Blue Ribbon Unties Previous Proposal

Mayor Cook's Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee on PSB Land Management met yesterday in the City Council chambers, on television, with City and PSB staff and members of the conservation community present. In brief, here's what happened.

Pat Adauto gave a presentation about EPWU's Land Management Program giving history, policies, guiding principles, water and land planning and more. You will have a thorough background by reading each slide carefully either by clicking on the title of the presentation below and opening in a new tag or window or clicking on the bottom bar's far right icon. Here it is:
Land Management Program

After the presentation, Adauto and Committee member also PSB Chairman, Ed Escudero, went over a proposed revision to a joint resolution between the City and PSB about land management. It adds language about land sale goals "D", and methodology for land expediency "E". Again read carefully either by clicking on the title and opening in a new tag or window or clicking on the bottom bar's far right icon.
Land Management Program Proposed Revision

Committee members did some tweaking and then passed a motion first rescinding their previous proposal of a new committee to determine if land can be sold and second of all adopting the resolution.

Thankfully the previous proposal was abandoned. That proposal in essence would have taken land management away from the PSB and given it to a Committee of two members of City Council, two from PSB with the Mayor presiding. Most objected to it because it was designed to speed up land sales in total disregard to water conservation management.

The new resolution keeps PSB in control of land management, provides for more transparency between the PSB and City Council, and puts in writing what the criteria are for determining inexpediency.

Now here's the rub: many in the conservation community were hoping for a clear statement that one reasonable condition for declaring property inexpedient should be its intrinsic value as open space. However, land sales goals include the preservation of open spaces and critical arroyos, protecting water supply and so forth. Moreover, item 4 of methodology states as a criteria for inexpediency that "[t]here is adequate water resource supply to serve the land and development contemplated." Item 5 says that the "land will be developed in a manner that will enhance regional watershed management." I.e., not enough adequate water supply + no enhancement of the watershed - no development and certainly preservation of open space could follow.

It was explained to me that, had land preservation been a "method", then there could be no other reason for selling the land. As a goal, land preservation is always a consideration.

Still some are not yet convinced that the resolution goes far enough. There, of course is one more meeting of the blue ribbon to be held September 10 or 17 to consider financial and water use questions followed by a joint City Council and PSB meeting on September 26. There is time for more tweaking as well as perhaps looking at the role of the Open Space Advisory Board regarding land management and its relationship with the PSB and City Council. 

Perhaps one very easy fix is to re-title section D as follows: Land Sales, Preservation and Development Goals. 

Why the PSB Should Continue to Manage City Land

This coming Wednesday at 8 a.m. in the City Council chambers the Blue Ribbon Committee looking at PSB land management will once again meet - this time in full view of the public and televised. Bulldozing Ted "TxDOT" Houghton will not be able to complain about the meeting being open rather than closed. 

The PSB exists to remove politics from sales of city owned land. It would seem that the Blue Ribbon Committee so far wants to put politics back into land sales.

In a response to an email from activist, Judy Ackerman, Martin Bartlett, Public Information Specialist for the EPWU, sent the following reasons for keeping the status quo - i.e., letting the PSB manage land and determine when the land will be sold:

0816 Ackerman Request

PSB Chair to Meet with Rodriguez Environmental Committee

Elpasonaturally has learned that PSB Chairman, Mr. Ed Escudero, has accepted an invitation to meet with Senator José Rodriguez's Environmental Committee on August 9 at 2 p.m. at 100 North Ochoa Street.


Here's the email chain which should be read from top to bottom:

From: "Teschner, Richard" 

Date: July 30, 2012 4:38:30 PM MDT

Subject: Ed Escudero accepts the invitation to attend our Thurs., Aug. 9 meeting

Good afternoon, all.

I’m pleased to announce that Ed Escudero, current Chair of the Public Service Board, has accepted the invitation (see below) to meet with us this coming Thursday, August 9^th and discuss the decision by the majority of the members of the recently-convened ‘Blue Ribbon’ committee regarding the role the PSB should play in recommending which parcels of City of El Paso land should be sold. From meetings of other committees (the UTEP “Campus Transformation Project” committee) I know Mr. Escudero personally and I think that you will enjoy getting to know him as well. And as you’re aware from the piece in the Times (see the attachment’s first item), members of City Council have declared themselves to be in favor of accelerating the sale of City-owned land, including land that adjoins the Franklin Mountains State Park.

See you Thursday, August 9^th at 2 p.m. at 100 N. Ochoa Street!

Richard

From: Ed Escudero
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: Teschner, Richard
Subject: RE: An invitation to engage in committee conversation

Richard,

I gladly accept your invitation to attend this meeting.  Please let me know if anything changes regarding time or place.

Thank you for the invitation,  See you on August 9^th.

Regards,

Ed Escudero   

From: Teschner, Richard 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:20 AM
To: Ed Escudero
Subject: An invitation to engage in committee conversation

Good morning, Mr. Escudero.

I am wondering whether you’d be interested in dropping by the next (monthly) meeting of State Senator José Rodríguez’s Environmental Committee, which I chair. This committee, up and running since September 2011, provides the senator with ideas and texts for bills he might wish to consider introducing in Austin; we also discussion local environmental issues but take no public stand on them. To date we’ve written five drafts of bills, all of which are currently being vetted by the senator’s Austin staff and two of which stand a very good chance of being introduced in the next legislative session. Our committee meets in a small conference room at the senator’s offices at 100 N. Ochoa Street, 79901. The next meeting is Thursday, August 9, at 2 p.m. Our meetings typically last 75-90 minutes. Of great interest to our committee at the present time (and of course to the El Paso community at large) is the decision by the majority of the members of the recently-convened “Blue Ribbon” committee regarding the role the PSB should play in recommending which parcels of City of El Paso land should be sold. I personally commend your own minoritarian stance on this issue (and I’ve said so in the letter to the editor I e-submitted yesterday afternoon; let’s see if it gets published!). The other members of the Environmental Committee are the senator’s administrative assistant Mrs. Ceci Rodríguez (no relation), Mark Benítez, Chico Domínguez (a long-time Lower Valley alcalde), Kevin von Finger, Judy Ackerman, Rick Provencio and Pat White.

Sincerely,

Richard Teschner

Chair, Senator José Rodríguez’s Environmental Committee

Another Letter Supports PSB

Last Friday I published Justice David Chew's letter to Rep. Cortney Niland as well as a letter from Judy Ackerman to elpasonaturally. Both are in response to the attempt to speed up the sale of City land - an idea being spearheaded by Rep. Niland with the support of what would seem to be a majority on the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee led by Ted "TxDOT" Houghton. Houghton's comments in the meetings make it obvious that what is really behind the desire to speed up sales of land is additional income for the City and not just economic development. At issue is the need to be judicious in selling land because of the overwhelming need to conserve water. Elpasonaturally believes that the primary reason for declaring land inexpedient (not necessary for the water utility's needs) is the need to conserve more land in its natural state in perpetuity - a need that supports water conservation while increasing the value of land that could be marketed for development. (It's the law of supply and demand - less land, same or greater demand, the higher cost for the land.) Many, including Niland, do not understand that the water in the bolsons are limited and diminishing as recharge is negative. It's not a matter of drilling more wells. Imagine a big bowl of water. Add more straws and more thirsty mouths and what happens to that glass of water sooner rather than later?


Today the E.P. Times published a letter from conservationist, Dr. Richard Teschner:


"For years, I've stated that the Public Service Board only manages open City of El Paso land and does not own it. 


"That said, I have seldom objected to the PSB's land-management practices, which are mindful of our desert location and our great distance from normally high-volume rivers such as the Colorado or the Mississippi.


"Precisely because of the water expertise of the PSB and its El Paso Water Utilities subset, the PSB indeed 'ought to be in the land-management business' and should definitely 'have a say-so in growth,' to quote in Chris Roberts' July 17 article (El Paso City Council rep seeks to speed up PSB land-use process).


"And while it's difficult to argue against including 'the city's chief financial officer and a deputy city manager in the PSB's financial committee meetings,' it also makes sense for representatives of local land conservation groups to be included there as well.


"We conservationists know where lie the arroyos, the aquifers and their intakes, and we've also had a fair amount of experience defending them."


Richard Teschner


The motion to include the city's chief financial officer and deputy city manager followed the infamous motion to establish a new committee to determine inexpediency - in effect doing what the PSB has done relatively well. The context for both motions was the seeming lack of communication between the City and the PSB. However, that lack of communication is solved by the presence of the city's financial officer and deputy city manager being part of the discussions. A committee is redundant to that end which committee proponents must know. Their real goal is to control land sales in order to gain more money for a City with a tight budget and a soon to be homeless City staff. 


Although EPWU officials probably know better than anyone (or we should all hope that they do) about "where lie the arroyos, the aquifers and their intakes", it is a need for the value of conservation to be primary rather than secondary to the market. The PSB has done quite well horse trading land so to speak. But what should be their first reason for land management is land conservation. It is that value that conservationists could bring to the table. That can be solved by re-defining PSB seats.


It's wrong to react to the PSB's market strategy for land-management by wanting the City to be the land manager. The PSB is a better place for such management as it takes it away from City politics. What needs to become the strategy for land management at the PSB is water conservation and thus land conservation. The biggest reason for declaring land inexpedient is the need to preserve land in its natural state - no development. Economic development can come through infill. More on that later.