What's Next with the NW Master Plan

After a discussion in City Council last week I voiced the concern that the NW Master Plan could be in danger of becoming a conventional development and its arroyos just a memory once the bulldozers started up. I wondered whether Council was ready to jettison their agreement with the 2011 petitioners, the PSB, city staff and many others who worked for about a year to forge the Plan as part of a win-win solution.

This past Sunday, the El Paso Times published a story about the same concern by investigative reporter, Cindy Ramirez. 

Mayor Leeser invited me to a meeting at his office yesterday. Also in attendance were John Balliew, Lupe Cuellar, Kristen Hamilton and Taylor Moreno. The Mayor said that he had no intention of changing the plan. His main concern was to sell some land. He stated and Balliew confirmed that Balliew had said that the Plan must not be violated. I told the group that I was delighted but that it would be good for the City Council to follow the Mayor's lead and reaffirm the NW Plan and its use of smartcode.

A number of us had met at my home on Sunday evening and agreed that I should ask Council to place on its agenda an item reaffirming the NW Plan and its use of smart code. In addition, we agreed that Council should show good faith by placing PSB Open Space in the NW Master Plan under a conservation easement.

With a large group behind me, I made these requests at Council this morning. Rep. Ann Morgan Lilly said that she would place our requests on the City Council agenda.

Here is the text of my words to Council this morning:

I was the author of and principal organizer for the 2011 initiative petition to save 900 acres of natural open space associated with the Transmountain scenic corridor.

We successfully gathered the necessary signatures from over 1600 people. 

Rather than voting on the petition wording, City Council members, along with petitioners, agreed on a process which culminated in a new NW Master Plan. During that process a vote on the petition was routinely postponed and then finally deleted when we agreed on the compromise. 

Approximately a year of work went into forging a deal. Dover Kohl conducted well-attended workshops, charrettes, and meetings with the community, the PSB, City Planning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation and other staff.

This plan, which cost $600,000, included smart code, state-of-the-art Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater conveyance, and infrastructure designed to maximize arroyo preservation, open space, and the scenic corridor.  The PSB approved the plan and City Council adopted the NW Master Plan.  It was an example of a true collaborative ‎effort. 

The NW Master plan was and is an expression of the will of the people as was Plan El Paso that took two years and 2 million dollars and the input of thousands of El Pasoans.

 

‎I was shocked and dismayed when I watched this City Council at its March 17th meeting take action seemingly to begin to dismantle the agreement by removing smart code as well as  other agreed upon development  restrictions, and explore the sale of the land in small parcels for conventional style development.   Along with many others I noted with dismay that there are similar intentions with the NE Master Plan including Painted Dunes. There seems to be a material breach of all of our prior agreements and promises. 

If carried forward, action that would in effect scuttle the NW Master Plan would overturn the real, democratic, grassroots decision-making we did with Plan El Paso, the 2011 Transmountain petition and the NW Master Plan. 

 

I want to thank the Mayor who has given me his personal assurances that no changes to the NW Master Plan will be made. I ask for the same assurance from City Council. It would go a long way toward restoring trust and good will if City Council will put on its agenda an action item reaffirming the NW Master Plan. We would like the City Council to affirm the following at next week’s meeting:

1. First, that you are still committed to the NW master plan as adopted, and

2. Second, that you support the current smart code zoning and will not try to remove it, and finally

3. That as a sign of that reaffirmation, you direct staff to place a conservation easement over all of the Public Utility Open Space in the NW Master Plan.  

Without assurances, we may have no other choice except to get more signatures for a ballot referendum and/or pursue other legal means.

Statements about the City Council Vote

After Tuesday's vote, I sent an email to the Mayor and City Council and issued a statement for the next Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition. Here they are:

Mayor and Members of Council,

Thank you so much for your vote to preserve the land in the NW Master Plan. Given all of the circumstances, I believe that you took the wisest and most prudent action. It has become very apparent that you and staff (both City and PSB) were trying very hard to respond to the citizens of El Paso who signed the petition. As the author of the petition and the coordinator of the petition drive, I am sincerely touched by your caring and your solid efforts in favor of conservation.

I also strongly support the PSB recommendation of Alternative 1 as a new access into the State Park. I very much appreciate your added endorsement of a separate animal corridor near the current entrance.

All of us in the conservation/environmental community look forward to working with you collaboratively in the future. We have more land than water and no land without water is or will be of any value. Therefore, preserving land as natural open space maximizes the economic value of the remaining land. May we as El Pasoans be as prudent, judicious, deliberate and conservative with our land and water management as you were with your decision about the preservation of land in the NW Master Plan. May we be faithful stewards of our land for our grandchildren’s grandchildren and may we not ever be lured by any need for instant profit and gratification.

Sincerely,

Jim H. Tolbert

Proud El Paso Citizen and

Publisher, elpasonaturally

www.elpasonaturally.blogspot.com

And to the editor of the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition newsletter:

As the author of the petition and the coordinator of the petition drive, I hope we all see the tremendous achievement which came from our dedicated work.  On July 17, 2012 City Council voted unanimously  to preserve land in the NW Master Plan in perpetuity by deeding and donating the land to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to become part of the Franklin Mountains State Park. Language in the deed will contain very strict covenants that will forbid the property from ever being used other than as recreational natural open space. If for any reason the land comes back to the City, a conservation easement will be created and the land will be dedicated as Parkland. The conservation of this land in perpetuity is just one of many benefits created by our successful petition drive.  The NW Master Plan was redone as Smart Growth/Smart Code.  Moreover, City Planners are now seeking to incorporate Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development into the engineering tools and building codes of the City.  Also, conservation and smart growth have become the goals of the City of El Paso rather than conventional growth and sprawl. The City’s Planning Department is now led by progressive, Smart Growth, New Urban, conservation advocates. Finally, a better working relationship between the conservation/environmental community and the PSB/EPWU has begun and needs nurturing.

The way is clear for all of us to begin wrestling with the bigger issue of scarcity of water as we face more years of drought and global warming/climate change.  As El Pasoans we need to realize that we have more land than water and no land without water is or will be of any value. Therefore, preserving land as natural open space maximizes the economic value of the remaining land.  Much of City-owned land managed by the PSB should be declared inexpedient not to sell to developers but to preserve as natural open space.  May we as El Pasoans be as prudent, judicious, deliberate and conservative with our land and water management as City Council was with its conservation strategy to preserve land in the NW Master Plan. May we be faithful stewards of our land for our grandchildren’s grandchildren and may we not ever be lured by any need for instant profit and gratification.

Jim H. Tolbert

Publisher, elpasonaturally

www.elpasonaturally.blogspot.com

Easy to subscribe to the elpasonaturally e-letter.

Just email and say “Subscribe elpasonaturally”

In Perpetuity!

On the whole issue of how to preserve the land in the NW Plan as natural open space, City Council today adopted the plan presented by staff – specifically by a joint City/PSB committee that worked on the strategy. The plan deeds and donates the land to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to become part of the Franklin Mountains State Park. If for any reason, the covenants which are placed on the land are not followed (use as natural open space and recreation in such an area), then the land reverts back to the City. (Fat chance as a TPWD official from Austin told City Council today.) If it reverts back to the City, then it becomes a City park and a conservation easement will be created with a land trust company at that time. Is the deal perfect? Many argue that a conservation easement should be placed from the very beginning or, at the least, the terms of such an easement should be worked out now. That may have been the best of all possible worlds – but what was proposed was what this Council could accept now. The bottom line for me was stated by Attorney Risher Gilbert in answering concerns that the land might not be preserved in perpetuity if it comes back to the City. Ms. Gilbert said: “It [the land] could be sold, but not developed.” It just doesn’t get more perpetual than that. In fact, the mere fact that Council members were wanting assurances of preservation forever, was in and of itself a sign that this proposal will work. Gilbert even gave assurances that she would add language to the contract that clearly states that the City’s intention is “never to develop the land.”

The team that made the proposal did hear what we were saying as conservationists and environmentalists. They incorporated our thoughts into a plan that would pass PSB and City Council – a huge task. Here's their presentation:

Conservation Strategies

As conservationists and environmentalists, many of us can choose to be unhappy because we didn’t get extra salsa with our chips. But let’s count blessings. First, if the proposal was what could pass and the proposal assures perpetual preservation (with an easement should it come back and plenty of language upfront to define covenants and intentions), then shouldn’t that be acceptable?  I think so and I choose to be happy about it.  Second, we have as conservationists – indeed as all El Pasoans – reaped some benefits from this whole process. We got a better NW Master Plan which utilizes Smart Growth/Smart Code. City Planners are now excited about Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development and issues about rainwater capture and development strategies that help conserve water – an issue bigger than how to conserve several hundred acres just in the NW Master Plan. The entire concept of conservation easement is acceptable now to PSB members and part of the vocabulary of Council. One year ago and just up to a short while ago we could have all been at odds. Now we can shake hands and walk away as friends no matter what rhetoric or tactics were employed in debate.

Make no mistake: those of us in favor of preserving more land and protecting the environment must remain vigilant and engaged. There is much more to accomplish. Those in the conservation community have a big task ahead to do more educating. This is not to say that those who are not card carrying greenies are dumb. Quite to the contrary, they are thinking people who try to see not just a year from now but a hundred years from now. That more people are talking in terms of conservation means that what got started as a petition signed by 1,600 El Pasoans has been taken to heart by many more people. That heart and mind needs to be nurtured and it won’t be if some are seen as enemies and not the caring, thinking people that they are.

In my mind there is still one big issue outstanding: the preservation of the arroyos (which includes bridges not box culverts). The Low Impact Development engineering is yet to be worked out. The City is working with one of the best firms for doing this: the Crabtree Group. Still will we end up with concrete canvasses for taggers? Also, will we have a plan that takes into consideration the width of the arroyos in a 100 year flood scenario and not just a 50 year or less scenario?

City Council also recommended  Alternative 1 for a new access to the State Park. In addition, after hearing from Dr. Richard Bonart, they recommended a safe animal passage near the current entrance to the Park. The new access road which follows the small development area north of Transmountain and the proposed resort/park headquarters would be built as a Low Impact Development project (another leap forward) and can be configured in a way that is acceptable to the State Park protecting any sensitive areas. This alternative allows for money to remain on the table for a safe (and useable) animal corridor, hike and bike paths and the construction of a deer fence. I’m in agreement with Representative Niland and City Planner Gallinar that the small developed area north of the highway can be a place for outdoor supplies for hiking, biking, mountain climbing, etc. Again, the idea is to invite people into the outdoors – a sure way to make a conservationist and environmentalist out of anyone.

Of course, all of the above is my opinion and many of my readers will disagree in whole or in part. Your frank (but respectful) comments are always welcome. My attitude is this:  You celebrate if you get a touchdown but perhaps don’t make the extra point. You keep playing to score more points and, at the end of four quarters and a long season, you win the game and then the championship. Much more than that – you have a helluva fun time playing.

Finally, one last hurrah for El Paso sent to me by the guy who probably loves the lore of El Paso better than anyone – Jackson Polk. Read a July 2012 Chicago Sun-Times piece written by Laura Emerick: Architecture, art and history all meld in El Paso.

Breaking News on Conservation Fronts

Three pieces of breaking news:

City staff will present a "springing conservation easement" proposal to City Council tomorrow.

The PSB's recommendation for an alternate entrance to the State Park will also be presented and acted on.

The Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee may have handed the development community a green light to build, build, build no matter how limited our water resources are.

Once again, City Council takes up tomorrow (Tuesday, July 17) the entire issue of preserving acreage in the NW Master Plan in perpetuity. The debate has centered around the best way to do that. After further consideration, the committee tasked with presenting a plan to City Council will present the option recommended by the PSB: transfer the land to the State Park with a reversion clause that requires a conservation easement should the land return to the City. If the State Park decides to sell the land or use it for another purpose (which would be counter to their mission statement), then the land returns to the City for Parkland Dedication. Everything about this plan is solid except for the fact that the City might as well put a conservation easement on it now rather than depend that an election might overturn the perpetual preservation of the land.

Do see the attachment to City Council Agenda 10A-1. It is the presentation that staff will give with the above recommendation. Without a doubt, the new recommendation is very good news.

Add to this good news the following: There has been some question about the reliability of Texas Parks and Wildlife not to keep the land - to sell it instead. In an email dated July 15, 2012 to Risher Gilbert from Scott Boruff, the Deputy Executive Director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, assurances are given about TPWD to preserve land in perpetuity to fulfill the mission of the department. Concerns that there have been previous examples of sell-offs are addressed. Here's the email:

From: Scott Boruff <Scott.Boruff@tpwd.state.tx.us>
Date: July 15, 2012 7:20:35 PM CDT
To: Risher Gilbert <RGilbert@gilbertlf.com>
Cc: Deirdre Hisler <Deirdre.Hisler@tpwd.state.tx.us>, Corky Kuhlmann <Corky.Kuhlmann@tpwd.state.tx.us>, Ted Hollingworth <Ted.Hollingsworth@tpwd.state.tx.us>, Jeannie Munoz <jeannie.munoz@tpwd.state.tx.us>
Subject: Review of TPWD land transaction list
To Whom It May Concern
Thanks for the opportunity to review the land transactions referenced in the document titled "The 837-acre West Transmountain Scenic Corridor Land: Why a Conservation Easement Is Necessary".  All land transactions move through the Executive Office, and are subject to intensive review and analysis to insure that each transaction is consistent with the agency's mission " to manage and conserve the natural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations".
This list does reflect 57 land transactions completed by the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department over the past 17 years.  Each of these transactions resulted in a net gain for conservation, except for those very few that resulted from previous deed provisions or legislative direction.  Examples include the transfer of 12 acres to the Union Pacific Railroad (an old abandoned rail track at Lake Mineral Wells State Park), pursuant to a deed provision that allowed the railroad to reclaim the track at any time.  The Texas State Railroad was transferred by the Legislature to a newly created Railroad Authority.
The overwhelming majority of these transactions represent overall improvements for both conservation and recreation, and result in ongoing protection from development.  Although rare, in those instances where TPWD transfers land to private ownership, strict protections are put in place to preclude development and other impacts to natural resources and view sheds.  TPWD does not sell land that is contiguous to a park, and on those occasions where it makes sense to trade parcels to increase conservation and recreation value, once again, the trade envisions protections that preclude development.  Most of the transactions on this list represent transfers and sales to other public or NGO entities that insure continued protection of the land, usually via reversion clauses or other deed mechanisms.  At least a few represent extremely significant additions to the State Park system, such as the Big Bend addition of the 7,000 acre McCormick parcel.  To suggest the 180 acre parcel transferred as a deed without warranty is a sale of parkland is just one example of using this data out of context.
In short, the agency's mission and strategic plan are very clear about the handling of our land inventory.  We have a robust and thorough process to insure that we protect any land in perpetuity that we have owned and then transfer to improve conservation.  On those rare occasions when we sell or transfer land out of the public domain, we do so with strict restrictions on development that comport with our mission to protect the State's natural resources.
Any suggestion that TPWD sells State Park land to use the money to support operations is not supported by the agency's long track record of stewardship and land protection.  We are quite proud of these transactions, and would gladly provide more specifics.  The fact is that any thoughtful and thorough review would dispel any perception that the agency sells parklands for development or to support operations.
Sincerely,
Scott Boruff
Deputy Executive Director
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
512-389-8595

Finally, Carlos Gallinar told me today that the City has learned that the State Legislature does not have to approve the transfer - the Commission overseeing TPWD has that sole authority. With the strong recommendation of Dr. Cesar Mendez of the Franklin Mountains State Park, this recommendation is pretty much assured.

In addition to the above, Item 10A-2 is discussion and action on an alternative route into the park. Again, read the attachment. Staff will recommend the PSB's Alternate 1 as this blog has previously reported. This route has some added advantages of securing "saved" money for a workable animal corridor where the current culverts exist east of the current park entrance and a deer fence that will help direct animals (particularly Mule Deer) to the corridor and away from Transmountain Road.

Bottom line: good things are taking shape.

One piece of news that may lead to some pretty grim results is that the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee on the City's relationship with the PSB over land management voted this morning to recommend a 5 member committee to determine whether land was inexpedient. This committee will consist of the Mayor as Chair, two City Council members (supposedly chosen by the Mayor with the blessing of City Council) and the Chairman of the PSB and one other PSB member. The decision seemed to spring from a desire not so much for better communication between the City and the PSB, but from an attempt to further the expansion and growth of the City no matter how limited our water resources are. Based on the 5% average annual growth of the City, water supply estimates are only 30 to 50 years. 30 to 50 years!!! Yet one Council member present exclaimed that she didn't care what resources aren't there, "if a billion dollar industry wants to come to El Paso, we will make it happen." There are going to be many thirsty people in 30 to 50 years. The motion for the new committee was made by Ted "TxDOT" Houghton (whose "soul" incentive is growth, growth, growth, money, money, money) and sadly seconded by Open Space Advisory Board Chairman, Charlie Wakeem. 

The excuse for this committee has been the lack of communication between the City and the PSB. I agree that something needed to be done. But the committee also recommended that the City's CFO and Deputy City Manager participate in PSB budget and strategic planning sessions. Communication is fixed by communication. Favoring development and developers with no concern for the rare (and getting rarer) resource of water is furthered by weakening the PSB, if they would only begin to be driven by the need to conserve the supply of water before being driven by maximizing land value (which they would do if they conserved more land and not fight conservationists as their CEO did with the NW Master Plan. The PSB and Archuleta should have been allies. Hopefully they will become more so and hopefully (though I doubt it) City Council will reject the Blue Ribbon Committee's recommendation for a new land management committee.

The best approach to the land management issue would have been the conservative one: maintain the status quo. The only thing needing fixing immediately was the piece about communication. That's solved by talking and by employing less autocratic leadership models.

Bye, bye bathwater. Bye, bye baby.

Only a Conservation Easement Will Preserve the West Transmountain Scenic Corridor In Perpetuity

On Tuesday, March 20, the El Paso City Council approved a plan which called for preservation, in perpetuity, of the 837-acre Scenic Corridor land just west of the Franklin Mountains State Park. The motion, made by Representative Niland and seconded by Representative Robinson, amended the Public Service Board’s Westside Master Plan and specifically mentioned “authorization to process a Conservation Easement by a third [party]” for the Scenic Corridor. The previous month this plan had been approved by the City’s Open Space Advisory Board. On Wednesday, June 13, the Public Service Board itself unanimously approved this resolution, made by Mayor Cook: “To approve the [Technical Working Group’s] recommendations that if the [Scenic Corridor] reverts to the City [after having been transferred to the Franklin Mountains State Park], it will come back with conservation easement if that is legally possible.”

A conservation easement is simply a legal contract. It binds the parties to honoring the contract’s terms in perpetuity—forever. The terms of a conservation easement are negotiated by the land’s current owner, the land’s new owner if any, and a third party—typically a land trust organization. (The world’s largest land trust is the Nature Conservancy, preserving land through easement or ownership in over 30 countries and all 50 states.) The third party monitors the easement while the land’s owner manages it. If the Scenic Corridor is transferred to the Franklin Mountains State Park (a frequently-mentioned possibility), the park would manage the land and a land trust (yet to be named) would monitor it, making sure that the terms of the easement were honored.

It’s indeed possible for a land trust to hold a conservation easement on land that is owned by the City of El Paso or by the State of Texas. At the present time, El Paso’s Frontera Land Alliance holds the easement on the 26-acre Thunder Canyon on the upper West Side, owned by the City through 2037 as a Public Improvement District. At present, at least five Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) properties carry easements in full or in part, including the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area near Alpine and the famous Government Canyon State Natural Area to the west of San Antonio. But it’s also true that state- and city-park land can be disposed of. From 1995 through now, TPWD disposed of 57 parcels previously forming part of Texas state parks. Seventeen were sold, fifteen were transferred, eight were exchanged and so forth. In El Paso itself, parts of the Mission Valley’s Blackie Chesher Park were disposed from parkland use so that a police station and a municipal court building could be built on them.

A very important reason why an easement must be deployed on the Scenic Corridor can be summed up thus: “frontage roads.”

A very important reason why an easement must be deployed on the Scenic Corridor can be summed up thus: “frontage roads.” According to TxDOT’s plans for Loop 375, frontage roads will run about 300 yards to the east of the Paseo del Norte interchange, on Scenic Corridor land. Frontage roads provide access to stores, restaurants and other commerce. The temptation—15, 30, 45 years from now—to sell off part or all of the 837 acres will remain strong. But with a conservation easement, the 837 acres will be preserved in perpetuity, just as City Council and the Public Service Board want them to be.

I strongly urge that when it meets next Tuesday, the El Paso City Council renew its commitment to a conservation easement on the Scenic Corridor land by voting in favor of one. 

Dr. Richard Teschner

Conservation Easements Are Scary - That's Why They Are the Right Thing To Do

“Motion made by Representative Niland, second by Representative Robinson, and carried to APPROVE, AS REVISED amending the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board Westside Master Plan . . . to include but not limited to the following: selection of a preferred development scenario for the area, authorization to process an amendment to ‘Plan El Paso’, and authorization to process an application for rezoning of the property within the [EPWU/PSB] Westside Master Plan area, Conservation easement by third easement [sic, ‘party’], bridges to be use [sic, ‘used’] to cross arroyo’s [sic, ‘arroyos’], more parks or small park, minimum encroachment into arroyos/no pocket parks, approve Scenario 1 and staff recommendations.”

So read a portion of the minutes for the City Council meeting of March 20, 2012 when City Council approved (5-3) Dover Kohl's Plan One, which called fro the preservation in perpetuity of the 837-acre Transmountain Scenic Corridor. The emphasis by italics is mine.

The motion made by Rep. Carl Niland and seconded by Rep. Robinson really instructs City staff to work on a conservation easement. That is not what staff did and not what they will bring to City Council next Tuesday, July 17.  Why not?

A staff recommendation normally holds great weight and power with City Council. Instead of coming back with a conservation easement document, they will come back with a half-baked plan to give the land to the State to be incorporated into the State Park with a reversion clause that, if the State should want to be rid of the land or begin using it for anything but recreation in a natural setting, then the land returns to the City to become a park.

The small group that worked out the proposal to go to City Council wasn't even made-up of City staff. Included on the committee were Pat Adauto, a hired consultant for EPWU, and Risher Gilbert the hired-gun attorney for the EPWU. Until the June vote by the PSB to recommend a conservation easement, nobody expected that board to buck the CEO of the EPWU who has fought open space preservation like an alley cat locked in mortal combat with another feline in the dark of night. Again, instead of working on a conservation easement, this little group worked on a separate plan. One would hope that some on City Council will ask what the heck they were doing.

As reported by Chris Roberts in his El Paso Times story, El Paso City Council's proposal would protect 800 acres near Trans Mountain, the best explanation of why the group didn't really want to consider a conservation easement comes from Pat Adauto: "'These easements are very difficult to remove once they're placed.' Adauto said. 'That's a strength if you're sure you're doing the right thing. It's scary if you're not totally sure.'"

She's absolutely right. Conservation easements are difficult to remove and that's exactly why they are perfect for this situation. The fact that City Council  asked for a conservation easement should mean that staff must treat it as the right thing. 

It's about control and giving up control. By saying this I don't mean to suggest that someone necessarily is power-hungry. It just means that we humans like to keep control. Losing or changing a job, selling a home, retiring, losing a loved one - these are hard because these mean giving up security, routine, control. I never ever got comfortable flying until the day that it hit me that I wasn't in control and might as well enjoy the ride. I've love flying ever since.

Putting the 800 or so acres under a conservation easement then handing it over to the State is scary. Control is given up - which is exactly the right thing to do in this case. The State has taken land before with conservation easements. Privately the Superintendent of the Franklin Mountains State Park, Dr. Cesar Mendez, has said that he prefers that the land come with an easement. 

One more thing to think about: in order for the land to be given to the State, the Texas legislature must agree. They don't even re-convene until next January and there is no guarantee that they will take it. If it goes back to the City, then we are back to square one. Dedicating the land as a park won't cut it because an election later can overturn the dedication or shenanigans over time can change the intent. Witness Blackie Chesher. If the land goes back to the City, then preserving it becomes a matter of keeping trust. The best way to secure that trust with the people now is to put a conservation easement on the land from the very beginning. 

For God's sake. Lose control. Stop fooling around and just make love.

Countdown to City Council July 17

This week elpasonaturally is going back over issues concerning a conservation easement. Please follow the posts daily. Yesterday’s post again talks about why a conservation easement in the northwest is necessary. Today’s shows documentation that land belonging to the Texas Parks and Wildlife is not necessarily preserved as park land forever.

All of this is leading up to next Tuesday, July 17, when , Planning and Development staff will present their proposal to City Council that land in the NW Master Plan be conserved by transferring the land to the State Park with a reversion clause that the land will return to the City if it doesn’t remain in use as natural open space recreation.  Elpasonaturally believes that the same plan presented to the PSB in June will be the proposal by staff to City Council in spite of the fact that the PSB endorsed a conservation easement.

There’s much more ground to cover this week, so please bookmark elpasonaturally and visit daily.

More and more we will discuss water conservation and the need to reform water policy now. One major reason for doing so: climate change. Read: This US Summer is ‘what global warming looks like’. Grist reports heat records melting all over the U.S. Keep up with the record drought and the daily heat index.

So what is the history of water in El Paso? U.S. Bureau of Reclamation official, Bert Cortez, will be the guest on the El Paso History Show with Jackson Polk and Melissa Sargent on Saturday, July 14, from 10 to Noon on News Talk 690 KTSM. Visit ephistory.com. Like them on Facebook.

Most of you have probably been following the sad stories of scandal, corruption and incompetence in our school district. Former Senator Eliot Shapleigh is leading an effort for reform. As parents, grandparents, students – or none of the above – you will be interested in a Town Hall that he is holding at the EPCC Val Verde campus tomorrow, Wednesday, July 11^th, at 5:30 p.m. For maps to the campus and of the campus along with a special letter from Senator Shapleigh to El Pasoans as well as a letter from him to disgraced Superintendent Lorenzo Garcia, go here. Two more Town Halls are being planned.

Finally, sustain your spirit. Go see Moonrise Kingdom. Word to the wise: Stay through the credits. Don’t leave.