $3.2 Million is exactly what she and the Mayor propose to take from that portion of the stormwater fee meant to go to open space over the next couple of years." 

I checked my source because the item regarding the $3.2 Million for open space being re-directed comes up tomorrow. I was corrected. Ms. Niland made the statement in regards to an earlier decision by Council to charge businesses an extra fee on their water-sewer bills for road repairs. That amount was $3.5 Million. Ms. Niland was trying to find a means to address a budget short fall while providing a source of money to improve the pace of permitting by contractors with the City and thus reducing wait time. I did not inquire about the particulars.

Tomorrow's agenda item 13.2 does have to do with the use of the ten percent of stormwater fees that would normally go to the purchase of open space. Instead, over the next two years up to $3.2 Million will be diverted to flood water construction projects. The ordinance language (click on supporting document HERE) is quite specific and is in harmony with what the Open Space Advisory Board recommended: up to $3.2 Million over the next year (nothing more and it could be less) will be spent for these projects. Furthermore, the money does not get transferred to the City. It remains on the Stormwater ledger under the control of the Public Service Board. 

As a member of the Open Space Advisory Board I also voted to recommend. Quite frankly, it was the best thing to do noting five things: Open space priorities are being acquired or are in the act of acquisition. Second, there will be $800,000 in the open space account after the acquisitions. Third, we don't have a Council generally favorable to conservation at this time. (That $3.2 Million could have been nearly $5 Million more without our discussions with the Mayor.) Fourth, the language of the ordinance is as we discussed. All is honest and above board. Finally, OSAB only advises and recommends. The City Council passes ordinances.

I understand that some of you disagree with the recommendation but keep in mind that there are more critical concerns. One of them may be in item 8.1 on tomorrow's agenda. I'll cut to the chase. Read page 25. (Click on supporting document HERE.) My sources (far better than the $3.2 Million one) tell me that the City Attorney may have made a substantial re-write at the last minute without any notice. We will see tomorrow. At issue is who controls bonding and land sales and all of that - the PSB or this City Council bought and paid for by the El Paso sprawlers. 

The really critical issues: keeping the PSB in control and conserving more land.

As conservationists, let's work together on the critical issues which really count.

One More Reason to Support Our Public Service Board/El Paso Water Utilities

John Balliew receivng the AMWA Sustainable Water Utility Management Award.

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an organization of the largest publicly-owned drinking water suppliers in the United States, honored our El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) with its Sustainable Water Utility Management Award. This is one more reason to keep the PSB/EPWU independent and not make it just one more department of the City of El Paso. 

By the way, be sure to read the October 20, 2014 post at Refuse the Juice. Quoting directly and emphasizing:

"The PSB is one of the few things in El Paso - government wise - that works."

And again:  

"Should El Paso be taking steps to protect it's most precious asset (water) and the preserver of that asset (PSB/EPWU)?"  

Here's the EPWU press release about the award:

El Paso Water Utilities Receives National Award
for Sustainable Water Management

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) honored El Paso Water Utilities with The Sustainable Water Utility Management Award at its 2014 Executive Management Conference on Monday in Newport Beach, Calif.

 

The Sustainable Water Utility Management Award, presented for the first time this year, recognizes water utilities that have made a commitment to management that achieves a balance of innovative and successful efforts in areas of economic, social and environmental endeavors.

 

“AMWA awards recognize the serious commitment and significant progress these award-winning drinking water agencies are making toward long-term viability through innovative management practices, executive leadership and employee engagement,” said AMWA President Chuck M. Murray, General Manager of Fairfax Water. “Sustainable communities cannot exist without sustainable water systems, and these award winners are invaluable assets to their communities and their customers.”

 

El Paso Water Utilities, one of nine utilities to receive the national award, was recognized for its proactive water management strategy focused on policy, planning and technology. Sustainability for EPWU means protecting public health by producing clean, safe water from renewable resources while meeting daily standards.

 

“Our unique geographical location and climate requires us to be proactive,” states John Balliew, EPWU President/CEO. “We work hand-in-hand with our customers and stakeholders to aggressively implement our water resources management plan.”

 

EPWU was commended on receiving high marks in all areas, according to national benchmarking surveys conducted by AMWA. AMWA also took special note that El Paso’s average residential water bills are among the lowest in the Southwest, largely due to gains in operational efficiency and a commitment to continuous process improvement principles.

Water - Why YOU Should Care

Water – Why YOU Should Care

by Judy Ackerman

For over 60 years  El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) and the Public Service Board (PSB) have done such an outstanding job of ensuring El Pasoans have water, (with the few restrictions for days to water and time of day during the hot months), that now the public takes water for granted.  We take water for granted at all our peril.

On September 26, the PSB held a strategic planning meeting to outline progressively more complicated and more costly methods to obtain water for our growing city.  The meeting was to share information and solicit ideas from the public on managing our most critical and life-giving resource - water.  But only one member of the public and zero elected officials, bothered to attend.

Question:  Living in the desert, where every living thing depends on water, how did we get so complacent?  

Answer:  Because of the excellent work of the PSB.

A Brief History  

In 1951 we had the “drought of record” meaning it was the worst drought in recorded history.  Every day, El Paso papers headlined the drought.  Even with water restrictions, wells ran dry and some El Pasoans had NO water at all.  The public called for the creation of an independent board to manage water resources and do long range planning (50 years out).  The PSB was born in 1952.  The drought of the 1950s lasted 20 years.  In 2013 we set the new “drought of record” with much less water available than in 1951.  This drought could last 20 years or more.    

Currently, EPWU gets water from groundwater, the river, desalination and reuse (purple pipe).   In case of continuing drought, or growing population, the EPWU needs to expand its portfolio of water options.  Future sources of water could be advanced purification, additional desalinization plants, purification of water from agricultural drains and piping in water from near and far.  These options require planning and capital expenditures now, in order to be available for future demands for water.

Facts:

• Elephant Butte Dam in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, controls “waters of the US” for agricultural use – NOT municipal.
• Because of agreements with El Paso County Water Improvement District # 1 (the irrigation district), the EPWU usually gets 50% of our municipal water from the river during the irrigation season which normally lasts from 15 Feb to 15 Oct (nine months).  
• In 2013 the irrigation season lasted only 6 weeks because there was so little water available in Elephant Butte and only 9% of our water came from the river.  Additional groundwater pumping had to make up the difference.
• The amount of rain we receive in El Paso has very little impact on the water available in the river.  
• Water in the Rio Grande comes from snow melt in Colorado and Northern New Mexico.
• The ground water we use from the Hueco and Mesilla Bolsons is a limited resource and we are depleting it faster than we can recharge the aquifers.  
• More than half of the Hueco Bolson is brackish; too salty for drinking water.
• EPWU and the PSB are eager to share their information and expertise.

What Can We Do?

To ensure El Paso’s sustainability and future growth, stay informed on water issues.  Attend PSB meetings.  Check the PSB website.  Visit EPWU’s TecH2O Center.  Practice water conservation.

Ensuring a Sustainable Water Supply

Here is the slide show used at last Friday's PSB/EPWU Strategic Planning Session.

PSB/EPWU Strategic Planning Slide Show

Just a few quick observations:

The PSB/EPWU is the only El Paso "institution" that intimately understands conservation. The entire plan is concerned with the technology, policy and, yes, conservation necessary to make sure that El Paso has water. The PSB was created in 1951 during what was a bad drought. Our drought today is worse.

Attempts led by the clandestine and powerful Builders Association and City Council members who are in debt to the Builders to make the PSB/EPWU a city department are just wrong. In their minds it's a matter of revenue and the protection of the builders from paying impact fees and the rejection of the visionary Plan El Paso, the most hated document by the Builders Association. Conservation is the last thing on their minds. Build, build, build. Sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. Guzzle, guzzle, guzzle - no water in short time. Thank you, PSB, for being conservation oriented. Of course, EPWU's product to sell is water. If they limit the amount, they bring in less revenue. Thank heavens for innovators such as John Balliew, who know that other products must come off the line as well. They are working on it.

They conserve better than conservationists. For years we have been hounding and howling to bring more water to the Rio Bosque. They have a plan that not only does that but recaptures more water for the City!

Finally, we see a strategy for capturing more rainwater which includes the regulating pond that will benefit the Rio Bosque.

Here's the dark cloud: Council recently imposed a fee for street repairs and has the EPWU collect that fee through our water bills. The fee goes to the City. Council could have just accepted the counter-proposal for a larger EPWU budget to do the same job. However, the current Council had ulterior motives: enact the fee and, in time, raise it. More especially, Council wanted to get its hands into the governance best done by the PSB. The first major problem with the fee is that it makes it harder for the PSB to raise rates that will go to critical infrastructure needed now or soon. The second major problem is that the fee does not encourage conservation of our scarcest and most precious resource: water.

PSB Strategic Planning Meeting

I wasn't able to make today's meeting - the first time not to do so in several years. A friend took notes for me. I'm expecting the slide show presentation from the EPWU's Public Information Office. I will post it for you and continue discussion next Monday.

After visiting with my friend, three general points can be made:

First, the public was missing! What is the biggest challenge El Paso faces? Water. We are in the most serious drought since 1951 when the City was guided by wiser persons. There were two newspapers back then: the El Paso Times and the El Paso Herald Post. Water was their daily front page story. The public positively responded to the creation of an independent water utility. 

But today? The public remains uninformed about the seriousness of the water issue. Besides the Consumer or Citizen Advocacy seat on the Board (now held by Chris Antcliff), the key player to be there for the people is the Mayor. Mayor Leeser was absent.

The second point is that, in spite of the public's disinterest in what the PSB/EPWU does, the PSB/EPWU is strategically planning ahead. I'm not going to go into all of the presentation now. However, it was clear that, under John Balliew, our water utility is making very wise choices. But don't think that you shouldn't be involved. As a first suggestion, ask your City Rep to have all building and landscaping codes reviewed and updated with the conservation of water in mind. Also, let's get a Charter Amendment that takes the fate of the PSB/EPWU out of the hands of City Council.

Finally, all of us in the conservation community need to begin doing a better job of educating the public, our city government and our business community. We've been preaching to the choir too long.

Take the Fate of the PSB out of the Hands of City Council

[As a follow-up to yesterday's blog, I am publishing this op-ed piece written by Dr. Rick Bonart. Rick served on the PSB from 2009 until 2013 when City Council voted him off that Board. Emma Acosta led the despicable charge. David Crowder wrote an excellent piece in the El Paso Inc. regarding the ouster of someone who truly did put the "Public" back in the "Public Service Board".]


As the former citizen advocate from the Public Service Board, I want to comment on El Paso City Council's latest actions regarding the El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board - adding a new franchise fee and again proposing to eliminate the Public Service Board. These are horrible ideas.

It has only been a few years since former Mayor Cook convened a blue ribbon committee to review these very issues. The committee recommended that City taxes should not subsidize water rates, nor should water rates subsidize the city's taxes. Follow up studies were conducted and verified that the economic arrangement where the PSB already pays the City ten percent of its revenue is fair and comparable to other cities throughout the region. They also concluded that the PSB creates value for the City!

Ultimately, what’s in the best interest of our community is a sustainable, low cost, supply of water. Availability of water will be this region’s ultimate economic driver giving El Paso an edge in attracting new growth.  The citizens of El Paso have enjoyed low water rates and a reliable supply thanks to the policies of the PSB.
  
City Council’s meddling and undermining the PSB is bad policy. The PSB was established to set rates and policies to protect our precious water resource without political influence. The new franchise fee usurps that principle. It sets the bad precedence of City Council dictating how the PSB handles utility business.

Ironically, certain members of City Council were successful in decreasing Electric Company rates by arguing how harmful high utility rates are to the local economy.  This new fee is nothing more than a back door tax that increases a utility bill.  The franchise fee will be tacked onto water bills; but proceeds will go toward paying for city projects.  By so doing, what you pay for will be more obscure. From water projects to quality of life bonds, it's important that citizens understand the true cost of the projects they vote for. 

This new fee on business will be totally regressive in two ways. First, because it's a set fee per entity, a small mom and pop operation will pay the same fee as a huge corporate entity. Second, it's not tied to consumption. Currently as with your electric bill, consumers have control over the size of their bill by limiting consumption. Tiered water rates have been the most effective conservation measure initiated by the water utility. This new fee removes that discretion.

So why would City Council attempt such an awkward solution for such a relatively small (less than half a percent) shortfall? Surely 3 million in savings could be trimmed from an 800 million dollar budget. The answer is simple. It’s a first step. Once instituted fees and taxes never expire, rather they perpetually increase. This fee is only for non-residential customers, however it doesn’t require a crystal ball to realize residential customers will be ”fair game” and tapped to balanced the next  budget shortfall.

Unfortunately, Council’s assaults on the PSB has become an annual event. Members of City Council threaten to increase the PSB payments to the City, take over and sell off PSB land holdings, add fees, or, as with Representative Acosta’s latest suggestion, dissolve the PSB altogether.


City Council should keep water rates and city fees separate, support an independent Public Service Board, and act to repeal the franchise fee. I’d like to propose a Charter Amendment to require that the dissolution of the Public Service Board rest in the hands of the voters and not City Council. 

Somebody Kill this Vampire Once and for All Times

It's become almost an annual or semi-annual event: an attempt to dissolve the Public Service Board and put control of the water and stormwater utilities directly under City Council control as a department of the City of El Paso. Like the living dead rising from the grave for fresh blood, this attempt has been coming up periodically. 

The most recent sighting of the Vampire came in this message from Rep. Emma Acosta's office:

"Representative Emma Acosta, District 3 authorizes the placement of the following item on the Regular Agenda for the Tuesday, September 9, 2014 City Council meeting:


"Discussion and action to review, amend, or dissolve the City of El Paso ordinance that created the Public Service Board, charged with the management and control of the water, sewer, and drainage systems of the City. To analyze, recommend, and determine the most desirable and best interest of the citizens and rate payers of the City of El Paso, in any changes, amendments, or repeal of the ordinance."

I spoke with John Balliew this morning. Although the motion has been withdrawn, there is every reason to be wary that it will re-appear sooner rather than later because the Vampire has recently drawn new blood in the form of a repugnant, unfair franchise fee which forces EPWU to collect money from non-residential customers in El Paso (read mostly Mom and Pop businesses that are already struggling in El Paso's economy.) PSB did not authorize the fee - Council did. So, as Emma must want to push the point, who needs the PSB?

Several points and please remember them:

We need the PSB as the very best way to preserve our most precious asset: water.

Take over the PSB and start selling the land to the sprawlers (what useful idiots for the sprawlers such as Emma really want) and we will soon collapse our water supply.

Balliew offered a better idea: let the EPWU assume pavement costs when mains break. Invest in newer infrastructure. Council rejected this idea because they really don't want the fee to cover an expense item in the budget - they want it as an ongoing way to raise revenue. 

This Council is NOT business-friendly. They are sprawler-friendly, Schwartz-friendly, Rubin-friendly but NOT business-friendly. They continue to plunder the wealth of businesses and homeowners to pay for the increasing costs brought on all of us because of unchecked building sprawl. Counting city taxes and the franchise fee almost 20% of the water bill paid by one of El Paso's oldest businesses and major employers goes to the City! 20 percent!  Rather than build the wage and salary base of the City in order to enlarge the amount that sales tax pays for city services rather than property taxes, Council raises your property taxes, forces your business to pay yet another fee, and allows the sprawlers to laugh and sing all the way to the bank. BTW, I believe that, in time, it will be obvious that Tommy Gonzalez is the pick of the back-room boys who like sprawl. (It wasn't unanimous you know to choose him and the Mayor really did break a tie. Happy now, former Mayor Wardy? Doug? Jerry?)

So, don't think that the Vampire has gone away. It may take an amendment to the City Charter to drive the wooden stake through its evil heart.

New Impact Fee Increases Make Sense and Are Reasonable and Fair

Let's keep the discussion about impact fee increases simple: If you use something, you pay for it. If you don't, you don't. The current proposal to raise impact fees on new developments in the growing edges of the city is not about growth or anti-growth or sprawl or infill or smart growth. It's about being fair about who pays for the capital improvements by the El Paso Water Utilities to accommodate the new growth.

Let's say that I plan to attend several concerts at the Plaza downtown but I don't want to pay for parking. I want to use a parking space downtown but I don't want to pay for it. Instead, I want the property taxes of all other property owners in El Paso to increase by a few cents to pay for my parking space. Fair? Of course not. I use the parking space so I should pay for it. I could, of course, elect to park away from downtown and walk - but I can't force you to pay for the convenience of my parking downtown.

Or, say I want a swimming pool in my backyard - the works: rock landscaping, a waterfall, a grotto, a spa. But I don't want to pay for it; instead I want you to pay for it with an additional fee tacked on to your water bill. Fair? Need I answer.

To accommodate new development in west, east and northeast El Paso, the EPWU will have to fund some capital improvement projects. We're talking about expanding the Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant, new interceptors, new pumping and force mains, etc. These are improvements that they should be making because of the new homes that additional people will need. To finance these improvements, the PSB approved and the EPWU requested impact fee increases. Here is their presentation to the City Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) on January 27th:

Impact Fee Update 

CIAC with 7 developers and 2 neophytes on the committee voted unanimously to oppose the increase. The City Plan Commission (CPC) voted 6-0-1 to recommend the increase to City Council.

Just skim through the presentation and you can see the additional improvements that must be made to the water and wastewater systems to keep up with new development.

Keep in mind that the impact fees only cover 75% of the expenses. You and I (unfair or not) will pay the additional 25%. (Hmmm . . . wonder if I can get at least 25% of my dream pool paid by the rest of you.) 

However, to hear the El Paso Times tell the story a crisis akin to Hurricane Sandy is about to hit El Paso. In their Sunday story yesterday, an added headline reads: "Sharp increase is possible if City Council approves ordinance". 

Sharp increase? $3,835 more per new home on the eastside is a sharp increase? Amortized over 30 years at 5% and that increase is no more than $15 per month. If someone can't afford an additional $15 per month, they shouldn't be buying the house. Heck, if I were the developer, I'd raise the price $5,000 and no one would blink at the difference. I bet that developers do just that or more.

But, what if the City follows by raising the taxes on our homes again? Then that additional cost of the home may mean paying much more in taxes each year. This isn't an argument against impact fees. This is an argument against out-of-control city spending by City reps who campaign against taxing people out of their homes and yet approve budgets that do just that.

Some will argue that we shouldn't have to pay for other things that we don't use. I don't get to drive the shiny new police car - but I do get the protection and the confidence that El Paso will continue to be the safest city its size in the country. I'm not on welfare so why should I pay for it. However, our entire community benefits and our commonwealth expands when we aren't burdened by added expenses of crime, poor health, lack of education, etc. It's a good thing in and of itself to offer a hand up. It's a additional bonus when that hand leads to greater productivity and an expanding economy because of more employment and so forth. 

Finally, the PSB does not hold city land in its inventory in order to finance future development. Although I'm sure that he knew better, Ed Archuleta unwisely used that argument when he tried to prevent putting more land into permanent open space. No, the PSB manages our land in order to recharge our aquifers from whence we get half our city water and, in droughts, much more than that. Some of that land is not necessary for recharging and could be sold except that some of us argue that some of that land (but not all) should be kept in a natural state because of other ecological benefits and aesthetic and recreational enjoyments. 

The issues of growth paying for itself (or not), infill development, smart growth can be considered separate to this discussion on impact fees. It is only fair that those whose new homes will increase the need for water and wastewater infrastructure should pay for those additional capital improvements. Whether the additional growth by development really does pay for itself is another matter. But keep in mind one fact like death itself: our borders are finite - our space, though seemingly copious, is limited. How do you have a healthy, sustainable economy beyond growth? If there is a means to do so, shouldn't we be exploring that exciting economic possibility rather than gobbling up all the beauty and benefits that we can have by keeping much of our land naturally pristine?

And one more question: shouldn't El Pasoans be considering the possibility that cheap building labor and cheap homes are not the engines which are driving our economy but the anchors that are weighting us down and keeping our property taxes too high? (Perhaps to answer that question would be to discover why some developers adamantly oppose impact fee increases.)

But that's another debate.