Positive News on Water Management from UTEP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click on image to enlarge.

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

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

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


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


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

More Musings about the Communications Committee Meeting

Here are some more thoughts about this past Monday's PSB Communications Meeting and not necessarily in order of importance or whatever:

First, more and more and more I am liking Mayor Oscar Leeser. It's not just that he defended freedom of speech which, in the context of the PSB/EPWU, was the anti-institutional thing to do, he defended it charmingly. In fact, every time that I observe him I appreciate his attempts to make sure that everyone saves face and that a consensus is reached happily more often than not. He likes people and that shows. He's obviously very, very bright but keeps the common touch. I could go on and on. Paraphrasing Roberta: My Mayor is such a good Mayor.

On the other hand, Chairman S is supercilious, condescending, dismissive of others and their opinions - well - enough said for now except to let him know that the other adults at the table are not graduate students for him to ... enough said.

The PSB needs their own attorney. Andron is the attorney for the EPWU. In fact, the EPWU really needs a huge changeover - get the Archuleta people out of there now. Hand out those gold watches.

Lisa Turner has been my hero many times at City Council. I was surprised and delighted to see her at the PSB meeting the other day. She spoke eloquently about the freedom of speech and against prior restraint of that freedom. Err in favor of transparency, she said. (It was fun to watch Chairman S turn beet red and redder.) But she made two other very important points:

When institutions forge such policies, they raise the questions: What are they hiding? What's the cover-up? Elpasonaturally has been speaking about this from the beginning. Policies such as the one that Chairman S has attempted to foist on the board is always written at a time of losing control and power. It is a means to shut up any opposing views so that policy is actually formulated behind closed doors, cotton candied, and fed to boards of people who don't think through issues well enough because they trust the institutional authorities to do their thinking for them. Ms. Turner didn't say all of this - I'm elaborating.

The other great point she brought up was one I will probably return to again and again from now on. She mentioned Attorney General Mattox's Opinion JM-1071 regarding executive sessions and freedom of speech. Read the opinion.

Here are the salient points:

"We interpret subsection 2A(h) as applying only to the records of executive sessions which governmental bodies are required to keep pursuant to section 2A of the act. It does not prohibit persons who are present at the executive session from afterwards talking about the subject matter of the session. Accordingly, we need not reach the first amendment issue."

"Members of a governmental body may not participate in a closed meeting knowing that a certified agenda is not being kept or a tape recording is not being made. Id. s 2A(g). These requirements cannot be rationally applied to speech occurring after the meeting."

"In our opinion, subsection 2A(h) bars the release of such records, and does not prevent members of the governmental body from talking about their recollections of the subject matter of the executive session."

And the summary:

"Subsection 2A(h) of article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., the Texas Open Meetings Act, applies to the certified agenda or tape recording kept as a record of an executive session. It does not prohibit members of a governmental body or other persons in attendance at an executive session from making public statements about the subject matter of that session."

Emphases mine. Victory for the freedom of speech. Take your official spokespeople and shove it in my humble opinion. One wants all the good information that the VP of Communications has to give out. Much of what the EPWU is doing is great and I value Ms. Montoya spreading the good news. But we must have balance. We forget that, when we were engaged in a debate about land to be preserved in the scenic corridor, then CEO Ed Archuleta had a PR video made that was full of disinformation about the PSB and its role as land manager. Anyone - a citizen or a board member - should fearlessly refute anything that the "officials" put out that is not true. That is a fiduciary responsiblitly. That is the moral thing to do. 

Read more about executive sessions and the pertinent rules for conducting those sessions.

Committee Wordsmiths Communications Policy

The First Amendment rights of press and speech were the themes of today's Communications Committee meeting. That theme was loudly heard from Mayor Leeser and Dr. Bonart and most particularly from the conscience of El Paso, Lisa Turner. David Crowder, a reporter for the El Paso Inc., also spoke out about the nuances of speech and press. The meeting did not go well for Chairman Shoephoerster who turned beet red and got darker and darker as Lisa Turner spoke eloquently about the first amendment. Bob Andron was remarkably silent and seemed to fumble about when asked for opinions. 

3 critical changes were made to the document: first, rather than saying members shall direct questions to PSB/EPWU officials, it was agreed to say that they are encouraged to direct inquiries to the CEO, Chairman of the Board and/or VP of Communications and Marketing. Second, Bonart's sentence that members, as representatives of the public, the utility and the ratepayers, have every right to express opinions was added. Third, another sentence (at Bonart's suggestion) makes clear that at all meetings members of the public shall be allowed to speak to any agenda item. 

Shoephoerster failed to allow a vote on one motion that had a second. Mayor Leeser thought that the policy should just be torn up. Dr. Bonart seconded. The Chairman said that they were there to wordsmith - I guess wordsmithing doesn't mean just saying nothing.

The fact is that Shoephoerster had a bad day. At the tail end of the meeting a gentleman formerly a member of the City Plan Commission spoke that only the Chairman of the Board could speak after a vote and, after a vote, everyone just shuts up and board members are different from elected officials - a matter already impeached earlier in the meeting. Of course, after he spoke, Chairman Shoephoerster said that he couldn't agree more. Also earlier the Chair said that City Council members giving public meetings was self-serving to get re-elected. One is reminded of his earlier wisdom that a vacant lot with a paved parking lot is a natural arroyo. I think it is time for us to publish "The Sayings of Chairman S". They are so rich.

I'll have more to say about this matter in the next post or two especially about the eloquent words of Ms. Turner. Keep in mind that the matter of a policy is not over. I suspect that Shoephoerster will try to rally the more reactionary members of the PSB to change the document yet again at the next PSB meeting. I would prefer that the PSB just tear up the document and let it go. At this point, it may be better to go ahead with the communications policy thus drafted today. At least it makes it clear that there is a First Amendment, board members do have a duty to the citizens of El Paso, and public interaction is desireable.

More on the Proposed PSB Gag Rule

To refresh your memory read the draft of the proposed PSB gag rule communications policy found embedded in an earlier post.

Remember that the gag rule communications policy is the result of the failure to approve a water project for UTEP that was to be largely subsidized by rate payers. Keep in mind that the project was in essence a gift from the utility to UTEP - a violation of rules governing a utility. As a result of that failure Engineering Dean and Chairman of the PSB, Richard Schoephoerster wanted board approval of a "communications" policy drawn up by previous Chair, Ed Escudero, but never ratified by the PSB. The attempt to ramrod the UTEP project through the board had been preempted by another board member, Dr. Rick Bonart, who alerted the press. The gag order is meant to keep board members from preventing "official", "in-house", "good old boys" from getting their way.

At the November meeting of the PSB, both EPWU Attorney Bob Andron and Chairman Schoephoerster claimed that there is a distinction between elected officials and appointed officials. They were attempting to rebut the argument that, since any City Council representative can speak to the press at any time, their appointments can do the same. Unfortunately, the interpretation of law says quite the opposite.

First, the IRS makes no distinction between elected and appointed officials. In their document on classification of elected and appointed officials they give this list of examples:

"Examples of public officers are: the President and the Vice President; a governor or mayor; the secretary of state; a member of a legislative body, such as a state legislature, county commission, city counsel, school board, utility or hospital district; a judge, a justice of the peace, a county or city attorney, a marshal, a sheriff, a constable and a registrar of deeds; tax collectors and assessors; and members of advisory boards and committees."

The emphases are mine but you get the point.

Now read about municipal judges in Texas here. It reveals: "Most municipal judges are appointed by the governing body of the municipality (e.g., a city council), although a few are elected." In El Paso County we elect our municipal judges; but we are the exception not the rule. Whether appointed or elected, municipal judges have the same duties and responsibilities and are held to the same standards.

It is ridiculous to believe that PSB members, because they are appointed, should have a different relationship and interface with the public and the media. The real issue here is a little thing called the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which guarantees freedom of speech and press. 

There is still one final reason why we must make sure that our PSB members are not gagged by the Shoephoerster-Andron Gag Rule (which I will henceforth call it). The PSB has a unique relationship with the citizens and City of El Paso. They are not just in charge of water and stormwater utilities. We have empowered them with the management of our land. Our Land - not anyone else's land and they are fiduciaries of it. In and of itself, this managerial responsibility of our land means that they are directly responsible not just to City Council but to you and to me, citizens of the City of El Paso. We should expect our land managers to have every right to speak out to the press and to us and not to be hampered by a gag rule.

Dr. Bonart has written a more positive policy - a real communications policy. Read it. It needs some tweaking but it is will lead to transparent governance and land management and not to good-old-boy style of internal control such as the one that has long been in place at the PSB/EPWU. One that operates behind closed doors in total disregard of the public and operates in a paternalistic, oligarchic style.

The Communications Committee will meet this Monday, December 2, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. at the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board Meeting Room, 1154 Hawkins Boulevard, El Paso, Texas to deliberate on the proposed Shoephoerster-Andron Gag Rule or to serve the public and recommend one more like Bonart's. This is a public meeting. Please attend if you can.

Catching Up: PSB Communications Policy

Read the history of the gag rule

I last wrote about the PSB's gag rule communications policy here. David Crowder reported about the contentious November meeting of the PSB in an El Paso Inc. story. I was at that meeting and spoke out against the gag rule communications policy reminding board members that it sprang from the failure of Dr. Shoephoerster to get approval of a water project at UTEP - a project that would have been funded by ratepayers. Shoephoerster called my allegation "untruthful" but the facts speak for themselves. I also took Bob Andron, EPWU attorney, to task for taking the communications policy into the closed doors of executive session in the beginning. (Shouldn't the PSB have their own attorney?)

Mayor Leeser again saved the day and the matter was kicked into a committee. 

The Chair has called a meeting of the Public Service Board Gag Rule Communications Committee to be held on Monday, December 2, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. at the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board Meeting Room, 1154 Hawkins Boulevard, El Paso, Texas. This is a public meeting. I might just wear a gag when I attend.

Meet PSB Board Applicants Tuesday November 12th 6 to 7:30 PM

PSB Member, Dr. Richard Bonart, and CEO John Balliew discuss the communications policy - a.k.a. gag rule

The terms for the Consumer/Citizen Advocacy and Environmental/Health seats on the PSB expire at the end of 2013 and the process for appointing persons to fill those seats has begun.

Currently, Dr. Richard Bonart is the Consumer/Citizen Advocacy member of the PSB and Richard Schoephoerster is the Environmental/Health member. Both have submitted applications to serve again. Elpasonaturally is calling for the resignation of Schoephoerster because he used his position on the board to attempt to procure a special project for UTEP where he serves as Dean of Engineering.

On Tuesday, November 12th from 6 to 7:30 p.m. the public will have the opportunity to meet the applicants for both seats. The meeting will be held in the Commissioner's Room of the El Paso County Court House (500 East San Antonio Avenue) courtesy of Judge Veronica Escobar.

The meeting has been called "an evening of civic transparency and inclusion" - quite a concept for the PSB that is currently looking at a draft for a new communications policy that restricts board members from exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and, in effect, attempts to prohibit the news media from exercising their right of freedom of the press. (See attached draft below.)

That communications policy along with a discussion of the progress toward getting water to the Rio Bosque is also on the agenda for Tuesday evening.

The moderator will be School Board member and former City Representative Susie Byrd.

The meeting is not a PSB/EPWU sponsored event, nor is it a requirement of the application process. Participation is purely voluntary

Parking is available in the County parking garage on Overland Street or on-street.

A Selection Committee consisting of persons appointed by City Council members and the current PSB will meet on Tuesday, November 19th to review candidate applications and to recommend to City Council their top three candidates for each seat. On December 10th the City Council will select the two persons to serve on the PSB for the next four years. Those two persons will be sworn in at the PSB meeting on Wednesday, January 8th.


Attachment:
Communications Policy Draft October 22, 2013

Times and Inc. Take PSB to Task

If you didn't see David Crowder's article in this weekend's Inc., you need to read it. PSB gag rule has everyone talking sums up the situation with the gag rule - the PSB Communications policy. There is no doubt that the policy was invoked by the current PSB Chair Richard Shoephoerster, abetted by Robert Andron, the legal counsel for PSB/EPWU, to get back at PSB member Bonart for bringing to light the deficiencies in the UTEP Centennial Water Plan.

Give Me a Break!

EPWU/PSB is not a private company and it is more than just a utility. We El Pasoans have asked them to manage land and stormwater as well as water and sewage. We understand that there are tough political decisions to be made about water scarcity and conservation, urban sprawl and groundwater. In other words, they are not just responsible to us for delivering a product that is safe and clean, but helping us with far greater issues of conservation and sustainability - issues that are political. Debate, doubt, discussion and dissent must be out in the open and must include the public. This is not a bad thing but a healthy thing. It is, of course, detrimental to those who like to use power without accountability.

Conflict of Interest

Richard Schoephoerster is both the Dean of the College of Engineering at UTEP and the Chairman of the Public Service Board. Recent open record requested documents clearly show a conflict of interest with regard to the UTEP Reclaimed Water Project and his role as Chairman of the PSB.

As I reported in an earlier post, my first ORR to the EPWU came up short. I made a second request. Frankly, the response to it seems to be lacking as well. Nevertheless, there are some email exchanges that demonstrate that Schoephoerster was very much engaged in inappropriate persuasion for the UTEP project and, in so doing, failed to act as a fiduciary for the PSB/EPWU, his sworn duty.

Although Shoephoerster recused himself as both Chair and voting member when the project was discussed at the PSB in August and again in September, behind the scenes he was quite active in promoting it. His enthusiasm became apparent publicly at the last EPWU strategic planning meeting when he attempted to shut down any discussion that was negative about the Centennial Park project or reclaimed water in general. Although reclaimed water is subsidized, Schoephoerster used some pretty creative sophistry to suggest that it isn't. He recused himself from voting at a PSB meeting prior to the strategic planning meeting, but was quite engaged in the discussion during strategic planning and used his position as Chair to shut down any discussion of doubts raised by PSB member, Dr. Richard Bonart. After the PSB failed to support the project at its September meeting, Schoephoerster exhibited what can only be called peevishness. He very much personally owned the issue.

In fact as shown by ORR docusments, Schoephoerster put together "talking points" for the project. His "talking points" came in the form of a resolution as if he were drafting the motion for a vote. When asked by UTEP Executive Vice President Richard Adauto why he used the form of a resolution, Dr. Schoephoerster at first quipped in an email: "Artistic license? :)" Less than 3 hours later in a follow-up email, he wrote: "I used the 'resolution' form just as a way to organize the information." Ingenuous? CYA? In that same follow-up email to Adauto, the Dean of Engineering and Chairman of the PSB added a P.S.: "David Crowder [El Paso Inc.] is doing a story in next week's Inc. He asked to speak with me but I told him I have no comment due to conflict of interest." No comment to Crowder, but a resolution to Adauto and Balliew. 

He highlights two of his "whereas clauses". In both he touts the "education opportunity to thousands [my emphasis] of UTEP students, faculty, staff and visitors annually" and states that the project "will educate thousands [again my emphasis] of students and their families, along with faculty, staff, and community stakeholders, on responsible water management including the use of reclaimed water."

Nevermind the grandiosity of the resolution, the fact that the program showed no benefit cost, was obviously going to be subsidized by ratepayers (you and me), championed a methodology (reclaimed water) which shows dubious and expensive results and says nothing about rainwater management and capture - a better strategy. What was not noted was the fact that waste (read "crap") from the project would not be recycled at UTEP but would instead go back to the NW Plant to be re-processed - a double whammy not included in the cost overruns. Oh - sorry - they didn't show any cost overruns.

Schoephoerster's resolution is rhetoric with very little sense of reality. He is promoting a program. Why? Missing in the second set of documents (and I requested communications as far back as January 2012) was any discussion of the origin of the project. We are led to believe that it just came to mind and just came to many minds at the same time.

Obviously as early as December 2012 there was some talk about justifying the Centennial Park/UTEP Water Reclamation project. An email from government relations consultant John O'Donnell to Ed Archuleta and others talks about the "[use] of reclaimed water on lands at UTEP" as "another way UTEP and EPWU collaborate to provide a water supply to benefit the University, City and Fort Bliss for environmental and economic sustainability in the high desert." The collaboration with UTEP benefits the City and Fort Bliss? How? Again a program of rainwater capture and management would be much better and more cost effective. Students at UTEP can always go to EPWU reclaimed plants off campus. 

Whatever the origin (and it would seem that it may take a court subpoena finally to get all of the relevant documents especially noting the apparent attempt by EPWU legal to shield Schoephoerster from the first request), the Dean of Engineering was very much involved in seeing that the PSB approve the project. In so doing, he was acting not as a sworn member of the PSB but as a Dean seeking a showcase project (those thousands and thousands of students and their parents). His actions would seem to violate Texas and El Paso ethics laws.

By the way, there is one more interesting twist to Schoephoerster's turning down an interview with David Crowder. An old communications policy of the EPWU/PSB states that only the Chair of the PSB, the CEO and the Vice-President of Marketing can respond to media requests. When a request is made to another board member, that member must turn the request over to the Chair, CEO and VP of Marketing. News is controlled and channeled that way. By denying an interview, Schoephoerster is attempting to shut down press coverage negative to his pet project. Crowder in a September 8, 2013 Inc. article reports on the questions raised about the UTEP project by Dr. Richard Bonart.  On the agenda for tomorrow's PSB meeting the communications policy will be discussed in executive session. Why discuss it in the privacy of executive session and not out in the open with the public present? Could this be an effort to get back at Bonart for dissenting on the UTEP project? The only reason why it would be behind closed doors and away from the public is because it may very well be a means of retaliation. Here's the policy and it needs to be abolished or changed since it comes from an old leadership style that wants no transparency, utilizes subterfuge and makes decisions in the dark behind closed doors:

PSB Communications Policy 

PSB members swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States . . . " I guess that the First Amendment is just too darn inconvenient to be covered by the oath.

It would seem that Schoephoerster violated his fiduciary duty and should resign as Chair and member of the PSB. Discussions about communications policies should be made in the open. 

Open Request Records on UTEP Project Come Up Short

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

John,

I would like to examine the following documents:

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

After examining the documents I may ask for copies.


Thanks.

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

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

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

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

The Timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to enlarge. Waldo would be easier to find.

Where's Waldo?

Here is my new ORR complete with preface:

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

I respectfully submit this new ORR:

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

Thank you.

We shall see.

PSB Vote Practically Torpedoes UTEP Centennial Park Water Program

On Wednesday, the PSB didn't exactly say "no" to the Centennial Park Water Reclamation project at UTEP.  However, there was enough skepticism on the Board to hobble the program. 

Red Flags, Red Herrings and Inappropriate Lobbying

Preface: On August 22, 2013 the PSB/EPWU held a Strategic Planning meeting. It was done in house (no outside facilitator this time) and it was done well. It was open and, for the most part as far as anyone can tell, honest. Weaknesses as well as strengths were discussed. Challenges and opportunities were laid out. Prior to the actual meeting, CEO John Balliew directed that meetings with key stakeholders be conducted. I was one of those interviewed. 

One slide presentation did raise a red flag . . . or was it a red herring? Whatever, the impassioned defense which followed from PSB Chairman and UTEP Dean of the College of Engineering, Richard Schoephoerster, was out of line. He has or appears to have a conflict of interest. He should have excused himself from discussion and should recuse himself on any future votes if indeed he is, as I suspect, personally involved in a proposed program to be financed by the EPWU to produce reclaimed water on the UTEP campus.

Here is the title slide of the presentation:

Here is the slide that raised the flag:

The project proposed will produce 70 Acre Feet/year of water for UTEP. In the beginning the water was for irrigating Miner Village but that was too little space to justify that much water. So then it was defended to include the new Centennial Plaza (now being constructed). Again, the xeriscaped area will not be enough to justify 70AF. So, an idea was floated to include re-sodding the Sun Bowl with real grass (not astroturf) in order to attract more soccer games. (UTEP Chancellor Arleigh B. Templeton changed the field in 1973 in order to save water.)The idea for natural grass didn't have traction. So, we are left with more reclaimed water that can be justified by the area required for irrigation.

Why? The quid pro quo could be that EPWU with ratepayer funds finances a water reclamation process (such as Ovivio) and, in return gets research. The project coincides with a new engineering program, Water Initiatives, now being led by former EPWU CEO Ed Archuleta.

In an email sent on September 3, 2013, the Consumer or Citizens Advocacy member of the Public Service Board, Dr. Rick Bonart, wrote to me and John Balliew the following:

"The Public Service Board, at the September meeting [Item #3 on 9/11/13 agenda], is being asked to approve what I think is an extremely selfish request from UTEP. It's basically a 6 million dollar toy, disguised as a research project. Needless to say, I'm completely opposed. Let me explain why.

"The request is for a packaged plant to make reclaimed water on campus. To be worthy of funding by the utility, the UTEP reclaimed water project  must create value for the rate payer. Unfortunately, the parameters of this endeavor are so ill-defined, that determining if there is any value in this project is impossible.

"What determined the size, and need, and who requested the project?  The plant will make 70 acre/feet of water enough for 18 acres of turf. I was originally told the water was for landscaping the southwest corner of Miner Village. When, I questioned why the need for so much water for such a small parcel, I was told the water was also for the new Centennial Plaza.  When, I pointed out Centennial Plaza is only 10.6 acres and xeriscaped, I was then told the additional capacity  was to provide water that would enable UTEP to change the Sun Bowl's surface from Astro Turf back to grass.  Now, in Mr. Balliew's latest response, UTEP will not be changing the Sun Bowl's surface. 

"Mr. Balliew admits the project doesn't make economic sense, but  goes on to explains "financial reward isn't the only criteria the utility judges and approves projects." I agree financial concerns are not the only consideration for building a project. However, when the agreement benefits just one party to such an egregious degree, it's unacceptable.  

"In my opinion, the current reclaimed water system is a logistic and financial boondoggle. Reclaimed water is an inferior product, that can only be used by a few customers, on select vegetation. The utility makes reclaimed water for $496/ an acre foot and sells it for $51 an acre foot. EPWU must annually subsidize reclaimed water with $3 Million dollars of rate payer money (a 90% subsidy). Compared to the current reclaimed water cost, the UTEP project is a quantum leap in the wrong direction. Reclaimed water produced at the UTEP plant will cost about $4500 an acre foot, that's a 900%  subsidy.

"While some  will defend the above subsidy saying "look how much water it saves", I want to point out that, while reclaimed water saves 6750 acre feet of water, we concurrently and for years, waste 15,000 to 20,000 acre feet of water by giving it away to EPWD#1.  Reclaimed water is an evolutionary dead end. Mr. Balliew understands these short comings and thankfully is rapidly transitioning the utility to purified water.

"Finally, we have the theory this is a "research project".  At best this project will be a duplication of effort. It will divert valuable resources needed for real research. There is nothing innovative about a package unit designed and built  by others with current technology.

"EWPU was recently awarded $100,000 by the Army Corps of Engineers, seed money for such a research project at Bustamante/Rio Bosque. Using those funds at Bustamante makes perfect sense. Processes developed at that facility could easily be scaled up from prototype to production and distributed to all customers without subsidy. Purified water production at Bustamante has the potential to increase our total municipal water supply by 15 to 20%, and it's drought proof. Reprogramming the UTEP reclaimed water funds to the project at Bustamante will accelerate development . Bustamante is a research project UTEP should be willing to both participate in and contribute to. If we truly want to do research on purified water, the project should be at Bustamante/Rio Bosque, where the whole community will benefit. 

"In it's present form the UTEP project does not create value for the rate payer.

"As a member of The Public Service Board, I have a fiduciary responsibility to the rate payers, not UTEP.  The PSB should not proceed with this poorly conceived project, but focus the utility's efforts and resources on a research facility at Bustamante to  innovative purified water production that will create real value for the rate payers and the whole community."

Rick Bonart

Citizen Advocate PSB


This post is just Part 1.

PSB Forms Water Smart Home Advisory Committee

There’s important news at the bottom of this letter.

First – some congratulations are in order.  Mr. Henry Gallardo joins the PSB. He takes over the “General Business Management” seat previously held by Ms. Maria Teran. We certainly thank Ms. Teran for her many years of service. Mr. Gallardo’s online bio is brief but he has been quite involved in our community. He is the incoming Board Chairman for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; he’s an Executive Board Member on the Foundation for the Diocese of El Paso; Gallardo is a current member of the Paso del Norte Group and works with the Boys & Girls Club. This list is just the start. “I am a lifelong El Pasoan who is deeply committed to the long term success of our community,” Gallardo says.

Congratulations also to the new officers of the PSB: Richard T. Schoephoerster, Chairman; Katherine Brennand, Vice Chairwoman; and David Nemir, Secretary Treasurer. Again, many thanks to former chairman, Ed Escudero, who opened things up to the public –especially the conservation community. That brought about increased understanding on both sides. Dr. Schoephoerster voiced a desire to work with me – but, by that, I’m sure he meant those with more environmental/open space concerns. Dittos back to him.

The PSB is taking application to fill the Financial Management seat vacated by Mr. Escudero.

By the way, why is there no Environmental/Conservation seat on the PSB? Shouldn’t there be one? Hmmm?

Perhaps the most important action taken by the PSB was the appointment of a Water Smart Home Committee.  The work of this committee represents the ongoing conservation legacy of Ed Archuleta who proposed this idea at the last two PSB strategic planning meetings.  He  introduced the presentation given by Ms. Christina Montoya. Wednesday’s meeting was the last Mr. Archuleta will attend as President/CEO. John Balliew now officially leads the water utility. The Committee will identify water saving technologies, devices and appliances or methods for the home; identify implementation challenges with city codes and requirements; and prepare a final report for the PSB and City Council.

Here is the presentation with a list of members:

Water Smart Home Advisory Committee by jimhtolbert434

Katherine Brennand recommended adding Jennifer Barr. I also was surprised not to see Jennifer’s name on the original list. I was also looking for Katie Updike and Dr. John Walton, an engineer, hydrologist and UTEP professor who has personally made home and landscaping improvements for rainwater management at his residence. He wrote the local book on the subject shall we say.

Meetings are tentatively scheduled for Mondays, February 18, March 4 and 11 from 6 to 8 p.m. TecH2O will be the venue. The meetings will be opened to the public.

Bill Hoover, the President of the local El Paso chapter of Texas Master Naturalists, sent out word about a new rain garden smart phone app. Speaking of Master Naturalists, training to be one starts very soon. Find out how, why, when and where.

Do check out a new camp, home and garden store: Reliance Outdoor Supply. It has camp gear, survival gear, rainwater harvesting equipment, hydroponics (soon), and food storage solutions. It’s located at 1060 Doniphan Park Circle, Suite F at Doniphan and Sunland Park.  (Map)

Finally, in the next few days you will receive two or three more e-letters which will include updates about the Asarco stack and the entrance into the Tom Mays Unit of the FMSP.  I will be catching up with you this week. I apologize for the gaps between publications. As most of you have probably heard or read, I am running for the District 2 City Council seat. I will be sending out an official announcement before too long. I’m already discovering that I have less time for all my projects because of this new and exciting endeavor. I’ll do the best that I can though to keep you informed and updated with news you don’t usually get in the mass media.  The El Paso Hiker e-letter will get rolled into this one for a while. Please keep visiting elpasonaturally. I post new things there more frequently than I write this e-letter. Thank you for supporting and advocating sustainability and conservation here in the greater El Paso southwest region of our beautiful Chihuahuan Desert.  We may be into the third week of the year. Nevertheless, may each of you have a very happy, prosperous and healthy 2013.

Schoephoerster Marginalizes El Pasoans

In a recent elpasonaturally e-letter, I reported the following:

"Sadly, PSB member, Richard Schoephoerster, revealed an attitude that is too clearly a part of the fabric of a Board with no accountability to the people of El Paso. When discussing the Scenarios presented by Dover Kohl for development (or no development) in NW El Paso, Schoephoerster, the Dean of Engineering at UTEP, stated that those who participated in the charrette had a conflict of interest. What was the conflict of interest? They happen to have been people who care about our environment. In other words, those with whom Mr. Schoephoerster disagrees have a conflict of interest and, therefore, have opinions and interests that should not be entertained when it comes to setting public policy." 

Below is the video of Schoephoerster's marginalizing El Paso citizens with whom he disagrees:




I'm sorry that the picture is blurry. It is the best that we could do working off the poor EPWU technology. Dick Schoephoerster is the second person (bald blur) on the right. Dr. Richard Bonart, who challenges his statement, is just to Schoephoerster's right.


Schoephoerster misses the fact that for over ten years many El Pasoans have worked to preserve the scenic beauty of El Paso's northwest particularly the scenic corridor along Transmountain adjacent to the Franklin Mountains State Park. These same people did not oppose development in Northeast El Paso. Most want infill. They are not opposed to construction per se - just construction there. And, even if they oppose all construction everywhere, their opinions should bear the same weight as anyone else's to someone who sits on a public board. But, again, the PSB really has no accountability to the people. It is not a people's board - it is a board of the elite, by the elite and for the elite with just two apparent chinks now: Richard Bonart and Katherine Brennand. 


Schoephoerster's remark also reflects badly on the University of Texas at El Paso where he is Dean of Engineering. Is it UTEP's stance to minimize and marginalize citizens of El Paso? Since Schoephoerster easily declared a dirty vacant lot in the midst of development as natural open space upon seeing a cropped map, can his engineering judgement be trusted? Engineers above all others must be punctilious with facts and details. If UTEP wants to be a Tier One University, it may want to consider how it is represented on a public board by someone so cavalier with the facts and so dismissive of the opinions of others.

Here's an email that I just sent out to some of the natural open space advocates many of whom took part in the NW Master Plan charrettes in January. Remember this group was labeled by PSB member and UTEP Engineering Dean, Richard Schoephoerster, as having a conflict of interest. One attendee at the special PSB meeting when Schoepherster made this condescending remark said that the group was labeled biased "because they did not want any development, and that they were therefore unreasonable and their input should be disregarded."

"Please make every effort to attend a special Open Space Advisory Board meeting this Thursday, March 15, at 2 p.m. in the 8^th Floor Conference Room of City Hall. There is one key item on the agenda: a reconsideration of the Northwest Master Plan. Let me explain why it is critical for you to be there if you can and also plan on returning to City Hall next Tuesday morning, March 20^th. Why reconsideration? It was best said by a citizen at the special PSB meeting last week: “Why did OSAB choose a plan that develops more open space!?” Here’s what happened.  Not long after the NW Master Plan and Scenic Transmountain Corridor design charrettes in January by Dover Kohl, OSAB jumped the gun and endorsed the draft proposal of a scenario that developed land south and north of Transmountain! This was a draft proposal without all of the facts and not a final report from Dover Kohl.  OSAB did place some caveats on that recommendation: the arroyos had to be preserved, there could be no large parks in any development, animal corridors had to be built, no major roads (e.g., Paseo del Norte) through the arroyos – there had to be bridges and no box culverts. PSB selected the only scenario that the top brass of EPWU (Ed Archuleta and his lieutenants) let them see: Scenario #1 which has development north and south of Transmountain. Not only that, but the bobbing heads of the PSB said “Nyet” to all of the OSAB caveats and Mr. Archuleta made it clear that arroyos would have to be hybridized and concreted. They also proposed an option for conserving the land by some means other than a conservation easement – a means yet to be fully worked out but one that would give the PSB/EPWU more control with the flexibility to tear up natural open space in the future. This coming Tuesday, City Council will begin the process for the new NW Master Plan. They will have four scenarios to choose from: ·         Build north and south of Transmountain·         Build only south of Transmountain in limited areas (2 options)·         No Build The special meeting of OSAB has been called so that OSAB can have the opportunity of being on record for recommending a more conservation/natural open space friendly scenario to City Council rather than having their previous decision assumed by Council members as their final recommendation. OSAB and City Council need to see you – many numbers of you – and hear from many of you.  OSAB should choose a plan that develops less not more open space! Please, please try to come on Thursday. Wouldn’t it be great if the 8^th Floor Conference Room is packed with people who want to save the Scenic Corridor, preserve arroyos, rescue animal habitat and corridors . . . keep open space open? Just as soon as I have more details about next Tuesday’s City Council meeting and agenda, I will email you again.  Do me a favor now: forward this message out to all your friends and all you know who love natural open space! Let’s pack the conference room on March 15^th at 2 p.m."

Meetings for your calendar:


March 15th, 2 p.m. Open Space Advisory Board
March 20th, City Council
April 10th, City Council ordinance introduction
April 19th City Plan Commission hearing
May 1st, City Council public hearing

Plan El Paso Passes!

Plan El Paso Passes!

That should have been the bold front page headline for the El Paso Times this morning.  Instead we got “60-mph gusts to make driving difficult today”. This time of year that can be the headline for just about any day. The excellent Chris Roberts story, Council Oks plan for Smart Growth got shoved to an awkward place on the first page of Borderland overshadowed by Moody’s plan to take on Margo – an important race but one that will not have the long-term impact on El Paso as the new Comprehensive Plan. On the Times web site, you have to search for the Roberts story.

Okay – elpasonaturally is not written to criticize the journalism of the El Paso Times. It is worth noting that probably the most significant event for decades to come hardly got the attention that it deserved in the local rag.  Plan El Paso was facilitated by one the best (if not the best) City Planning consulting firms in the country (or even world) – Dover Kohl. The Plan was developed collaboratively with thousands of El Pasoans working with Dover Kohl and expert City Planning staff over a period of nearly two years in a 100 meetings and 20 hands-on sessions. The Chamber of Commerce took part as true El Pasoans – team members to the end. And, although the powers to be at EPWU tried to be the devil in the details, they were largely unsuccessful. At the end of the day, and it was a very long day especially for very dedicated members of City Council, the Plan was approved unanimously.

There are plenty of people to thank but let me tell you my heroes in all of this: First and foremost the Dover Kohl people led by Victor Dover, Jason King and Bill Spikowski and a cast of very smart, very creative professionals. I got to see firsthand their agonies, their angst and their getting to what was for El Paso a true Yes-Yes-Yes. Through all of this  I have come to respect, appreciate and admire deeply our City Planning staff especially Matthew McElroy, Carlos Gallinar and Fred Lopez. What an extraordinary talent it is to be able to stick to your principles while managing to bring people with differing views on board. El Paso is in good hands with this team.  Cortney Niland – Goddess! She just wouldn’t let go of her insistence that the final document tell the truth – the PSB is a land manager and not a trustee. Words are important and those words should help the current Council and City Councils of the future make right decisions when it comes to our City land. Niland also rightly insisted that the developing industry be rewarded more with park credits when they help to preserve hillsides and arroyos.  My heroes also include Rick Bonart and Steve Ortega (and by extension the great Chuck Kooshian) by keeping the Kooshian 2005 Arroyo Inventory in the Plan. Finally, I want to acknowledge Richard Dayoub,  the President and CEO of the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce. I know that as a conservationist, environmentalist, “tree hugger”, I don’t always see eye to eye with the development industry of El Paso. But Dayoub saw to it that the Chamber interact in the Plan El Paso process as a team player. His words at the end of the day yesterday were very fair. The Chamber reserves the right in the future to disagree with some of the planning. He explained the toughest thing for the business community: much of the pace of the progress being made today by City Planners is hard for many businesses to follow. Like any good business person, Dayoub wants to see how changes help not hinder the bottom line. That’s fair and, if Plan El Paso is to be a living document for decades, there must be efforts to learn more and more about the advantages of Smart Growth and how to make that work for all El Pasoans. The conversation and collaboration should continue.

Of course there is a much longer list of people to thank including Larry Nance and all of the people on CPC and CPAC, Charlie Wakeem, Chairman of OSAB, City Council members (particularly Ann Lilly who personally participated in the sessions and my Representative Susie Byrd), Joyce Wilson and many more. Plan El Paso Passes! We El Pasoans should really be proud of ourselves.

Unfortunately, let’s move to the not so good news starring our old friends at EPWU/PSB and, in doing so, transition to the NW Master Plan and Scenic Transmountain Corridor.  At its special meeting this past Monday night, the PSB voted to recommend only one scenario to City Council – the one in which building takes place on both sides of Transmountain. (I’ll get into the details of this more in the next e-letter.) More egregiously, Ed Archuleta via Risher Gilbert and Pat Adauto is crafting a different “conservation strategy” than the tried and true Conservation Easement. They are calling their yet to be unveiled product a “Restrictive Conservation Covenant”.  Seemingly by announcing this “product” on Monday along with their attempts to set their own definitions for arroyos and their own rules for land management was a very clever attempt to torpedo Plan El Paso’s effectiveness when it comes to EPWU control and any real permanent preservation of natural open space in the Scenic Corridor. Archuleta insisted that arroyos will have to be hybridized and concreted and Gilbert acknowledged that their “Restrictive Conservation Covenant” will allow for “changes” on the land. She used horse riding and horse manure as examples although she should have been forthright enough to say that they are really talking culverts and pipes and tanks. (By the way, necessary utility infrastructure in land preserved by a Conservation Easement can be allowed. It is plain that where Risher Gilbert and Ed Archuleta are going is the arbitrary re-taking of land from its natural state over a period of time.  Witness Blackie Chesher Park – another matter to be given its own attention soon.)

Control has always seemingly been the raison d’être for Archuleta’s policies. Now his style of leadership is being seen increasingly as arbitrary and unreasonable by a growing number of people.

Sadly, PSB member, Richard Schoephoerster, revealed an attitude that is too clearly a part of the fabric of a Board with no accountability to the people of El Paso. When discussing the Scenarios presented by Dover Kohl for development (or no development) in NW El Paso, Schoephoerster, the Dean of Engineering at UTEP, stated that those who participated in the charrette had a conflict of interest. What was the conflict of interest? They happen to have been people who care about our environment. In other words, those with whom Mr. Schoephoerster disagrees have a conflict of interest and, therefore, have opinions and interests that should not be entertained when it comes to setting public policy. (If conflict of interest really concerns Schoephoerster, then he should look no farther than fellow board member, Maria Teran, whose business with the EPWU was a huge ethical lapse.)  Remember that it was Schoephoerster who pronounced the Johnson Basin to be natural open space. (See the video with Schoephoerster.) What several people are beginning to ask is whether the Dean of UTEP’s College of Engineering is a bad representative for UTEP as a member of the PSB. Does UTEP’s culture value those who discount the opinions of others in a free debate? Is it good to have the one who is head of engineering be so unconcerned about the facts and details of a piece of land in question and so quickly accede to the claim of another? Attention to facts and details must be critical to an engineer and future engineers must have this trait above all others.

So we head next to the hearings about the NW Master Plan and the Scenic Transmountain Corridor – issues there because of a successful petition. Just to be very clear – no permanent preservation of the land – no deal. Petitioners will begin to get enough signatures to put the matter to El Pasoans whose votes, if not opinions, PSB members cannot discount as a conflict of interest.

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me"

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me."

"Looks like a natural arroyo to me." Thus spake Richard Shoephoerster, PSB member and Dean of Engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso at the PSB meeting when Ed Archuleta defended the purchase of property referred to as the Johnson Basin. Archuleta tried to justify the purchase using open space money because the land is located near the mountain. (So is the rest of El Paso.) When quizzed by Board member Rick Bonart regarding the cost of the land ($100,000 per acre), Archuleta tried to suggest that it was purchased at $293,000. When pressed about the real cost of $393,000, he said: "I think I've got that spread sheet." No other Board members questioned him about the price, the fact that the purchase was never brought to the Board for approval, a seeming lack of appraisals, and the inane suggestion that once the "facility" (Johnson Basin) is developed, there would be access to the mountain. Really? Sure, walk up a concrete sidewalk along a paved street, Pierce to Alabama - a 4 lane divided road, jaywalk, walk over some more commercial property and, yes, you will come to the entrance of McKelligon Canyon. Or, hop the rock wall onto William Beaumont Property, walk past the old Piedras exit, a retention pond, paved parking lots, hop another wall, trespass through some residential and commercial properties, jaywalk Alabama, etc. The bobbing heads bobbed.


You can see new pictures from Johnson Basin. EPWU is plowing land as fast as it can like the perp in a film noir movie burying the body in the woods.

New sign at Johnson Basin should read: 
"Do Not Take Pictures or Videos of Our Boondoggle or We Will Prosecute"

City and PSB Ignore Open Space Master Plan Priorities

The City of El Paso and the PSB are on an unfortunate course of rapidly building park ponds while neglecting valuable natural open space assets. The PSB recently approved $2.5 million expenditures from the 10% of your stormwater fee to go to park ponds, the lowest items on the priority list set by Open Space and Stormwater advisory bodies. In fact, as already mentioned, an additional $400,000 from that fee that should only be set aside for natural open space was spent on 4 acres of vacant land (the Johnson Basin) with no connectivity to natural open space other than a two block arroyo fragment which exists on land owned by the military not by the City of El Paso. It is walled-off from the view of El Pasoans by a rock wall topped with barbed wire. You can see pictures of Schoephoerster's perfect example of natural open space online – the same space EPWU official, John Balliew, bold-faced proclaimed “natural” to a December meeting of the Open Space Advisory Board.

PSB/EPWU officials claim that Jim Shelton of EPWU has not had the time to pursue other open space assets. I would argue that he has not been tasked to do so.

Johnson Basin may be a drainage asset and a potential location for a good neighborhood park. Creating that recreational/drainage space should come from the other 90% of the stormwater fee not set aside for acquiring natural open space . . . or from the Parks and Recreation budget which seems to have an additional $2.1 million for park ponds but not a penny for open space and trailheads.

The problem with park ponds is how they are designed. The Parks and Recreation Department sees them as traditional turf parks. Without seeking the advice of her Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Department Director Nanette Smejkal, has plowed ahead now that she has made away with $2.5 million of open space money for 8 park ponds which were the lowest priorities on the open space master plan. Unfortunately, that leadership style does not take advantage of the kind of expertise she could have tapped into for the design of her parks. Park ponds should be designed for passive rainwater harvesting. UTEP Professor of Engineering and Hydrologist, John Walton, explains:

“The ‘park ponds’ should not be seeded with turf because this commits the City of El Paso to long term waste of water as well as high maintenance costs. Instead stormwater areas should be designed to employ passive rainwater harvesting. Passive harvesting of stormwater flowing down drainages occurs when small depressions are placed within the flow path that capture a portion of the passing water and infiltrate it into the subsurface. The infiltrated water is stored passively in the soil and used to water trees and shrubs. Even in the desert climate of El Paso the technique produces dense green shade trees with no need for artificial watering. Passive stormwater harvesting also reduces the peak storm discharges leading to lower flooding potential.”

Read a Master Thesis about this methodology.

Just for established turf (not newly laid sod or seed), AgriLife (your Texas Agricultural Extension Agency) experts calculate about 1.3 million gallons of water per acre per year or 27 or 30 gallons of water per square foot of turf. Warm seed turf grasses can go as much as 58 gallons per square foot. Taking into account our desert climate and not to mention a drought, what were PSB members thinking when they agreed to take $2.5 million of open space money (a cash account) and give it to Parks and Recreation for park ponds? Again note that El Paso’s Parks and Recreation Department spends zip, zero, nada on any kind of natural open space.

Keeping all of this in mind, it is much easier to see why the Johnson Basin purchase is even more egregious.  Open Space Advisory Board Chairman, Charlie Wakeem, wrote in an email that Johnson Basin “meets none of the criteria for Opens Space preservation.”

Wakeem says that “OSAB agrees that Johnson Basin is a drainage asset and could also be a park asset that ought to be acquired” but not with the 10% of your stormwater fee (on your water bill) that goes into a cash account to buy ecologically sensitive land. There are several criteria for open space (none of which Johnson Basin meets in spite of Mr. Shoephoerster’s and Mr. Balliew’s claims). Wakeem enumerates by quoting the Open Space Master Plan:

·         "Open Space is any area that has not been developed or that currently has no significant structures on it.  These spaces have some combination of natural scenic beauty, natural resources that are deemed worthy of preservation, or have a cultural or historic significance to the area or region."

·         What is Open Space?:  "The common thread in all definitions of open space is the notion of lands that have not yet been substantially altered by man, or that preserve some vestiges of the natural environment in the urban area that surrounds them."

·         The Amount of Undeveloped Land Remaining in El Paso:  "Land for open space must be preserved today, or it will be consumed over the next 20 to 40 years."

·         Mission (in part):  "....El Paso's Open Space Trail Network will be attractive and easily accessible to all.  It will be the site of many kinds of healthy recreational activities, and provide numerous opportunities for educating the public about the Chihuahuan Desert ecosystems."

·         The Plan for El Paso & Plan El Paso:  "Goal:  Protect and promote ecologically sensitive areas, such as aquifer recharge zones, hillsides, bosques, arroyos and wetlands." 

It would have been better to fund park ponds (and all agree that dirt holes should be better rainwater/drainage/recreational assets for the City) incrementally with other funds since they are at the bottom of open space priorities. The 10% of the stormwater fee for open space goes into a cash account at the rate of about $117,000 per month – not enough cash flow to afford the purchase of open space from a cash account unless allowed to build up over time. Just the Palisades cost $2.5 million. With the $2.5 million raid by Parks and Recreation, the fund is now just above $100,000. Because it is a cash account with insignificant cash flow, expenditures for projects such as park ponds will always have the advantage. In short, one wonders if any other natural open space acquisitions can be made especially since Master Plan priorities are ignored by City politicians and PSB technocrats.

The fact that the open space account is a cash account goes under one of Mayor Cook’s favorite rubrics: “No good deed goes unpunished.”  Why is the stormwater/open space account cash? Recall that it was established post-2006 flood. There are two reasons.  First, architects of the fund didn’t want people to feel that open space advocates were taking advantage of the situation and costing them the extra debt service just to buy amenities. And, secondly, the revenue was leveraged by the Storm Water utility.  It allowed Storm Water to have an additional $4 million up front to do a more urgent CIP project that would have been postponed too many additional years. The result of the good deed: you, your open space, your natural open space priorities, sensitive eco-systems, etc., etc. are getting (to put it bluntly) screwed.

Enough said . . . for now.