Soil Map of El Paso

This is a follow-up to last Friday's post, Critical Water Conservation Guidelines May at Best Be Optional in El Paso. The development community wants to scuttle the Drainage Design Manual and their excuse is that there have not been soil surveys of El Paso so that standards are not arbitrary. As I pointed out, the USDA in 1971 did a comprehensive soil survey of all of El Paso County. A soil map was developed by Texas A&M University, Agricultural Research Center at El Paso using 26 soil survey maps of El Paso County. Here is the map. Just click on it to enlarge. Copy if you would like and send it to one of your favorite developers or maybe Carlos Gallinar in Planning and Development.

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

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

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

Drainage Design Manual Final Draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSB Vote Practically Torpedoes UTEP Centennial Park Water Program

On Wednesday, the PSB didn't exactly say "no" to the Centennial Park Water Reclamation project at UTEP.  However, there was enough skepticism on the Board to hobble the program. 

The Petition, Transmountain and the Rio Bosque

Left alone, the natural environment provides us with many benefits including cleaner air and water, carbon sequestration, better soil, greater biodiversity which promotes human health as well. All of these benefits are called ecosystem services – one good reason to preserve open space in its natural state. Other reasons for preservation/conservation include human health and recreation, eco-tourist dollars, and quality of life. Natural open space is good for us mentally, spiritually and emotionally. So where do things stand with three key open space issues in El Paso – the Transmountain West project, the NW Master Plan and the Rio Bosque?

I get more phone calls about the Transmountain West TxDOT project currently than anything else. The extensive and quickening bulldozing is very disconcerting to say the least. So far the Judge overseeing Sierra Club’s lawsuit against TxDOT has not ruled on an injunction to stop work. The contractor plows ahead and many of you have reported the wide devastation including the removal of some foothills.

The NW Master Plan is a separate but related matter. The new plan is the direct result of trying to find a “compromise” with petitioners who seek to preserve in perpetuity 780 acres in the Transmountain Scenic Corridor along with keeping arroyos in their natural state and preventing any major road construction through the area (Paseo del Norte). I authored the petition and coordinated efforts to get the necessary number of signatures to bring it to City Council.  Where do things stand with the petition? Simply put: on-hold as City Planning and Attorneys work out further details of the City Council approval of a Dover Kohl scenario. Understand this: there is no time limit as to when to gather signatures to put the petition language to voters if what the City Council ultimately does is unacceptable. So far, there have been benefits as the City wrestles with the Master Plan so there is reason to be patient.

What are the benefits? First and foremost that a new NW Master Plan was even undertaken with smart growth/smart code in mind is a big benefit. However, smart growth/code is not enough when it comes to preserving arroyos in their natural state. Nature has created ways for water to flow “historically” through arroyos while still maintaining the ecosystem. Any kind of development near or along a development increases that flow rate.  Unless accounted for in some way, the velocity of stormwater can become quite destructive. We all know that rainwater washing off our roofs, sidewalks, asphalt and other impermeable surfaces races downhill. Our urban development has removed many features that can soak-up and otherwise handle stormwater: plants, natural ground, natural swales in the landscape and so forth.  Just like the development that has created urban sprawls of cul-de-sacs and strip malls, smart growth development (although it addresses density and quality of life issues while preserving more natural features) does not address stormwater management. So, whatever the development may be along arroyos, that development impacts water flow in the arroyos and engineers will all tell you that arroyos need to be modified in some way to provide flood control.

A tool for preserving natural features such as arroyos in their natural state is green infrastructure/low impact development which employs more pocket parks and linear parks and shallow depressions to manage stormwater rather than one big drain – the arroyo itself. Such a tool makes all the arroyo modification unnecessary. A benefit of being patient as the City works out issues: the City (at least the Planning Department) is learning about green infrastructure/low impact development. They are learning (as we all are) that before you can Master Plan and long before you can plat, you have to do a drainage study and you have to use your gi/lid toolbox.

Another benefit for waiting before considering moving the petition forward to the ballot is that the City is learning about conservation easements. The internal conversations have been happening. Unfortunately, elpasonaturally has heard that top City officials are still hoping to find a way to do a so-called “conservation covenant” which would ultimately give them an out with preserving natural open space in perpetuity. In the minds of petitioners, that’s the biggest deal breaker and the one that will send them back into the streets. The fox guarding the chicken coop?! Let’s hope the City gets real.

Seeing a potential for possible City equivocation, many, many petitioners have begun asking whether there shouldn’t be a whole new petition – one that calls for preserving all City owned lands on the west side including the NW Master Plan area and all properties north of it.

So, for now, the petition effort waits. There are benefits to waiting. Nevertheless, with the TxDOT behemoth moving closer to the State Park, pressure is being felt to take the next step with preserving land in its natural state.

Oh – one last goodie about the TxDOT project before moving on. An alternative entrance into the Park that would not create the huge interchange that TxDOT favors would cost $2 million. The TxDOT proposal is $7 million and TxDOT is already saying that is what they will have to spend – no modifications. Why should our government spend $2 million of our money when they could spend $7 million?

So what is happening with the Rio Bosque, a City of El Paso wetlands park managed by UTEP’s Center for Environmental Resource Management with huge eco-tourism potential (not to mention its value as a provider of ecosystem services) that only gets a paltry $10,000 from the City’s Parks and Recreation Department budget?  The Rio Bosque is a wetlands area drying up as Water District #1 pumps more water adjacent to the park while denying the park any access to effluent from the EPWU’s Bustamante Treatment Plant.  Possibly two good things are happening now. First, thanks to Rep. Eddie Holguin in whose district is the Rio Bosque, the City Council next Tuesday, June 5^th, will take up this resolution (Item 10A on the Agenda):

Discussion and action that the Mayor be authorized to send letters on behalf of the El Paso City Council to the President/Chief Executive Officer of El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board, (EPWU/PSB) the members of the Public Service Board, the members of the El Paso County Commissioners Court, and the General Manager of El Paso No. 1 expressing the City of El Paso’s appreciation for the efforts of each entity to help find a solution to meeting Rio Bosque’s water needs during the growing season and expressing the City’s strong desire that each continue to work diligently until such a solution is found and fully achieved. 

 Secondly, at the next OSAB meeting, Mr. Rudy Vasquez will present the EPWU’s timeline from a feasibility study that would provide a long-term, sustainable supply of water to the Rio Bosque. That meeting will be held this Wednesday, June 6^th, at 1:30 p.m. in the 8^th Floor Conference Room at City Hall.

Two more things about the Bosque:

I have learned (but have not had confirmed from MCAD/Public Art) that the Heath Satow sculpture intended for the Bosque will now go to the Zoo. The Zoo is a better place to showcase this artwork and, perhaps, it bodes well that the City wants to spend money on the Bosque that will truly benefit the wetlands. As elpasonaturally pointed out before, the City was willing to pay $170,000 for a public arts project but nothing to help with the real issue of water at the Bosque.

Secondly, if you care about the Bosque (and other open space issues), plan to attend one of two public meetings Thursday and Saturday (June 7^th and 9^th) of next week regarding the updating of the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Not on our discussion list today but certainly worth mentioning now and later is the space definitely worth preserving: the Vista Del Aguila National Wildlife Refuge Proposed for El Paso, Hudspeth and Culberson Counties. See Ramón Rentería’s El Paso Times story about the gathering support for this critical refuge just east of us. 

More later on the newly appointed and what seems to be conservation and environment-unfriendly PSB Land Policy and Revenue Sharing Blue Ribbon Committee in response to City Council’s wanting to review its relationship with PSB as its land manager/land designer.

Note one big thing (and I’m sorry it’s at the bottom of the letter):  Ed Archuleta, the CEO/President of the PSB/EPWU is really doing some good things regarding preserving open space. The El Paso Times editorial alluded to it today.  Elpasonaturally has been a critic of some of his policies and leadership style.  It’s time for praise and all I can say at this time is: “Thank You, Mr. Archuleta!”

Finally, although all of us have different religious convictions or none at all, I do think that you will find the Kabarak Call for Peace and Eco-Justice inspiring. I hope you will take just a moment to read this short but powerful statement.