Who To Blame for the Stormwater Fee Going Up

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

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

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

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

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

The Monday Links (and Updates): Water, Green Infrastructure, the Commons and a Laugh

"This is part of a long, wide arroyo running through the new Desert Springs subdivision in far West El Paso. Some areas have concrete, as shown here, but rocks and wire were used to line much of the arroyo to lessen erosion. The aim is for it to return to its natural state with natural plants and soil. Rock walls and iron fences enclose the arroyo. (VICTOR CALZADA — EL PASO TIMES)"

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

New on the bottom: Story Updates - updates to stories that we have posted about.]


Water Issues:

Water Loss: An Invisible Global Crisis

West's snowpack improves, still not great

Rio Grande forcast improves, but that's not saying much

Measuring Groundwater in Texas


Green infrastructure:

More Benefits of Green vs. Gray Stormwater Infrastructure


Climate Change:

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: Highlights


The Commons:

The Commons as a Source of Renewal

How Much is the Commons Worth?


Tar Sands:

The Nightmarish Normalcy of Canada's Tar Sands Mines


Story Updates:

$25 million for Stormwater Drainage (You will recall the urgent need by the Mayor and Rep. Niland to take 3 year's worth of open space funds for stormwater improvements. Well . . . seems there was other money all along for the projects thanks to the PSB.)


Arroyo featured in Desert View's biggest El Paso subdivision (Actually, this story should be under the category of "laugh of the month". The picture accompanying the story is above. Do you see a "wide arroyo" OR concrete? Truth is that the developer destroyed the mountain to river arroyo by severely narrowing it and concreting the sides. Rather than building a bridge ("too expensive"), he put in a box culvert. Never mind Mule Deer wanting to get to the river or even hikers wanting to follow the arroyo.)

Kill this Vampire or Is It a Zombie?

At a special City Council meeting yesterday, Dr. Noe asked whether the 10% of stormwater money designated for open space could go to finance some projects around the city. He suggested that the money could be borrowed and paid back. Although Diana Drain wasn't mentioned, this was one of the specific projects that the Mayor wanted to address with the open space funds. The Mayor's old proposal which seemingly died on the vine and the recommendation of that proposal subsequently was rescinded by the Open Space Advisory Board.

Emma Acosta (recently I've been agreeing with her) said that voters had designated that 10% for open space and their vote should be respected. Paraphrasing Carl Robinson, he said that people vote on lots of things but it is no big deal to change that vote. The Mayor said that he might try to approach open space people again. 

Somebody kill this vampire. Or, is it a zombie that just keeps coming? To take the open space money for something for which is is not designated undermines that fund, the acquisition and preservation of open space, the stormwater utility and the Public Service Board.

Dr. Rick Bonart, a candidate for City Council District 1 and a former PSB member, suggests other ways to finance emergencies such as Diana Drain or flooding along Transmountain or I-10 and so forth:

1. If there are real emergencies John Balliew, CEO of EPWU, could pull from the O&M budget because there is elasticity there.

2. The increase in the stormwater fee should, via revenue bonds, be able to generate more that enough cash - a product of the recent rate increase.

3. Implementing a stormwater impact fee is more appropriate than diverting funds the public specifically voted on and decide to use as open space money. 

Dr. Bonart stated unequivocally: "This money [the 10% of the stormwater fee] should be used for genuine open space projects only and that's it.

By the way, HERE is the agenda for yesterday's special council meeting. The conversation drifted from the agenda to flood issues to funding issues to taking open space money. Obviously, until the Council gets the fact that voters (i.e., citizens - and, no, Mr. Robinson you cannot overturn a vote just because you don't like it) designated 10% of their stormwater fees for open space, they can't contemplate its use for something else. More importantly, until they value the preservation of open space, they will continue to contemplate using that money to finance their shortfalls.

Also by the way, there were only 2 citizens from the general public in attendance. Perhaps 30 or 40 staff members were there.

Are these special council meetings (which now seem to be more often) a means to get around public comment and participation? Another vampire. Or a zombie.

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.

So what happened?

Yesterday by a vote of 6-1 OSAB recommended to City Council that the 10% of the stormwater fee for open space/stormwater projects be diverted to immediate flood control projects. Two points: the key words in the recommendation (and in the Mayor's proposal) are "up to $3.2 million". That is the amount that, under the current stormwater fee, will be collected over the next two years for open space. In our conversations with the Mayor and again at yesterday's OSAB meeting, I wanted to make it clear that we were only talking about the $3.2 million and not more revenue expected because the stormwater fee is most certainly going to be raised. The Mayor was on hand to give his presentation (a first as far as I know for a Mayor to come to the Board) and he personally stated that his request was for what will be collected in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 under the current rate. The rest he assured us goes into the open space coffers. 

The second point is this: much of what OSAB has sought to preserve as natural open space with stormwater function has now closed or soon will close. There is money on hand. Making this so is largely the result of EPWU attorney Lupe Cuellar's efforts for which she is to be showered with kudos. Here is her report from yesterday:


Click on the icon with the 4 arrows at bottom right to enlarge and scroll.

Park Ponds? Really?

After my last post, I got this message from Charlie Wakeem who was the Chairman of the Open Space Board for the past 3 or 4 years and one of the architects of the open space and stormwater policies in El Paso - in fact he could be called the Dean of Conservation in our city - i.e., the man has mucho gravitas:


Hi Jim,

Once again, another good post.  I'd like to clarify something from it for you. Nowhere in the Municipal Drainage System Ordinance does it state that the 10% Open Space money could be used for the purchase of ponds or for park improvements (e.g. sod, turf & shrubs) to ponds.  I've read the ordinance over and over and over, and there's no other way to interpret it.  I admit I'm one of those who succumbed to city council's pork by not opposing the use of the 10% money for park ponds in their districts.  The following is a cut and paste of the actual ordinance.  I highlighted the important phrases and highlighted the most important phrases.  Show me, if you can, anywhere where it authorizes the use of the 10% money for the purchase of or improvements to park ponds.

Charlie

ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM

 ORDINANCE  #O16668 - JUNE 19, 2007

     WHEREAS, the City has adopted an Open Space Master Plan which emphasizes open spaces and natural areas as a possible method to help manage storm water, reduce flooding risk and improve water quality;                                                                                    

SECTION III.
ESTABLISHING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM

B.  The Board [PSB] shall cause to be prepared a Master Stormwater Management Plan (“Stormwater Plan”) which shall be approved by the City Council.  In developing the Stormwater Plan the Board shall take into account the use of open space as natural drainage and to extent reasonably possible preserve the City’s open spaces, greenways, arroyos and wilderness areas in their natural state as a means to assist in the management of storm water and in accordance with the City’s Open Space Master Plan.

C.  Notwithstanding anything herein to be contrary and even to the extent such operation may constitute storm water maintenance, the City shall continue to be responsible for … (iv) parks.


D.  The General Manager shall bring to the Board annually a Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan (the “Capital Plan”) for approval which shall include both short and long term objectives.  To assure compliance with the Stormwater Plan the City’s Flood Plain Administrator shall review the proposed Capital Plan prior to its presentation to the board.  The Capital Plan shall, to the extent reasonably possible, include the use and maintenance of arroyos and other natural drainage drainage systems as a means to manage stormwater and otherwise take into account environmental best practices in the construction of any stormwater infrastructure.  The Capital Plan shall identify stormwater infrastructure projects (including land acquisitions) which have the potential dual purposes of stormwater management and preservation of the City’s open spaces, greenways, arroyos and wilderness areas in their natural state in accordance with the City’s Open Space Master Plan and the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (“Green Projects”).  The Board shall allocate an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the System’s annual drainage utility revenues for such Green Projects. 

On the Eve of the Televised Blue Ribbon

Briefly, here are a couple of points I'd like to make before tomorrow's blue ribbon committee meeting:

First, Dr. Rick Bonart, a PSB member, proposes a Water Use Budget. Currently, a department such as Parks and Recreation can buy all of the water it can with the budget that it has. Instead, they (and others) should be limited to a certain percentage of the water supply - that and no more. A water use budget. 

Second, I'm not sure that I made myself clear in the e-letter yesterday posted on this blog. Some interpreted what I had to say in #2 of that letter was a call to end the 10% of the stormwater fee for purchasing open space. What I was trying to say is that 100% of that 10% should go for purchasing natural open space. As it is now, City Council plays politics with it and spends it on popular shrubs and turf for park ponds for each district. Here we are trying to conserve water which can be done by preserving natural open space in perpetuity but instead we are buying more turf to water! We need to stop that policy now and, in fact, reverse it. Make Parks and Recreation (which already has a bloated budget via the Quality of Life bond) pay it back. Let OSAB and PSB work directly together.

Please read Dr. Bonart's response to Dr. Goodell's letter. It's a comment that he made about that letter. I call your attention to these words:

". . . the Far West Texas 50-year water plan identifies 141k acre feet of water as our sustainable supply (combined from all sources). Last year we used 114k acre feet. In order to achieve the 141k a lot of expensive infrastructure to recycle and distribute will be required.

"Regardless, if the service area population increases at 5%/year as projected, the difference of 27k acre feet will be consumed in 5 to 6 years."

Sustainable supply is what it is all about. Thus, the need for a Water Use Budget and the need to use 100% of the 10% of the stormwater fee to purchase natural open space not more grass to water!

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.

The Johnson Basin Scam

PSB took nearly $400,000 of your money set aside to purchase valuable, natural open space to buy 4 acres of vacant land along with a few houses in the lower Dyer area of the City. Johnson Basin is situated near Assumption Church and school and west of Travis Elementary. It abuts William Beaumont military land on the west. It is roughly between Pierce and Lincoln Avenues on the south and north and Copia and Justus on the east and west.  Here is a picture of the area from a URS study:

Click on picture to enlarge.

Between the Johnson Basin and William Beaumont is a tall rock wall with barbed wire in some places and an iron grate where an almost 2 block fragment of what once was an arroyo flows onto the basin, narrowing to a mere ditch, bending to the north where it abruptly dead ends without a culvert at Lincoln Avenue.

The purchase of the Johnson Basin was never approved by the Open Space Advisory Board. It suddenly appeared last month in a handout "Open Space and Park/Ponds" along with its acquisition price of $394,247. OSAB never vetted it in contradiction to Mr. Ed Archuleta's claim to the PSB at their meeting this past Wednesday. More egregiously, it seems now that PSB never vetted or approved any of the purchases making up the Johnson Basin. Nevertheless, PSB members let is slide in spite of the fact that Mr. Archuleta dismissively confessed that he may not have brought the purchase or purchases before the Board. (Purchases over $25,000 must be brought to the PSB. Elpasonaturally has an Open Records Request for documents that show the agenda and minutes of meetings when the purchases were discussed and approved.)

At the last PSB meeting, member Richard Schoephoerster pontificated that the Basin was a "perfect example of natural open space." Really, Dick? Let's take a look at it shall we.

Click the above to enlarge. The questions were asked by the person who got this Google map. I can best answer the questions by simply describing what happens from the Basin to the mountain. A tall rock wall divides the basin from William Beaumont, the military medical campus that owns the property along Pierce Avenue  to above Louisiana. An iron grate divides the ditch in the Basin from the wider arroyo on William Beaumont property. That "arroyo" ends less than 2 blocks west where the old Piedras entrance to the hospital exists. West of Piedras is a retention pond which sits below parking lots on the north and to the west. Run-off from these lots feed into the retention pond. There is no connectivity between that pond and the arroyo fragment to the east. There is no connectivity between that retention pond and any natural feature to the west. A spillover is constructed at the east end of the pond and there is one across Piedras at the beginning of the arroyo fragment. It would take quite a rain event to spill any water over from one side to the other. In essence, there just isn't any connectivity. Beyond the retention pond to the west toward the mountain is the paved parking lot of Beaumont, a residential area, a commercial area, the cement and asphalt of the Alabama Street corridor and then Cemex. Where the mouth of McKelligon Canyon once cut down through this area there is only a large culvert that crosses under Alabama and comes out across the street from someone's garage door. Looking at that door and house one can see the Beaumont campus to the east. 

You can see pictures of all of this including the Johnson Basin by going here.

Certainly Johnson Basin probably is the site of some flooding during rains. Johnson Street runs down toward Dyer. A ditch with culverts pass under Travis Elementary and then to the Pershing Dam. Streets in this neighborhood were often designed to be the stormwater passageways. Haphazard development meant that drainage and neighborhoods didn't always fit together. Nevertheless, the money to fix the Johnson Basin should have come from some other place than money to buy natural open space as well. 

The mere 2 block arroyo fragment along the south side of William Beaumont has no connectivity, is cut-off in fact from non-military El Pasoans, is not ecologically sensitive, has no aesthetic value, and is, in fact,  a trash dump and trash collector. Since Mr. Schoephoerster calls it a "perfect example of natural open space", let's name it for him: the Schoephoerster Trash Preserve.

Question: will PSB do the right thing and give the money back to Open Space and take it out of some other part of their budget? Keep in mind that Open Space money is a cash account. After Parks and Recreation made-off with nearly $3,000,000 of it and Ed and Company took $400,000 for their Johnson Basin Scam, there may be less than $600,000 in that account today. Should the opportunity arise to buy a special piece of natural open space property, the money won't be there until slowly replenished by the 10% of your stormwater fee - replenished unless dipped into again with no regard to the process, of course.

More to report on all of this for sure as well as the Park/Ponds boondoggle.