Finally!

Click on image to enlarge.

Last Wednesday at the City's Open Space Advisory Board meeting, it was announced that the Hunt arroyo at Bear Ridge had finally been purchased using stormwater money. The purchase has been pending for seven years ever since Rick Bonart and Charlie Wakeem met with Justin Chapman of Hunt at the site. The Arroyo is very popular with hikers and mountain bikers and leads directly into the State Park. 

According to Bonart, John Balliew, CEO of El Paso Water, says that there are no immediate plans for stormwater improvement at the site. Keeping the land pristine is always good news.

This past September $185K was made available for a trailhead at the Bear Ridge Arroyo. The hope and expectation is that millions will not have been spent on procuring the arroyo and then doing nothing to build an attractive trailhead. Such is the case with the Palisades where a mere $124 was spent on a sign that is now badly deteriorated. A better example of what can and should be done is the Lost Dog Trailhead built with private-public funding for much less than what the City would have spent to create a beautiful entrance to a prominent trail.

The Chair of the Open Space Advisory Board, Sherry Bonart, says: "Let's hope that the city will step up and use 2012 QOL money to build trailheads at both Bear Ridge and Franklin Hills [another Hunt property up for sale].  It's a travesty to purchase these parcels for millions of dollars and not follow through with the necessary improvements to make them fully available for the public to use."


Not to mention, fully attractive to ecotourists.

Arroyos Safe Near Cement Lake

Cement Lake

Recently on social media there has been some concern expressed about what TxDOT might be doing to some arroyos. Is TxDOT filling in the arroyos as it continues its massive freeway building project, Go 10 El Paso? The answer is "NO".

TxDOT Regional Engineer, Bob Bielek, says that he is unaware of any arroyos being filled in. Doing so, he said, "would violate the environmental finding for either project."

I asked the Dean of Open Space, Charlie Wakeem, why are natural arroyos so important. Charlie cited an essay by Rex Funk: "Albuquerque's Environmental Story, Educating for a Sustainable Community, Environmental Topic: Arroyos" He paraphrased Funk in order to make the topic relevant to El Paso. Charlie used these words as an argument to preserve Resler Canyon, a natural arroyo. He says that they are the "best reason I've used for arguing for the importance of natural arroyos."

"El Paso is a unique place in many ways.  One contributing element is the natural drainage system of arroyos.  Most of these arroyos carry runoff from the Franklin Mountains and escarpments to the Rio Grande and are dry most of the year.  They flow most heavily from mid-summer to early fall, during a period we call our monsoon season.

"Originally these arroyos meandered freely across the land responding to the volume and velocity of storm water runoff, thereby creating large flood plains and alluvial fans.


"Natural arroyos are rich in plant life due to the soil moisture that remains after runoff events.  The abundant vegetation attracts a concentration of native wildlife in search of food and shelter."

Excessive Burden on Taxpayers

[Below is another op-ed piece by Charlie Wakeem which appeared in yesterday's El Paso Times. elpasonaturally reprinted the same piece with additions under the title of Political Influence Costs Taxpayers Millions.]

Ray Adauto, who represents the El Paso Association of Builders, wrote a response April 17 to a guest column I had previously submitted to the Times. His response contains so much misinformation that I must respond to it.

Before I do, please remember that I served on the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee with Adauto for five years and we’ve always treated each other cordially and with respect.  Nonetheless, Adauto serves his industry.  I serve no one (except El Paso) when I serve on boards and committees.

I am not now nor have I ever been against development.  Development is vigorous business activity and healthy for any community.  The question is not whether there should be development, but how and where it should take place.
Adauto states that “there are dozens of reasons people live in El Paso.”  He’s right, but one reason should be “quality of place.”

Land development is the industry that is most responsible for our city’s appearance together with good but fair city codes which promote complete neighborhoods, multi-modal transportation and walkability.

Adauto states, “One thing that makes our community special is the ability to find affordable housing…”

Providing affordable housing is important, but it should not place an excessive burden on taxpayers who subsidize it and eventually pay for the infrastructure that the developers leave out.

Adauto states:  “Proponents of impact fees, like Charlie Wakeem, keep espousing the notion that if you raise fees then you can keep growth out.”
That is not true at all!  Impact fees are not designed to punish developers or stifle growth.  They are designed to make sure new growth is financially fair to all stakeholders.  (Why should residents of older neighborhoods subsidize the development of new neighborhoods?)

This concept is set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Adauto states:  “Surprisingly, it is conveniently never explained that a large portion of the monthly water/sewer rate a new home buyer pays goes toward subsidizing replacement of older, outdated infrastructure.”

He should know better.  Chapter 395 strictly forbids the use of impact fees for replacement of old infrastructure.  The fees can only be used for infrastructure necessary to serve new growth.  All taxpayers and/or ratepayers are obligated to pay for repairing and replacing old infrastructure.

Adauto states:  “That’s why the PSB purchased thousands of acres of desert back then (early 1950’s) to have land to sell to try to keep the cost of water and sewer service down.”

Just the opposite is true.  The Public Service Board purchased the land so that El Paso wouldn’t run out of water (as it almost did in 1952).  The PSB determines whether the land is “inexpedient to the system” and can be sold.

When it established the PSB in 1952, City Council wisely assigned it the responsibility for “management and control” of the city’s water and land resources.  The more we sell the PSB land, the scarcer our water resources become.

The PSB Selection Committee met in late 2014 to recommend—to City Council—someone to fill the “engineer” position on the PSB.  David Nemir was the incumbent and was eligible for another four-year term.

A policy states that land-development engineers don’t qualify to serve on the PSB due to a possible conflict of interest.  One of the applicants was such a person.  I pointed this out.

The committee was told that the applicant had recently sold his firm and retired. If he did so, then why is he still representing land developers at the City?
The committee recommended Nemir by a wide margin. However, Council inexplicably appointed the land-development engineer.

Charlie Wakeem

Political Influence Costs Taxpayers Millions

[Below is an op-ed piece written by Charlie Wakeem and published by the El Paso Times in yesterday's Sunday paper. It was published under the title of Wakeem: City backslides on development issues. N.B.: Charlie is a gentleman. He won't name names but I will. Brad Roe replaced David Nemir who was a stellar member of the PSB. The attorney for the PSB/EPWU at the time was Bob Andron. Fortunately he retired and was replaced by Lupe Cuellar.]

In light of the recent revelations about the dysfunction and mismanagement in City Hall, I feel it’s time for me to speak about other issues I’m aware of.
One only needs to look at the difference in city government since the 2013 municipal election and decisions City Council has made since then.  Most of the problems are already well-documented, including but not limited to issues with the city manager and Rep. Larry Romero and City Council’s lack of vision and transparency.

I have served on several city boards and committees during the past decade, the latest being the Open Space Advisory Board.  Among others, I also served on the Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite Committee, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, the PSB Selection Committee and the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations to City Council regarding impact fees.

I was formerly chairman of the Open Space Advisory Board, which advises City Council on the Open Space Master Plan.  I was term-limited from the board last summer.

OSAB accomplished a great deal in the first few years of its existence.  However, things started to change after the 2013 municipal election.  City staff began to keep board members from having a say in setting the agenda and posting items for ineffective and useless Information and Discussion only instead of Action, thereby limiting the collective voice of its citizen board members.

I can only surmise that it’s the people with political and financial influence that are behind the silencing, since OSAB is unpopular with many of those people.
The City spent several years at a cost of millions of dollars, in large part provided in grants by the federal government, for Plan El Paso, El Paso’s nationally-recognized, award-winning comprehensive plan.

It has since been shelved.  Proof of this is that it is no longer available on the city’s web site.  Once again, it seems apparent that some people with influence have convinced the City to ignore it, because Plan El Paso discourages urban sprawl.

Impact fees are strictly regulated by the state and are designed so that new growth pays for itself, instead of the taxpayers or ratepayers subsidizing the new growth.  El Paso has imposed impact fees on new growth for water and wastewater infrastructure since 2009.

Impact fees are calculated by anticipating how many new housing units will be built in new growth areas over a ten year period and the cost of infrastructure to extend water and wastewater service to those new units.  The calculation was originally roughly $2,000 per new water meter (unit) in the city’s three new growth areas when the impact fees were imposed in 2009.  City Council approved 75% of that amount in impact fees.  That left the rest of us still subsidizing new growth for about $500 per unit.

Every five years the state requires impact fees to be recalculated.  In 2014 the El Paso Water Utilities calculated about $35 million more for infrastructure to serve the East and Northeast new-growth areas with a slight increase in the West.

I had term-limited off the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee by then.  The East and Northeast new growth areas are now approximately as much as $4,000 per unit.  The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, the majority of whose members belong to the El Paso Association of Builders, convinced City Council to withhold any increase.

You and I are now left with subsidizing new growth for water and wastewater costs at up to $2,500 per unit.

Also, in late 2014, the PSB Selection Committee, met to select the engineer position on the PSB.  The incumbent was the very highly qualified David Nemir, who had already served on the board for the previous four years and was eligible for another four year term.  One of the other applicants, who I will not name, was a land development engineer.

There is a policy that land development engineers do not qualify for membership on the PSB due to a possible conflict of interest.  I pointed this out at the meeting.  However, the attorney for the PSB/EPWU said the applicant had recently sold his engineering firm and retired.  If he sold his firm and retired, why is he still representing land development clients at the City?  I’ve personally seen him do so.

The mayor, who serves on the PSB and chairs the selection committee, was absent at this PSB selection meeting.  The selection committee proceeded to re-nominate Dr. Nemir by a wide margin. 

When the committee’s recommendation subsequently went to City Council, the land development engineer was inexplicably appointed in place of Dr. Nemir. City Council has the right to appoint anyone it wants, but we have to ask ourselves whether political influence was involved. 

The best way for citizens to make change is elections.  Let’s choose the candidates with integrity and a vision for our city, who work for us and not self-serving financial interests. 
   
Charlie Wakeem

The Knapps or the City?

I have an apology to make to Dan Knapp and his family. I was pretty critical of them in my recent post about their bulldozing above Stoney Hill. I stated that they were "tearing up the ecosystem". The facts are now plain: they were not plowing any new roads but old pre-existing roads. They also did not wander over into State Park boundaries. My understanding is that they want their surveyors to be able to access the area.

I suspect that most El Pasoans do not want to see more development on the mountainsides. I know that Dan has agonized about this. I also know that he and his family have tried to work something out with the City for six years or more now. There comes a point where you have to do something and you have no choice. The land has value and it is taxed. 

For some time now Charlie Wakeem, the former chair and long-term member of the Open Space Advisory Board, has asked that this land be looked at. For whatever reasons, it just never seemed to be given consideration. With the recent concerns voiced by many neighbors about the planned Sierra del Puente development, the matter of some Knapp land in the northeast has been in front of OSAB. A large crowd even gathered for one meeting. I had asked that the item about the Knapp land be placed on our June agenda for discussion. It was removed from that month's agenda. 

Many City Council members lust for park ponds to be paid for out of OSAB funds thus removing the ability to buy more open space with storm water function on our mountainsides. Park ponds may be political pork for a representative of a particular district, but they are worthless when it comes to preventing destruction by storm water running down our arroyos and they are certainly not preserving our mountainsides.

Our City government is perpetually in the hands of the monied interests - particularly those developers who promote sprawl. Little attention is given to landowners who would like to work with the City to preserve their land and this in spite of the fact that El Paso has a great land conservation organization, the Frontera Land Alliance.

Thus, people such as Dan and his family, are left with little choice. 

It's the same old, tiring problem: the people in power just don't value conservation and the environment. They don't get it and their bought and paid for representatives don't (and won't) get it either.

Leadership for real change must begin with We the People. We cannot afford to be complacent and disorganized any longer.


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

Will Stack and Pack Development Really Preserve Arroyos?

The image is from El Paso Development News which reports, "The site plan for a new residential development in Northeast El Paso shows streets winding around arroyos and open space. (City of El Paso)

The City Plan Commission (CPC) approved a land study for 175.45 acres above Magnetic and just to the south of Hondo Pass. The planned development is being called Sierra del Puente. This is an area that some on the Open Space Advisory Board had asked on several occasions to be considered for acquisition. 

El Paso Development News has the story.

The land owned by Daniel Knapp and Palo Verde Properties plans to build 319 residential units on 70 acres while preserving 88 acres of arroyos and open space. One land expert commented: "This is a stack and pack in order to squeeze all the units on there – which is what they have to do to get their money out of it.  I sure hope the surrounding neighborhoods object to it.  I hate to see that happen to the mountain."

Maybe but, if they use green infrastructure/low impact development and preserve (not concrete) the arroyos, it may be a worthwhile (albeit expensive) enterprise. I've hiked with Dan Knapp and know that he loves our mountains.

When the CPC reviewed the land study, commissioners asked whether anyone from the public had comments. There were none. One wonders how well the neighborhood was informed about the project.

One also wonders whether years of Charlie Wakeem's mentioning the area at OSAB resulted in any attempts to contact the owners about selling the land. OSAB members often waste their breaths at City Planning.

By the way, El Paso Development News is great. Get on their email list.

City Strategic Plan Has Nothing to Say about the Environment and Open Space

Our beautiful mountains are being ravaged by quarries like the Cemex operation near McKelligon Canyon.

The City of El Paso's strategic plan has nothing to say about the environment and open space. Although it may be a useful document for staff, it does not address the issues about conservation and preservation of our natural resources. 

At their meeting this past Wednesday members of the Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) heard a presentation by Nancy Bartlett of the City Manager's office about the strategic plan. Questions were immediately raised.

Board member, Maria Teran, asked if OSAB fitted into one of the strategic plan initiatives. Both Bartlett and a cohort also from the CM's office were hard pressed to find an item that might include open space. To say the least, I haven't heard this much hemming and hawing by city personnel in a long time.

Former OSAB Chairman and current Board member, Charlie Wakeem said it quite plainly after all the hemming and hawing: "Nothing I've heard has tied this plan to the open space plan."

You can read the strategic plan HERE. Ms. Bartlett tried to tie open space with 3.2 of the plan: "Improve the visual impression of the community." OSAB members weren't buying it.

When questioned as to how the general public, boards and commissions had been involved in the formation of the strategic plan, Bartlett claimed that the public had been invited to a City Council hearing. It was pointed out that, if true, no real notice about the hearing was given. A friend commented: "I joined the city mailing list in May 2014, I never received any notice of public meetings on the strategic plan that I recall."

Not being able to detail public participation in the plan, Bartlett then claimed that the SP is a work in progress and her coming to OSAB was a beginning. However, that doesn't explain the fact that a slick brochure with the plan has already been printed. Why go to the expense of designing and printing a brochure if the SP is still a "work in progress"?

What it means that the environment, open space and conservation are not mentioned is easy: the heirarchy of the City doesn't value the environment, open space and conservation. 

They should.

Not Impact Fees but More Land is Goal of Developers

Damn the people's will by petition. Sprawlers want City to jettison NW Master Plan and Smart Growth so they can plow up more natural land.

elpasonaturally is going to be saying a lot about impact fees. As reported here, City Council last Tuesday decided to have a one-year moratorium on those fees and see if there was some other way to pay for water utility capital improvements - perhaps Prop 6 money from the State of Texas. I suggested to Council that they also have an objective study done about growth and prosperity - i.e., whether growth pays for itself.

Prior to last week's Council, the Newspaper Tree did an informative piece about the issue.

In it they report on the arguments by the builders against impact fees.

In response to their arguments, Charlie Wakeem wrote a letter to Anthony Halpern of the NPT. Here is his letter with my editing:


"This letter is a response to your February 27 article about impact fees in the NPT.  I served on the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee or CIAC for the first six years after it was created by City Council.  I was term limited off the committee at the end of last year.  This is the committee that reviews impact fees and makes recommendations to the City Plan Commission and City Council.  When the committee was first formed, there were five members from the development community and four members from the public at large, including myself.  Now seven of the nine members are from the development community.  That's why CIAC is "vehemently opposed to increasing the charges" as you state in your article.

"The proposed fee increases are not the real issue.  It's a side show.  The development community is using them as misdirection to get what they really want and they know they have City Council's political support.  They want more urban sprawl as cheaply as possible, both in the three impact fee service or growth areas and in the city-owned PSB land on both sides of the mountain.  The latter is the most egregious.  They are being supported by the Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce.

"Here are some of their arguments.

Housing affordability

"They say they will have to pass the fee increase on to the new home owners, which could price them out of a home.  That's a poor argument.  The highest fee increase is in the East Service Area.  I'll use those fees to illustrate the facts.  The current East maximum is $2,156.00.  The city currently charges 75% of that amount, which comes to $1,617.00.  The proposed maximum increase is $3,835.00.  The difference from $2,156.00 is $1,679.00.  If City Council keeps the 75%, the fee would only be $1,259.25.  Amortized over a 30 year mortgage at the highest current rate of 4.25% the increase in a home buyer's monthly payment is only $6.20 a month.  Less in the Northwest and Northeast Service Areas.  Hardly unaffordable.

Leap Frog Development

"With the increase in impact fees the development community would build homes outside the city limits in order to avoid them.  According to city planners, the developers would have to get water to those subdivisions somehow. There are two ways to provide water to those subdivisions: Negotiate with El Paso Water Utilities to extend the water infrastructure outside of the city limits or create a MUD (Municipality Utility District).  

"Extending services does not guarantee that it will cost less than the impact fees.  In addition, home owners would pay higher water rates to EPWU than city residents. 

"Creating a MUD has several risks. Water quality may be poorer; building the infrastructure could be more costly than the fees; and it's not sustainable. It's up to the homeowners in a MUD to fund and maintain the MUD.

"With or without impact fees, developers go outside the city already to avoid other fees and regulations, such as development application fees, hook up fees, building permits, parks, street lights, sidewalks, paved streets and etc., etc. etc. 

WORST OF ALL!!   

"Here is the real issue and it's not impact fees.  Builders want the city to sell its PSB land to developers lifting the city's restrictions on the land, (viz., the Northwest and Northeast Master Plans), and sell the land piecemeal for conventional sprawl development.  Unfortunately, after hearing the debate at the February 25 council meeting, this is something City Council seems amenable to doing.  It would betray the public trust after the Northeast and Northwest Master Plans were fully vetted in public meetings.  

"The excuses the development community uses to justify these land sales is twofold: revenue to the PSB through sale of the land, and ad valorem taxes to the city with the new housing.  The revenue from sales to the PSB is minimal and unsustainable.  Revenue from ad valorem taxes in new growth has never paid for itself.  A study was done several years ago by John Neal, the city manager's special projects person, that bears that out.  With these revenues, the development community justifies not having to increase or even eliminate impact fees.  

"Of course, another risk to selling the PSB land is water.  The main purpose for the PSB holding the land is for aquifer recharge to the Hueco and Mesilla Bolsons.  There is more land than locally available water to serve development on all of it."

Arguments Against Impact Fees Are Fallacious

The issue of impact fees is again before City Council and the citizens of El Paso as well as the ratepayers of the water utility. Please mark March 4th on your calendars. That is the day that City Council will decide about increasing the impact fees. This post is just the first in what will be several on this subject.

I begin by sharing with you an email that I received from Charlie Wakeem on the subject. Most of you know Charlie as the recent past chairman of the Open Space Advisory Board. However, Charlie has served the City as a member of many other committees including the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) which advises the CPC (City Plan Commission) and City Council on issues such as impact fees.

Before sending me the email, Charlie told me that the impact fee issue has nothing to do with economic growth or sprawl. It has everything to do with basic fairness. If you use something, you pay for it. If you don't use something, you don't. I'll be exploring that theme in the next few posts on impact fees. Today, here is the opener from Mr. Wakeem:


Hi Guys,

On March 4 as many citizens as possible should go to City Council (CC) and speak in support of a major issue: Impact Fees.  This is important for all of El Paso because the developers are not only trying to stop justified increases of those fees but they are also arguing for the roll back of those fees, the sale of city owned land held by the PSB and the end of Smart Growth and SmartCode. In short, they want more destructive sprawl.  

Before I continue, I suggest you watch the video stream of the February 18th CC meeting starting from 39:20 into the video.  This is the link: http://home.elpasotexas.gov/video.php.  With the exception of Lisa Turner, no one else spoke on behalf of the rate payers. 

I've been on the city's Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) from the start, which was set up by City Council six years ago and makes recommendations to the CPC and CC.  I was term limited at the end of 2013, but I still follow them.  At the beginning CC appointed 5 developers and 4 non-developers to CIAC.  I was the last original non-developer.  There are now 7 developers and 2 non-developers on the committee.  The 2 non-developers are relatively new and are still learning.  Originally, the Impact Fees approved in 2009 were 75% of approximately $2,000 per new home built, or about $1,500. The developers persuaded CC to make the rate payers pay the other 25%. Due to needed new capital improvements, mainly to the Bustamante Water Treatment Plant, which serves the East and NE service areas, the impact fee would double if approved.  The NW service area would have no significant increase.

So much for the background.  At the January, 2013 CIAC meeting, the vote was unanimous not to recommend the increase.  Later, the CPC voted 6-0-1 to recommend the increase (which I repeat is justified).  Ray Adauto (who I might add has also been term limited but is currently serving as CIAC chair) is the Executive Director of the El Paso Association of Builders. He spoke on behalf of the developers at CC this past Tuesday - Feb. 18.  Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce Director Richard Dayoub did the same.

Here are the arguments they made and my rebuttals [in bold red]:

1.  Impact Fees raise the prices of homes and more people will be priced out of the market.

Answer:  This is a bad arguement.  Impact fees are part of the cost of doing business.  If a buyer can't afford an additional $3,000 or $16.00 per month for a home [loan amortized at 5% over 30 years], they have no business buying one.  They are getting the benefit of the Water/Waste Water CIPs (Capital Improvement Projects), not the current rate payers.

2.  Impact Fees encourage sprawl.  Developers don't have to develop in the city, setting up bedroom communities.  They can go outside the city and not pay the impact fees and the home buyers will still use city services.

Answer:  This true, but the home buyers outside of the city pay higher water utility rates than city residents. Socorro is an example.  Horizon City has its own MUDD.  Nevertheless, what do the developers care what they're customer's utility bills are?  They already made their money without  having to pay the fees outside of the city.

3. Another source of income in lieu of impact fees is the city's sale of its land held by the PSB to developers. It will generate income from the sale of the land and will generate more income with the new home buyers on that land paying property taxes.  Developers aren't buying the land, because the city has placed too many restrictions on its development, such as Smart Growth and SmartCode.

Answer:  WOW!!  Speak of sprawl!!  There are several parts to this answer. First, City Development Director Matthew McElroy, told me that the City owned PSB land is only 2% of the total land acreage.  The PSB generates little income from land sales and would not be useful in defraying CIP costs.  

Second, the land won't be sold for many years, since growth won't occur in those areas for a long time.  Declaring the land inexpedient now would bring pennies on the dollar.  Also, most of the PSB land is being held for its water storage and recharge, and not for its commercial use. That was the original intent of setting up the PSB in the 1950s.  

Third, it's a proven fact that no matter how many new homes are built, the property taxes from them never pay for all of the city services and infrastructure needed.  That's why our property taxes NEVER go down. 

Fourth and finally, the city has worked for years to improve the quality of development through Smart Growth.  It's a major part of the Comprehensive Plan that was fully vetted 2 years ago.  If the developers don't want to buy city land with Smart Code, they don't have to.

4.  The water utilities replaces old infrastructure in the city, such as replacing pipes on Country Club Road.  There are no impact fees imposed on that. Yet the home buyers in new growth areas are billed for those improvements.

Answer: Water and Waste Water CIPs are built to last at least 50 years. Some have lasted for nearly a century.  Old infrastructure wearing out is normal and should be a cost shared by everyone.

That's all for now.

Charlie  
             

Download the Environmental App Please Mayor Leeser

Mayor Leeser is a great guy but he has got to begin valuing environmentalism more.

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. 

Open Space Board and Democracy under Attack

Harold:

Well, either you're closing your eyes 

To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge

Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated

By the presence of sprawlers and their lackeys in our community.

Ya got trouble, my friend, right here, 

I say, trouble right here in Rio Grande City. 

When a Water Right Isn't a Water Right

One idea for getting water to the Rio Bosque is simply asking for people with water rights to transfer their "share" to the Bosque.  For example, Charlie Wakeem has tried for years to give the water that is his because of property he owns in the Mission Valley.  For years he has been denied or given the old runaround.  I asked Charlie to chronicle his experience. Here is what he wrote:

"Hi Jim,

It's hard to give you an accurate chronology of what happened over the years.  So, I'll start from the very beginning.

I had a 22 acre water allotment on my land, which was being farmed.  I owned it since the mid-70s.  The property is on Alameda along the EP-Socorro city limits.  In the mid-90s I stopped leasing the property to a farmer in order to develop the 20 acres that were in El Paso.  I had another 3 acres in Socorro.    I developed the El Paso portion into a mobile home park and left the 3 acres in Socorro undeveloped, most of which was used as a ponding area for the mobile home park.  I leased the 20 acre water allotment in El Paso to EPWU in 2002 on a long term lease.  At that time, EPWU could not lease irrigation water rights outside of the city limits.  Thus, I kept the remaining 2 acre water allotment on the other 3 acres in Socorro.  I offered to lease the the 2 acre allotment to the Lower Valley Water District at that time.  They told me they would happily take the water, but wouldn't pay for it.  So, I basically told them, "Toma!"  Since then, I learned that EPWU is now leasing irrigation water rights outside the city limits.  Nevertheless, I kept the 2 acre allotment. The annual assessment is only $54.00.  I am currently developing the 3 acres in Socorro into a strip center.  I sold the mobile home park about a year ago.

Here's where the time line gets a little fuzzy.  At least 6 years ago, and probably longer, Maria Trunk, who was a member of Friends of the Rio Bosque and President of the Frontera Land Alliance, told me she was trying to get water for the Bosque.  I told her about my 2 acre allotment at that time and offered it as a donation to the Rio Bosque.  She was thrilled and told me I would be the guinea pig for other water rights owners to follow.  I subsequently went to the Water District and told them what I wanted to do.  To make a long story short, I had been stalled, put off, delayed, made excuses to, etc., etc., etc, by the District ever since.  In fact Chuy Reyes told me in front of a PSB meeting a couple years ago that he would have something worked out for me "soon".  [N.B.: I was there and remember this happening.]  I met with him again in December, 2011 to ask about my donation to the Bosque.  He told me the turnout was the only thing holding up the transfer and would be installed by March 31, 2012 along with a lease document he was working on with John Sproul and would be prepared by that time.  He said it would probably be a 10 year lease agreement between Rio Bosque and me.  Nothing happened since until the past few weeks, as you know.  John told me just the other day that the turnout was delivered, but still hasn't been installed.

In case you're not aware of it already, here's what's happened during the past few weeks.  Richard Teschner called me and told me he was working with Sen. Rodriguez as chairman of the Senator's Environmental Committee.  His committee has been working to get private water rights, like mine, to the Bosque.  As I told you in the previous paragraph, I'm the guinea pig.  Richard said that they're proposing the "Charlie Law" to the Legislature in order to guarantee the transfer.  Richard asked me to call Lisa Aguilar at the Water District.  I did the following Monday, January 14.  Lisa transferred me to a Cathy [Kathy?] Oysten.  Ms. Oysten stalled me yet again.  I called her about a week later to get a decision.  She said there was no way I could transfer my water rights to the Rio Bosque.  The excuse being the Bosque had to be farming with a water allotment of their own in order to make a transfer.  I reported this to Richard and John.  Subsequently, Richard told me Cecilia Rodriguez at Sen. Rodriguez' office called Chuy Reyes.  Hence, John and I met with him, Ms. Oysten and Rose Rodriguez Monday morning in the main office of the Water District in Clint.  They presented us with the transfer agreement that they will use and mail it to each of us when it's filled out.  Now, I'll hurry up and wait once again.                              
                                                                 
I hope this helps.  You're welcome to publish this email in your blog (edited if you'd like).                                                                                                                                                                      
           
Charlie"

Yesterday Mr. Reyes met with Senator Rodriguez's Environmental Committee.  He was asked why the transfer of water rights was only temporary.  (The contract must be renewed yearly.) His reply as that the District does not know how much water will be allocated except on a yearly basis.  The question then became why the contract shouldn't be a percentage whatever the allocation is.  (It's a percentage now based on land owned.) Mr. Reyes said that he had to fill out a report showing the actual amount of water. I have no reason to doubt this but his bottom line is really very simple: his duty is to District and to make available every drop of water he can to his paying customers. Although one can fault the District for not honoring the water rights of some by making transfers difficult to say the least, one can see their intentions especially as the drought worsens.

Charlie (and others) should be able to transfer their rights . . .  by right. I understand the fiduciary responsibility that Chuy Reyes and the District has and perhaps by law Mr. Reyes has the authority to approve or not a transfer - an approval that he may be reluctant to give in times of drought.  The form below indicates that he does have such authority. If so, then there is no need for runaround or leaving anyone hanging.

Click on image to enlarge.

Open Space Advisory Board - 2012 Annual Report

Osab City Council Report 6-5-12

Untruths Continue to Circulate about Conservation Easements

From a story (Saving water, preserving land) by Colin McDonald in today's San Antonio Express-News, is this strategy for ensuring clean water:

"Levels of a colorless solvent that the Environmental Protection Agency links to liver damage and possibly cancer recently spiked in a monitoring well of the Edwards Aquifer on San Antonio's North Side.

"San Antonio's only defense against this and other pollution reaching its production wells is dilution from the clean water flowing into the aquifer from the rural land west of the city.

"To ensure that there is clean water entering the aquifer, the city's Edwards Aquifer Protection Program is about to spend an additional $90 million from a voter-approved one-eighth-cent sales tax to buy conservation easements over the aquifer's recharge zone. So far, the program has spent $135 million from the tax, protecting more than 90,000 acres."

The italicized letters are my emphasis.


San Antonio has had this enlightened, progressive program going for a number of years now. When the President of El Paso's Frontera Land Alliance, Mike Gaglio, urged Mayor John Cook and EPWU/PSB CEO Ed Archuleta to consider a similar approach in El Paso, his response was no response. Gaglio tells us:

"A few years ago I sent an email to Ed Archuleta and Mayor Cook about San Antonio's Conservation Easement Purchase Program and urged them to consider something similarly progressive in El Paso.  I never received a response.   It would be nice to talk to them about this and use it to demonstrate the excellent use of CEs by public entities for the purposes of water protection.  Frontera has contacts and maintains regular dialogue with the folks that actually put this program into place."

Again, emphasis is mine.

One of the principal stumbling blocks for finally bringing the protection of the Scenic Corridor to completion is the issue of a conservation easement. Petitioners asked that land in the NW Master Plan be preserved in perpetuity as natural open space along with some other requests. Many, but not all, petitioners are at least willing to see a scenario presented by Dover Kohl and approved by City Council as a compromise plan just as long as arroyos are preserved and natural open space (including the arroyos) are preserved in perpetuity. 

From the very beginning of working out "compromise" there has been a steady misrepresentation of conservation easements by PSB (and elpasonaturally believes) City attorneys. Hired PSB gun, Risher Gilbert, made some inaccurate claims publicly especially that municipally owned lands can never be under a conservation easement. In fact there are examples of such all over the country and in Texas and in El Paso: Thunder Canyon.

Now there are a new set of blatant untruths about the conservation easement process making the rounds in an effort to assure that the final legal product employed is one by which the City and/or PSB maintains control enough over the land to take it out of preservation at a time of its own choosing. 

The lies (and let's not mince words) go like this: Frontera Land Alliance is broke. Their management fees are too high. They have no back-up plan should  they indeed go broke. In an email, Charlie Wakeem, Treasurer of Frontera, repied:

1. Frontera "isn't" in the red!!!!  I should know.  I'm the Treasurer.  There's over $100k in the bank and no liabilities.   
2. Frontera has no management fee for CEs.  There are costs associated with starting up the CE, such as a survey, appraisal, attorney's fees, title search, and an environmental assessment.  Those costs can be negotiated between the Grantor and Grantee.  After the conservation easement is in place, the land trust solicits donations for an endowment to manage the terms of the CE, and not management of the land.  The property owner may or may not choose to donate to the endowment.
3. What happens to the CE if Frontera folds?  The CE runs with the land and another land trust would take over, and could be specified in the CE document, but is optional.

That's the truth. The question is whether members of City Council will hear it or be led by those who really don't want to give up control of the natural open space in question. Just look at Blackie Chesher Park - land given with the clear, unequivocal understanding that the land be used as a public park. In attempt to undermine that perpetual desire, the PSB and the City seem to have problems coming up with a proper deed and cannot even answer Rep. Eddie Holguin's questions. 

One more question: what possibly can be accomplished by spending tens of thousands of taxpayer and rate payer dollars to come up with something that a conservation easement already does? Answer: the top brass will spend your money ad infinitum to get their bloody way.

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.

Options and Obstacles for Water at the Rio Bosque

Friends of Rio Bosque Board member, Judy Ackerman, has well outlined the options and roadblocks for getting water to the Rio Bosque. Her document is a must read:

Friends of the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park currently see four options to get water to our wetlands park: Effluent from the Bustamante Water Treatment plant, Turnout from the Riverside Drain, a Connection between Basin G and the Riverside Drain, and More wells.

Overview of four Options

1. Effluent from the Bustamante Water Treatment plant.

Cost: NONE

Infrastructure Requirements: NONE

Agreements and legal hurdles: Agreement from El Paso County Water Improvement District Number One (ElP #1)

Drawbacks: Agreement from ElP #1.

2. Turnout from the Riverside Drain.

Cost: ~ $ 10,000

Infrastructure Requirements: The turnout itself, connection to the Old River Channel in the park, and a bridge for the Tornillo Trail.

Agreements and legal hurdles: Donation of water rights and more.

Drawbacks: unknown

3. Connection from Basin G to the Riverside Drain
Cost: unknown

Infrastructure Requirements: Building the connection and more.

Agreements and legal hurdles: unknown

Drawbacks: Could only deliver water when Basin G, Feather Lake, or Feather Lake 2 has storm water.

4. More wells.

Cost: Considerable initial investment and then cost of electricity and maintenance.

Infrastructure Requirements: for drilling wells, and creating appropriate electrical infrastructure.

Agreements and legal hurdles: unknown

Drawbacks: Requires electricity or noisy generators that will need considerable continuing maintenance. Removes water from the Bosque’s groundwater to put on the surface.

More details:

Currently the Bosque is watered by John Sproul with a water trailer owned by the Friends of the Bosque that carries 750 gal. He spends all his available time, all day, 5 days per week, hauling water from the Bustamante Treatment plant to deliver to individual trees and plantings in the park. By this labor intensive process, the Bosque received approximately one acre foot of water in 2011.

There is extensive documentation on water quality improvement, natural habitat and quality of life improvements achieved by utilizing wetlands to processes effluent. The advantages of doing this at the Bustamante Treatment Plant and the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park are beyond measure.

Effluent from the Bustamante Water Treatment plant.

The Bustamante Water Treatment plant is directly adjacent and upstream from the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park. The volume of water from the plant is about 30,000,000 gal / day (about 92 acre-feet per day, during the summer months). The Rio Bosque Wetlands Park started to receive water from Bustamante in 1998. In 2001 and 2002, the park received water almost all year, including the growing season and plant life in the park responded with profusion.

The Rio Grande Project 2001 Implementing Third-Party Contract obligates EPWU to give about two thirds of the Bustamante effluent to ElP #1. Because ElP #1 owns the infrastructure, they decide where ALL the effluent goes. The infrastructure allows two possibilities: the effluent can go into the Riverside Cannel (the irrigation channel) or the Riverside Drain (also known as the Hudspeth Drain).

When ElP #1 does not want or need the treated water in the Riverside Cannel, it directs the water into the Riverside Drain by turning valves at the Bustamante Treatment Plant. When water is in the Riverside Drain, park managers can divert it through the park in the old river channel and, if desired, by a series of gates, to three wetland cells. In recent years, water is available in the Riverside Drain for 2 – 3 months in the winter (NOT the growing season). The park can accommodate between one half and all the water from the drain. At the southeast (downstream) end of the park, the water is returned to the Riverside Drain.

By simply turning the valve, the park could receive at least the one third of the treated water that is not obligated to ElP #1. This is an easy, no-cost solution, which would greatly benefit the citizens of El Paso.

Turnout from the Riverside Drain.

Chuy Reyes, General Manager ElP #1, says that ElP #1 will construct the turnout this winter (2011 – 2012), but not pay for the construction or the design costs. Bosque Program Coordinator/Manager, John Sproul has secured funding grants from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and from the IBWC to cover the cost of the turnout and the connecting channel between the turnout and the old river channel. The Friends of the Rio Bosque have committed to covering installation of the footbridge for the Tornillo Trail.

Charlie Wakeem had been trying to donate his water rights to the Bosque. His application has been pending with ElP #1 for five years. This would be a test case for HOW to donate water rights to the Bosque. El Paso County owns 137 acres of water rights at the Tornillo Port of Entry. Many people, including Chuy Reyes, General Manager ElP #1, and Ernie Carrizal, the County’s Acting Public Works Director, agree the county should donate those water rights to the Bosque.

Connection from Basin G to the Riverside Drain

This option may be of interest in relation to storm water issues.

More wells. The Bosque has a well near the northwest corner of the park that pumps 400 gal/min. In the winter when groundwater levels are at their highest and evaporation at its lowest, the pump can deliver water to approximately one quarter of the Old River Channel. At the height of the summer, the pump can flood about one-eighth of the channel. More wells would require too much cost, noise and maintenance to be a viable option at this time.

Other points:

El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) is aware of issues with water at the Bosque and Rudy Valdez is the primary contact. In public forums, Ed Archuleta, President/Chief Executive Officer, said, “we can fix that” referring to no water at the Bosque.

Stealing water from El Paso citizens by pumping groundwater from the Rio Bosque Wetlands Park: ElP #1 owns the water under their own land along the Riverside Canal. They operate 6 wells that pump water from the land immediately adjacent to the Bosque. This summer, and as of 13 Oct 2011, these pumps are running 24/7, each pumping up to 1,750 gal/min from the groundwater into the Riverside Canal for irrigation use. In 2011, this pumping is primarily responsible for dropping the groundwater level in the park by 15 feet – below the roots of the cottonwood and other trees.

El Paso County Water Improvement District Number One (ElP #1) and lining the Riverside Cannel with cement:

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/albuq/envdocs/ea/epcwid1/index.html

This “finding of no significant impact” is in direct opposition to the facts and considerable data on file at UTEP.

Note that Chuy Reyes, brother of Congressman Silvestre, has not addressed Charlie Wakeem's offer of five years. He now says (with a fork tongue?) that they will build a turnout but not pay for it. The improvement district is clearly "stealing" water from the Bosque. Environmental studies are now just political covers for some to do whatever they want to do to the land and water. Someone remind me to check to see Silvestre's footprints all over that "environmental" document.

Castner Conservation Takes Center Stage

Senator Rodriguez and Rep. Marquez present resolution to Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition President, Scott Cutler

About 75 people gathered yesterday at the El Paso Museum of Archaeology to show their support for conserving Castner Range in its natural state. El Paso Senator José Rodriguez and Representative Marisa Marquez presented a framed copy of House Resolution 306 and Senate Resoultion 506 to the Castner Conservation Conveyance Committee.

The resolutions promote the conservation of this 7,000 acres of undeveloped desert and foothills - "one of the most rugged and pristine landscapes in Texas" according to RickLoBello. "The preservation effort will ensure that future generations of El Pasoans will be able to enjoy Castner Range for many years into the future," LoBello said.

Pictures of the event can be seen on the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition Facebook page.

Loop 375 Project Location Map. Click on image to enlarge.

Many in attendance were curious about the construction site on Castner Range just south of the Border Patrol Museum and next to the Archaeological Museum.

In a press release from earlier this year, TxDOT explains: “The proposed Loop 375 facility (Preferred Alternative) will be constructed from approximately one mile west of US 54 to Dyer Street and will include a four-lane urban freeway divided by a concrete median barrier. The proposed Loop 375 will tie-in directly to the existing Loop 375 west of US 54 and at Dyer Street.”

Finally, in regard to the conservation of Castner Range, the EPWU/PSB proposed a stormwater and sediment detention basin to protect the neighborhoods surrounding Sun Valley Drive in the northeast sector of El Paso, Texas (the Sun Valley 205 Flood Risk Retention Project). In a letter, the Army Corps of Engineers described the project: “The proposed basin would be located upstream of the EPWU’s Northeast Channel #2, a stormwater channel that has a history of overflowing and flooding the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project site is west of highway US-54 on the Castner Range . . . " (Map).

Open Space Advisory Board Chairman Charlie Wakeem saw the proposed project and noted that the proposal “calls for a ponding/sediment basin that shows a much larger footprint on Castner Range than the original Stormwater Master Plan does.” EPWU officials argued that digging a detention dam that takes up more area will mean that the maintenance schedule will be shortened. Of course, the larger basin will destroy more open space – but it means that EPWU doesn’t have to work as hard. We note their choice of values.

As a result, the OSAB proposed a resolution for Council to approve that would be submitted to the Corps. City Council unanimously passed the proposed resolution at its meeting yesterday. The mayor's OSAB appointment, Environmental Engineer Katrina Martich, wrote the resolution at Charlie’s request. It was edited and approved by EPWU Stormwater Utility Manager Gonzalo Cedillos and Assistant City Attorney Lupe Cuellar. It asks the Army Corps of Engineers to include in its Environmental Assessment “an alternative that is limited in size to the smallest area needed to retain sediment, while only detaining (not retaining) runoff from the infrequent storm events (25-year and larger return periods), in order to release the storm water at a flowrate that can be safely conveyed by the downstream concrete-lined channel.”