PSB Gets Petition Report

[Today I spoke to the Public Service Board and gave them basically the same message that I gave City Council in May. Here is what I said:]

From March first until May first, Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition, elpasonaturally and others circulated the following petition in person and online:

“WE THE PEOPLE want preserved, in its natural state and in perpetuity, all of the undeveloped land owned by the City of El Paso on the western side of the Franklin Mountains that is north of Transmountain Road, east of the EPNG Pipeline Road and south of the New Mexico/El Paso boundary and on the eastern side of the Franklin Mountains that is north of Transmountain, west of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. and south of the New Mexico/El Paso boundary.” 

For just two months of collection, we had a total of 6,638 signatures. 3,830 of those were hard copies; 2,830 were online. Signers came from all council districts of El Paso and most zip codes.  Many even took time to clip out an advertisement in the Times, El Diario and the Inc., address an envelope, put a stamp on it and send it to me.

One woman wrote: “I don’t want to see our beautiful mountains cluttered with houses.”

Another wrote: “The Franklin Mountains are what make El Paso different from any other city in Texas.”

Another wrote: “This is my heritage to my kids.”

The petition was not written in the form of an initiative. Thus, City Council is not compelled to do anything more.

But I hope that they along with the PSB do want to take action. I hope that we can find ways to preserve our mountain scenery, secure millions more each year in eco-tourism, control sprawl which will control our onerous property taxes, and help us manage our scarcest most precious resource – water.

We have accumulated the data from the petitions. We can begin again and in short order have an initiative petition for an ordinance. We’d rather work together.

So I urge you - please be proactive and not reactive. 

[I've heard from EPWU officials that City Council is expecting the PSB to bring the subject up again with them. The ball is rolling.]

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.

What Was Really Insulting at Yesterday's PSB Meeting

In a statement to the El Paso Times, Mayor Leeser explained his "no" vote to the new El Paso Water Utilities proposed budget and rate hikes: "It was insulting to see that type of presentation . . ." Huh? Apparently he objected to a presentation about the budget given a few weeks ago in a public budget hearing and given again yesterday for a vote. At issues seems to be the fact that your water utility will begin showing on your bill in March the amount you pay (10%) that goes back to the city (not counting the amount businesses now pay for the City Council directed tax aka fee). His resposes to Times reporter Vic Kolenc were vague.

Here's the deal: the Mayor's was the only nay vote because he said that he was "insulted". Six other members of the Board - all smart, professional people - were not insulted. Apparently only one person, the Mayor, found the budget presentations "insulting". Word on the street is that the Mayor was engaged in political posturing. He has said on more than one occasion to various people that he believes that the utility should be run by the city not the PSB. In other words, his "nay" vote and his suggestion that he was insulted are, at the least, clear indications of his lack of support for the PSB if not a means to undermine the PSB. 

More proof: the Mayor chairs the PSB selection committee. He did not attend and did not take part in the nearly unanimous highest rating of current board member, David Nemir. When the matter went before Council, he was silent allowing the selection of Brad Roe who has ties with the El Paso Builders Association. One keen observer of El Paso politics commented: "You can bet the Bowlings got the votes [for Roe] from Council." 

You might also want to peruse Oscar Leeser's campaign finance reports of 2013. See how many sprawlers you see listed as giving the big bucks. These are the very people who want to get their hands on all of that PSB land and a shortsighted Council wants to sell off as fast as they can to make up budget shortfalls. (And once you've spent all that you have on bloated credit card expenses, you find that you can't pay for the extravagant purchases you keep making. Imagine the city running the water utility. Just how fast do you think that we will run out of water?)

What was insulting at yesterday's PSB meeting was how the Mayor voted and how he left the meeting with important agenda items still pending and how he does not do his duty to communicate what the PSB is doing to City Council. That is what is insulting and every single El Pasoan should be insulted.

By the way, even with the rate increases, El Paso Water Utilities' rates are still the lowest or second lowest when compared to other Texas cities and to other regional cities in the southwest. Here are the charts:




Save our water. Save our land. 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.

A Great Day

Today has been a great day for sustainability for three reasons.

First, the Public Service Board unanimously approved a motion by Dr.Rick Bonart regarding the Rio Bosque.  In gist it directs President and CEO John Balliew to pursue, design and construct a pipeline to the Rio Bosque and, at the same time, get a change in the permit from the TCEQ which will allow treated effluent and reclaimed water from the Bustamante plant to be conveyed directly to the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park.  What the motion does in effect is allow a new relationship not just with the Bosque but also with the Water District so that the Bosque can get water in the future.

In addition the PSB awarded a contract to Sanders/Wingo Advertising agency to begin a media campaign for conservation and sustainability and directed staff to create a public service campaign for the same.

All in all, PSB is on the path of sustainability and conservation and matters such as potable reuse are on the table.

Good things also happened at the Open Space Advisory Board meeting today. OSAB's chief role is to recommend to City Council which lands can be preserved in their natural state using 10% of the stormwater fee.  The land must also have a stormwater function which our arroyos definitely do.  At the top of OSAB's priority list for land to be acquired is Avispa Canyon on the northwest side of the mountains.  Today Mr. Stanley Jobe sought approval of a plan which puts Avispa canyon west of the State Park under a conservation easement at his expense.  In return the City Mr. Jobe is asking that the City rezone land which he privately owns to allow quarrying as part of his northwest operations. A motion to accept this proposal passed 3 to 2.  At the top of OSAB's priority list, Avispa Canyon will be preserved in its natural state and not one penny of the open space money will be spent.  That money can be used for other acquisitions.

Finally, and this item has nothing to do with the sustainability and conservation issues of the El Paso region.  However, it has everything to do with the one human characteristic which must be sustained or no other effort for sustainability in other areas will have a chance or even a meaning.  I am speaking about the human spirit - that thing or process or characteristic which attracts us with awe to mystery, to the unknown, to things unseen but certainly experienced.  Without a healthy spirituality, no other human pursuit is possible or worthwhile.  So it was with tearful gladness that today Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina - a man who rides a bus rather than being chauffeured and cooks his own meals rather than be catered - was elected Pope and took the name of Francis - the simple 12th century saint who did indeed rebuild a broken church which had lost its soul.  Francis gave us this prayer:

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life."

March 13, 2013: a great day . . . a really great day.

Is the PSB's Proposed Land Use Policy Good for Enjoying Open Space?

Those of us who care about the environment, open space and habitat often attend El Paso City Council meetings. Indeed we should. What we have been missing are the regular meetings of the Public Service Board. Because the PSB manages vast areas of land in El Paso, West Texas and New Mexico; and, since the advent of the stormwater fee, they have the charge to procure more open space, the decisions they make are critical. Their meetings, agendas and decisions should get top priority on our radar screens and contact management programs.

Tomorrow’s regular meeting is a case in point. The PSB will consider the adoption of a Land Use Policy – one which may be restricting unused land (land not set in use as ranch or storm water infrastructure for instance) from use by the public. Remember: the land is our land. The money they manage is our money. By dodging what seems to be a fiduciary responsibility for maintenance and by saying some land can have trails and other land cannot even if it is understood to be land that is only temporarily open space, portions of unused open space can be said to be restricted – not to be used by responsible recreational users even though, as it now seems, poachers and illegal dumpers may have unfettered right-of-way.

Although the policy mentions that laws against littering, theft (poaching of plants and rocks for landscaping for example) and illegal dumping will be enforced, one has to wonder because those laws are not being enforced now. Indeed, when such a crime was reported recently with clear evidence to track down the perpetrators, nothing was done. Yet, the policy suggests that none of the 10% of stormwater fees will be used at any time for maintenance or recreational matters. Note to PSB: We already hike and mountain bike our land, and many, who do so, work hard to maintain and keep trails and surrounding areas clean. Isn’t is a fiduciary responsibility to strictly enforce rules against poaching and illegal dumping? Isn’t it a fiduciary responsibility to maintain this land even if that means an easy contract with recreational associations who care.

What the policy may really be saying is that an arbitrary decision by some at PSB determines what is and is not open space. (Land that is open space can be so in perpetuity or temporarily.) What the policy may also be revealing is that funds will be spent down rather than managed so that, instead of the preservation and maintenance of the maximum acreage of open space, those funds will be spent down to limit that acreage so that more can be sold and developed. It’s a game of profit not of preservation. All of this may not be the case. However, it would be great to have all the cards laid out on the table so that, we the people, can know the concerns and plans of the PSB. Transparency should trump paternalism.

One last thought: wouldn’t it be nice to spend just a little bit of that stormwater fee to build attractive trailheads with some nice amenities such as bathrooms and a water fountain and inviting parking? It would be, if places such as the Palisades truly are the “gem” and “the Central Park of El Paso” as CEO Ed Archuleta has said. When our money is spent down rather than leveraged and managed so more can be purchased, one wonders what the hidden agenda or the concern may be. Wouldn’t it be better to work together and do big things?

El Paso and El Pasoans Deserve the Best

Public Service Board member, Dr. Rick Bonart, copied me on an email this morning to Mr. Ed Archuleta, the President and CEO of the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board. The context for Rick's email was the El Paso Times positive story this morning about the Palisades. He makes the point that having lovely open space areas for recreation such as the Palisades is more than just a need - it is a must and that the Public Service Board should take the lead. El Paso has long been hampered by a mindset that we don't deserve the best of amenities. The attitude is changing . . . but there still seems to be resistance.

Here is the text of Dr. Bonart's message:

To all,

I was very happy to see the article in today's paper regarding the Palisades.

Ultimately, I hope we share a common goal: to provide El Pasoans with usable open space and associated amenities like those I've experience in other cities.

The black letter of the law allows the 10% storm water funds to be spent on facilities, trails, etc. as long as there is a storm water nexus. 'The Capital Plan shall identify storm water infrastructure projects ( including land acquisitions) which may have the potential dual purposes of stormwater management and preservation of the City’s open spaces . . . '

Since inception, the PSB has been charged with land management. As we purchase open space and accept open space easements, we need to manage these properties for their intended purpose. Considering cost, legislative effort, and location, it is unlikely that every parcel (if any) of acquired open space will be suitable for transfer to the State Park. Fallow lands have recreational value and as fiduciaries we must maximize those opportunities.

We have all the tools at hand. We have the money! The proposed projects are fully vetted. Maintenance of the trails will be done by the users who created and currently groom them. Operation & Maintenance of correctly designed facilities will be miniscule in the context of our other responsibilities.

El Paso has long suffered from a pathologic self deprecating attitude. Our Mantra: 'We are a poor community that can't afford . . .'

Unfortunately, I feel some resistance inches from the goal [" to provide El Pasoans with usable open space and associated amenities . . . "]

Perhaps it's fear of change or fear of success?

This is not just an opportunity - it's a need for the PSB to lead and allow our community to enjoy some long overdue treats.

It's OK we deserve it.

Please pass this along.

Rick

Signage at the Lost Dog Wash Trail is nicely designed

What are examples of some recreational treats? Moab, Utah provides areas not only for mountain bikers but for 4 wheelers. The Lost Dog Wash Trail of Scottsdale, Arizona is a well-maintained and signed open space used for recreation.

The Summerlin Community in Las Vegas shows that homes can be built and beautiful natural open space can be kept and enjoyed rather than turning magnificent arroyos into concrete channels awaiting the vandalism of taggers. (Definitely take time to visit the Summerlin web site and "take the tours".)

Dr. Bonart is right. El Pasoans deserve the very best. The significance of the Palisades is that we stand on the verge of a new age if we can just get beyond the resistance of a few.

Thank You, Stanley Jobe

The Public Service Board unanimously voted to allow CEO, Ed Archuleta, to sign an access easement with the Texas General Land Office for a portion of the land leased by Jobe Materials. That small area includes Arroyo 41A as it leaves the State Park. In essence, it preserves a very beautiful part of that arroyo. (There is one hitch: the GLO wants a $2 million dollar bond for insurance. The fact is that PSB has such protection and, the motion to accept the easement also asked Mr. Archuleta to negotiate with the GLO to waive that requirement. Let's hope that works out and we aren't back to some square one.)

Here's how the deal went down: Representative Ann Morgan Lilly (thank you, thank you, thank you) simply asked Mr. Jobe if he would grant such an easement. Mr. Jobe did not hesitate. He was not reticent. He did not have to be cajoled or offered a quid pro quo. He simply said "yes". His motivation could have been the price of doing business or corporate PR and good corporate citizenship - but it really seems to be the case that he did it because he too wanted to preserve that arroyo. He did not have to make such an agreement nor did he have to pay for the surveying to create the easement out of his own pocket - but he did.

What he did sets the standard and raises the bar for all of those who will be developing down stream. If Stanley Jobe can preserve the arroyo in its natural state, why can't everyone else?The Mountain to River Trail preserved in toto will be a huge asset to the City of El Paso.

But there is more to thank Mr. Jobe for. I don't know the exact current figures, but what I'm about ready to say I'm sure is consistent with any statistics. Jobe adds millions of dollars to the El Paso economy each year. He employs hundreds of people. I'm sure his sales figures must be in the hundreds of millions - which is a boost to our economy and a help to our government services through taxes he pays and sales and other taxes his customers and employees pay. Because he has strategically placed his mining operations in areas where El Paso is expanding, he can be competitive and offer materials at a reasonable price. (A large part of the price of rock, gravel, cement, etc. is transportation. He has minimized this.)

I will continue to write that tearing into the mountains at the rate that we are is not sustainable, desirable nor good. But, as I've said before, do we point a finger at Mr. Jobe who fills a demand, or do we do some sober reflection about our demands? Sustainable living isn't going to start with severely restricting quarrying. Sustainability begins with each and every one of us living, planning, deciding more sustainably. If I want the freedom to drive my own car on highways that are in good repair and can accommodate all of us who practice that same freedom . . . if I want to live in a bigger house or build better schools or more places to shop . . . then I had better accept the fact that my demand must be met in a free market economy.

I do think that we, as individuals, businesses and governments, can live more conservatively and that we should in order to be good stewards of our environment and ecosystem. I do think that there are wiser choices in building, developing, engineering, landscaping, etc. and that El Paso is only now beginning to become aware of these better practices.

If Mr. Jobe engages in unfair trade or violates environmental rules, then that is one thing. (I'm not saying that he is.) I do think that it is a huge stretch to raise money for a Commissioner whose agency grants his company leases - it's an ethical problem for Jobe and an ethical problem for Jerry Patterson no matter what the law says or permits. Perhaps that is the price of doing business - but it is also fodder for self-reflection and I say this knowing I have a plethora of things to do some soul searching about just on my own.

The main point is that Jobe Materials is creating wealth that benefits all of us. If we are willing to live with less (and, again, I think that we should personally contemplate the morality of our lifestyles), then the demand on our natural resources and the environmental cost will be less - not because we compelled someone to make it so for us, but because we were willing to make it so ourselves.

I often quote the 18th Century American Quaker, John Woolman: “May we look upon our treasures, the furniture of our houses, and our garments, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions.” I could paraphrase that and say: "May we look upon our treasures, our houses, our cars, all of our throwaways, and try whether the seeds of environmental destruction have nourishment in these our possessions." Afterall, we are responsible for our own behavior. We don't need scapegoats.

This is also why I like the approach of Quaker Earthcare Witness. It is "a network of Friends (Quakers) in North America and other like-minded people who are taking spirit led action to address the ecological and social crises of the world from a spiritual perspective . . . While QEW supports reforms in laws, technology, education, and institutions, its primary calling is to facilitate transformation of humans' attitudes, values, identity, and worldview that underlie much of the environmental destruction going on in the world today."

One last word about today's PSB meeting. Board member, Dr. Rick Bonart, pointed out that 3 of the 7 principle agenda items were about open space. "El Paso," he said, "has come a long way."

PSB to Vote on Access Easement over Arroyo 41A

Arroyo 41A, Mountain to River Trail, with boundaries of Jobe lease in yellow

Click to enlarge

There are two important meetings tomorrow: the regular meeting of the Public Service Board and the general meeting of the local chapter of the Sierra Club.

Once Arroyo 41A leaves the mountain at the Franklin Mountains State Park, a small portion of it goes through the General Land Office area now leased to Jobe Materials for quarrying. Of course, 41A is the key mountain to river trail identified in the City of El Paso Open Space master plan. Through the efforts of El Paso City Council Representative, Ann Morgan Lilly, Mr. Jobe has agreed to preserve that portion of Arroyo 41A. The Public Service Board is scheduled to vote on signing an access easement from the General Land Office that will preserve the arroyo tomorrow (May 26) at its regular meeting at 9 a.m. in the Public Service Board Meeting Room at 1154 Hawkins Boulevard.

"Palisades Nature Preserve Park"

Click to enlarge

Another item on the PSB agenda tomorrow will be the development of a Joint Use Agreement with the City of El Paso for management of the Palisades Nature Preserve Park. This is the newly acquired property on the southwestern tip of the Franklins with an entrance off of Robinson as it curves toward Scenic Drive. Most of you know the place. The idea is to share the management with the City of El Paso Parks and Recreation Department. However, there is some concern that the Parks and Rec does not have the expertise and that PSB should manage it alone with the help of experienced hiker/mountain biker volunteers. The Billy Rogers Arroyo Park is adjacent to Palisades and is under Parks and Rec. However, if it weren’t for the Environmental Club at Loretto Academy and Keep El Paso Beautiful, nothing would be done to maintain and manage the park.

Parks and Recreation is strapped with a tight budget now. At best, they could merely add Palisades to their inventory and nothing more. Currently, the trails in the Palisades are well-established and could be maintained with the help from local bicycle and hiking groups.

PSB has a solid record of performance when it comes to management. There is no reason to share the management of the Palisades with the Parks and Recreation Department which can't handle that now or for the foreseeable future anyway.

Finally, the local El Paso chapter of the Sierra Club is meeting tomorrow in the auditorium at the Downtown Main Public Library. Texas Parks and Wildlife Superintendent John Moses will speak about the Franklin Mountains State Park - Present and Future.

Update on Arroyo 41A and the Lower Sunset Trail

Arroyo 41A from Picnic Area 39

Last week the Franklin Mountains Park Superintendent, Mr. Cesar Mendez, took me and several other people on a hike on those portions of the new Lower Sunset Trail that are now completed.

Our hike began at Picnic Area 39 in the Tom Mays Unit. That area overlooks Arroyo 41A. The new trail begins by going down toward the arroyo and then winding west and south to that portion of the Lower Sunset that is in the State Park. The other portion, of course, was destroyed by Jobe's bulldozers.

Click to enlarge image. You are looking west toward GLO land. The clear path was created by Jobe's bulldozer. You can see the Jobe "No Trespassing" sign. Arroyo 41A is to the left (south) of the picture. The buffer should run somewhere along here past the hill in the foreground. That hill and hundreds of other acres will be no more once the quarry operation begins. To the left (north) of the picture is where the old Lower Sunset Trail crossed Mile Marker 6 and Arroyo 42 back up to the trail to the entrance of Shaeffer Shuffle. Many mountain bikers and environmentalists would also like to see that area preserved as well. That path was actually the originally proposed Mountain to River Trail as these maps reveal. At this time, Mr. Jobe is adamant that he will not grant an easement of that area as well.

We then retraced our steps and some of the hikers continued on a different fork not far below the picnic area. That fork skirts some beautiful limestone cliffs above another arroyo. It eventually will hook up with the Avispa/Lower Sunset Trail and return to the park up the steep hill just past Schaeffer Shuffle.

Mark Johns walks a portion of the new Lower Sunset that will hook-up with the trail to Schaeffer Shuffle

All agreed that the new trail layout will make for a beautiful hike. Although disappointed by Mr. Jobe's planned destruction of the land leased to him by the Texas General Land Office, everyone agreed that the new trail would be even better than the older trail. Tommy Young exclaimed: "My overall impression was WOW! It will be fantastic when completed."

WOW!

So where do things stand with Arroyo 41A Go here and here to read about Jobe's plan to grant an easement to the Public Service Board and create a buffer between the arroyo and his future quarry. At his expense, Stanley Jobe agreed to survey the area to the north of the Arroyo where an the buffer will go. The GLO must approve the easement and the survey before it can be submitted to the PSB.

I asked Mr. Jobe whether the survey had been completed and whether I could see a copy of the survey. He replied by email and a phone call and told me that the survey had been done. Once the GLO approves the plan, he will submit it to Representative Ann Lilly who will take it to the PSB. He declined to show me a copy of the survey until after the GLO approves it. I did not push the matter but will ask him again in a month, if I hear nothing back from him.

Another Open Space Plan Moves Closer to Implementation

Click to enlarge

Another recommendation of the City Council approved Open Space plan is now closer to being implemented. Clearly stated in Chapter 6 (An Implementation Plan) is this: "The rezoning of all the currently undeveloped lands that do not have approved master plans or land studies to the Rural Farm (RF) zoning category should occur immediately." The Open Space Plan was adopted in 2007. It is now 2010. About time.

At the December 28, 2009 meeting of the Open Space Advisory Board, motions were made and passed unanimously to recommend the "down-zoning" to the Legislative Review Committee for Planning and Development as well as to the City Council.

The LRC met yesterday and heard presentations. Of course, staffer Pat Adauto, argued against the down-zoning. (Tell me again why there are staff members who oppose the vision and approved plans of City Council even working for the City.) The PSB also opposed down-zoning.

Representative O'Rourke moved and Representative Byrd seconded a motion to recommend down-zoning to the full City Council. The vote was 3 to 1 in favor and that 3 to 1 was something of a surprise: Representative Quintana's was the third affirmative vote whereas Representative Lilly's was the "no" vote.

The proposal now goes to City Council. It does not appear to be on the agenda for the upcoming February 2 meeting of Council.

Open Space Board Chairman, Charlie Wakeem, sent this message to board members following yesterday's LRC meeting:

"I went to the Planning LRC today for the item on down-zoning PSB land to R-F (Ranch-Farm) that the Board voted unanimously to recommend. This was the Chapter 6, A-1 recommendation in the Open Space Plan. In spite of opposition by staff and the water utilities, the Planning LRC voted 3-1 to recommend the downzoning with conditions to the full City Council. It may be on the Council agenda as soon as next Tuesday. I'll keep you posted."

PSB Votes to Purchase Palisades Canyon

Dr. Rick Bonart being sworn as new member of the Public Service Board

PSB CEO, Mr. Ed Archuleta, called Palisades Canyon "our central park in El Paso . . . our gateway to the Franklin Mountains . . . a jewel." In his review of the proposal to purchase the 202 acres for $2,465,000 ($12,203/acre), he stressed that time is of the essence and that the property should have been purchased decades ago. After an initial price of over $5million dollars five years ago, Archuleta agrees that the price is fair and he voiced confidence in the appraisal. He said that the purchase is one of the priorities of the City's Open Space Master Plan.

Avid hiker, Risher Gilbert, also expressed that time is of the essence. A commercial real estate attorney, she emphasized the need to work with the current 11 individuals who own the canyon rather than wait for their interests and estates to be scattered eventually among heirs - many who are out of town. She, along with Jack Maxon and others, have worked hard for the preservation of the Palisades for many years now.

Nearly 40 members of the environmental/conservation community were in attendance

The meeting was attended by over 40 members of the environmental and conservation community. Several of them spoke in favor of the purchase including Open Space Advisory Board Chairman, Charlie Wakeem, and Frontera Land Alliance President, Mike Gaglio.

Mr. Wakeem raised a concern that it would be better to amortize the loan over several years so that there is more money available should other needs arise before the PSB has another 10% of stormwater fees to use for purchasing open space that has stormwater needs. After this purchase there will be just $635,000 until 2011. Mr. Wakeem was concerned that there may be a need to act on other privately-held, ecologically sensitive properties in the meantime. However, he voiced his complete support for the purchase if done outright. CEO Archuleta prefers to pay no interest.

Sierra Club President Bill Addington had an additional concern. He believed that the sale price was too high especially since only 40% of the property could ever be developed. (Palisades Canyon is created by 3 arroyos and constitutes a major watershed.)

Mr. Archuleta told the board what needs to be done after approval of the proposal: a complete boundary ground survey, a complete Phase I Environmental survey, an environmental assessment. The sellers have agreed to pay for the surveys and the closing costs. Closing, he said, was expected in 60 days.

New board member, Dr. Rick Bonart, a long-time open space and environmental activist and recent past Chairman of the Open Space Advisory Board, moved that the PSB make the purchase. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Today's meeting was also attended by Elizabeth Ferguson who hiked this area with school children as early as 1929.

More on Jobe's Proposal

There is not much more to say about the proposal beyond what Mr. Wakeem said in his email to members of the Open Space Advisory Board on Wednesday night.

Mr. Jobe proposes to turn over that portion of his leased land that contains Arroyo 41A to the PSB. He stated that he will leave a buffer between the quarry and the north rim of the arroyo thus preserving the arroyo from rim to rim. The GLO will have to agree to grant an easement to PSB and the PSB will have to agree to take it.

At his expense, Mr. Jobe will survey the area in question. That survey will take two to three months. Rim to rim with a buffer is critical. So, where the final stakes are laid is very important to those who want to see the Mountain to River Corridor preserved.

If the PSB agrees to take the land, then they will preserve it in its natural state.

Whether Mr. Jobe was motivated by a sense of public duty or pride (and he didn’t have to be) can not be known. Some have suggested that, by ceding 41A, he will not be required in the future to go through the kind of permitting that will involve public comment. Public scrutiny can be costly and he and his advisors may have thought that this proposal may be the least expense in the long run.

It might also be that there is nothing of great value to mine in and around 41A. Being magnanimous then would be an acceptable gesture. There is little chance of continuing a bike trail at Mile Marker 6 to Arroyo 42. Stanley Jobe intends to mine that area. Anyone who has hiked or biked this area knows the solid limestone bedrock that is there.

Whatever reasons Mr. Jobe may have for making his proposal, it doesn’t matter. That the Mountain to River corridor will be preserved does matter.

Of course, not all are happy and many want to see more land left unquarried or no land mined at all. I know that efforts to oppose quarrying on this piece of land owned by the People of Texas next to the Franklin Mountains State Park will continue.

Nevertheless, if Jobe truly grants an easement from rim to rim and provides a real buffer, then there ought to be cause for some celebration among conservationists.

There is much more here than Stanley Jobe. Our mountains (Franklins and Huecos) will continue to be eaten up as long as we demand “zero-scapes” of rock for our homes, our streets, our businesses and our commercial and public building landscapes. As long as the City fails to contain sprawl and encourages it by keeping all aspects of building cheap, there will be a demand for mined materials.

Few may know it, but GLO’s lease of the quarry now operated by Cemex at McKelligon Canyon goes all the way to the amphitheater in the canyon itself. Viva El Paso!

Until recently, the Open Space Advisory Board had little authority to accomplish the mission of preserving land. There are those who still resent the added duties given to OSAB by City Council and want to thwart OSAB’s efforts. Games were played with the last agenda. They will be played again.

Learning to live sustainably needs to become the norm. We live in a City whose landscapers are mostly rock spreaders and tree toppers. Sand is so cheap that we don’t even think about recycling glass when we should be.

Bottom line: if we want to preserve our mountains, if we want fewer quarries and less mining, than we had better change ourselves and how we relate to this still beautiful and sacred land here in the Chihuahuan Desert.

Jobe's Proposal for Arroyo 41 A

I will follow up with more later. For now, here is this communication by email from Charlie Wakeem, Chairman of the Open Space Advisory Board regarding a meeting this afternoon with Mr. Stanley Jobe. Mr. Jobe made his proposal regarding Arroyo 41A which must be agreed to by the General Land Office of the State of Texas and the Public Service Board. It was sent to the Board members with a copy to Parks and Recreation persons: Shamori Whitt, Nanette Smejkal and Rick Garcia; Gonzallo Cedillos of the El Paso Water Utilities who sits ex-officio on the OSAB; City Council Representatives Representatives Ann Lilly, Susie Byrd and Beto O'Rourke; Matt McElroy of the City of El Paso; Ed Archuleta, CEO of PSB; and Stanley Jobe:

Dear OSAB members,

Reps. Ann Morgan-Lilly, Susie Byrd, and Beto O'Rourke met with Stanley Jobe, Ed Archuleta, Mathew McElroy, OSAB co-chair Richard Thomas and me Wednesday afternoon to discuss Mr. Jobe's offer to vacate a portion of FEMA Arroyo 41A on his leased premises with the GLO. He is willing to vacate the 41A flowpath on that property up to the rim directly above it as recommended by the Open Space Advisory Board, and as I understood it, would include a buffer. He stated that the quarry operations will not affect the Mountain to River corridor in any way.

First, the GLO must agree to dedicate the land as an easement to the PSB and the PSB must be willing to accept it. Mr. Jobe will then survey the property. When the stakes are laid out, there will be an on site inspection by the PSB and others with interest in the property to deem it worthy of accepting.

I am very optimistic that an agreement will be reached for the good of the community and all concerned, and that Mr. Jobe should be commended for doing this. I also thank Rep. Ann Morgan-Lilly for working with Mr. Jobe during the past few weeks to help facilitate it.

Charlie Wakeem

Chairman

Open Space Advisory Board

Is Sustainability a Goal or Just Words?

The City Council of El Paso recently approved a sustainability plan. The mission plan is:

"By 2014, El Paso will be a model of sustainability and smart growth by building on its roots as an international hub, promoting sustainable enterprises and wisely using natural resources."

2014 may be too far away. Judging by the overuse of rock and gravel in private and public landscapes all over the City, the possible overbuilding of public facilities and Jobe's plan to quarry next to the largest intra-urban State Park in the country, El Paso is far from wisely using natural resources.

One wonders whether master plans such as the Sustainability document are not just words. After all, Arroyo 41A was designated to be preserved as the Mountain to River corridor. Once the General Land Office leased property containing a portion of that arroyo to Jobe Materials, public officials acted much like ostriches with their heads in the ground. Now that Stanley Jobe has made it abundantly clear that he intends to quarry all 480 acres, City officials say that there is nothing that they can do - City zoning laws apparently do not apply to State of Texas land managed by the GLO even if that land is within the city's limits.

Recently, Public Service Board/EPWU officials proposed an Alternative route for the Mountain to River Trail. One of the top officials of the EPWU told me that they had decided on the route once they realized that Jobe intended to mine limestone in Arroyo 41A. The implication was that the realization was fairly recent. However, they must have known that he would do so when they gave him access to the land. By law you can't landlock someone else and so El Paso Water Utilities had to grant Jobe an easement through their property to the GLO land and did so on May 20, 2005.

It would appear that EPWU/PSB officials have known for a number of years now that a portion of the proposed Mountain to River corridor could very well be mined. If they knew, then shouldn't the City Council also have known? After all, Mayor Cook is a board member of the PSB. If City Council knew so early on, what was the point of accepting in its entirety the January 2007 Open Space plan ("Towards a Bright Future: A Green Infrastructure Plan for El Paso, Texas") that called for preserving all of Arroyo 41A?

Click on image to enlarge

The alternative route is the light blue line on the map above. Note that only a small - yet critical - portion of 41A goes through the very bottom of the GLO land leased to Jobe. One wonders why pressure cannot be applied from elected and other officials and the public at large to make Jobe forsake that small portion of land. If sustainability and the wise use of resources is the goal, why not start right here?

Of course, there is yet another threat to Arroyo 41A a bit west of the GLO/Jobe Quarry: the Desert Springs development currently plans reducing the 1200 foot arroyo to just 120 feet, concreting the sides and building some roads over it in several places. To say that the developer's plans may be grandfathered so that he doesn't have to comply to codes requiring keeping the arroyo to at least 300 feet, is still missing the larger point that El Paso envisions one thing and does another.

An insider recently informed me:

"Individual City staff may or may not be in favor of "economic development" as exemplified by Jobe and the homebuilders' style of growth. The staff is mainly concerned with staying out of trouble, and the developers can make big trouble if any legal boundaries are crossed.

"The zoning and subdivision codes are the legal tools that have to be followed. The developers worked very hard to ensure that those codes were "vetted" by their own lawyers, lobbyists and friends before they were adopted by the City. If the land is zoned for whatever the developer wants, the law allows them to do it. If it's not zoned for what they want the law allows them to request a zone change and the Council can grant it.

"The Open Space plan and the General Land Use Plan are legally just "guides" to decision making by the Council, so they can approve zoning that is not in conformity with the Plans. (There is actually some legal precedent for holding Councils more accountable to such plans, but it is rare in Texas. There may be some precedent on the GLO immunity issue as well, but of course not from Texas.)

"Botttom line- the developers have the law on their side in most cases and there is too much apathy to try to change the laws again. (Look at the all the fighting over the subdivision code rewrite last year that resulted in nothing more than some very minor changes.)"

If El Paso wants to make sustainability and the wise use of resources its goal, it must begin to stand up and, at the very least, use the bully pulpit, or even more, grow a backbone and start standing up legally to those who would destroy riparian corridors and thus cheapen all of our lives and fortunes.