Critical Water Conservation Guidelines May at Best Be Optional in El Paso

One of the benefits of re-doing the NW Master Plan was the employment of rainwater capture and retention strategies using Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development tools. The next step was to re-do the El Paso Drainage Design manual so that the same GI/LID tools could be used all over the City. The idea is to recapture rainwater so that it permeates back into the aquifers of the Hueco Bolson and the Mesilla Bolson thereby recharging our groundwater. Another benefit of rainwater and landscape management includes keeping landscapes watered without having to use much extra water if any. The addition of trees especially helps to cool the City and its homes which, once again, means using less water for evaporative cooling.

So here is the final draft of the new Drainage Design Manual:

Drainage Design Manual Final Draft

Once released, the avaricious barracudas in the development community began to swarm and bite. Led by River Oaks and Richard Williams the objection was raised that the DDM cannot be applied because El Paso has a variety of soils that require different drainage techniques. 

Carlos Gallinar, Planning Deputy Director, told me that the LID standards for drainage were not calibrated for various areas of El Paso. What is required, he said, is a "concrete set of directivies" that developers, builders and engineers can use rather than arbitrary standards. He stated that the problem is that there is no more money for doing the kind of soil analysis required for such directives. The project would cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 and City Council is being very conservative.

When I pointed out to him that the USDA had published a comprehensive soil survey of El Paso County in 1971, he retorted that, although he had not seen the study, it was probably out of date as soils may have changed. Of course, such extreme changes would require catastrophic geological events. There have been no earthquakes, landslides, a radical shift in the flow of the Rio Grande, mountain building or dramatic rifting of the Rio Grande River Valley since 1971. The caliche beneath my yard typical in central El Paso on the mountain slopes was there when my parents built this house and is there whenever I want to plant a new shrub or tree. East El Paso has sand down to 10,000 feet (that Rio Grande River Rift again) and the Valleys have silts and clays. 

Soil testing is a required part of any building project any way. Also, percolation tests are easy. Dig a hole, fill it with water, see how much water has permeated the ground in an hour or so.

Hydrologist John Walton told me that he liked what he saw in the DDM. Landscape experts tell me that drainage requirements could easily be based on percolation rates. 

So why the stall? Why did City Development push the City Plan Commission to recommend to City Council that, without a study, the DDM would have to be optional? 

We all know that, since the last City Council election, developers are in the driver's seat with City Council. Elpasonaturally has learned that considerable pressure is on the City Manager to go along. The pressure moves down the chain of command and, presto magico, the leadership of Planning and Development, which was far more progressive a year ago, has become lap doggish - yes people with excuses such as the one Carlos Gallinar was giving me. (Chain of command pressure may also explain why Gallinar now refuses to return calls by me and is only responsive when I track him down.) Elpasonaturally has also learned that the morale in the rank and file of Planning has turned toward the morose.

If the City Council can't find $100,000 to do a study that will lead to solid GI/LID standards and save us water for generations, then I suggest that the Stormwater Utility do it. Let's see what River Oaks and their buddies say after that study is done.

Modify the New Landscape Ordinance?

Here’s the issue that is now bubbling up: some developers are asking City Council to amend the recent Landscape Ordinance arguing that the new ordinance will mean huge usages of water and, thus, undermine El Paso’s great conservation efforts. Mr. Richard Williams of Jerry Rubin’s River Oaks Properties has taken the lead on attacking the new ordinance. That new ordinance goes into effect on October 3. The Boards that reviewed the ordinance before (Open Space and Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards) are rushing to review the modifications and make recommendations to Council before September 27^th. It would be best if there could be a 30 day review period.

No doubt, water conservation is key. However, more of the right kind of trees and the right kind of landscaping will reduce water usage, harvest rainwater, and minimize stormwater run-off and damage. When the PSB was first implementing conservation measures long ago, they recognized the fact that trees are critical to reduce urban islands of heat which require massive amounts of heat in a City that uses evaporative coolers – the most affordable cooling by a large segment of the El Paso population. In fact, EPWU’s Desert Plants List is one of the best resources for homeowners, builders and landscapers in El Paso. (Here in another month is a good time to plant and that list is very, very valuable.)

David Kania, the City’s Landscape Plan’s Examiner, reviewed Mr. Williams’ numbers and reported:

“River Oaks is miscalculating what an emitter is to what a drip hose is. Each emitter, whether it is a 2 gallon or 1 gallon per hour has only 6 outlets. So for every three shrubs you are using one emitter and for every tree you are using one and a half to one and three quarters of an emitter. I believe the way they calculated it was based on two full emitters per shrub and eight emitters per tree. In that case you would get four maybe even five hundred percent more.”

Williams has been described as being “very smart” and a “good developer”. But, says a keen observer, he “ just doesn’t ‘get it’, and will absolutely not try anything new. Ever.” You may recall his op-ed piece for the El Paso Times earlier this year in which he attributed high crime rates to Smart Growth/Smart Code. Huh? City Manager, Joyce Wilson, wrote a rebuttal.

Perhaps Mr. Williams has made some wrong assumptions: “we can’t use very low water plants, like natives”, and “We can’t afford to swale for water collection”, and “We can’t collect enough rainwater for cistern collection”, and “We can’t afford to incorporate organic matter into the soil prior to planting”. All of these are strategies that make smarter landscaping possible in a City keen on water conservation.

Still, it is worth seeing if there is some water “going down the drain” although it won’t be as much as Williams has calculated. Perhaps a good trade-off would be requiring a bit less landscaping in exchange for more landscaping whenever there is a request to upgrade an existing structure.