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.

"I'm Not a Plumber"

Last week as El Pasoans endured rolling blackout after rolling blackout, lack of natural gas and broken pipes and near empty water reservoirs, it became blatantly apparent that one person was missing: the supposed "people's" Mayor, "Guitar" Johnny Cook. So where was he? Watch this video from Hector H. Lopez of Talk Radio KHRO to find out:

A Few El Pasoans Argue to Destroy the Scenic Transmountain Corridor

The beautiful land that should be preserved as Natural Open Space

Again, here are the basic points by a mere handful of El Pasoans who oppose rezoning land in the Transmountain corridor as Natural Open Space. This handful includes an out-of-control Ed Archuleta and his tight aristocracy at the EPWU who have launched with your money a public relations campaign against the City Council direction to staff to rezone the scenic Transmountain corridor as NOS. He is joined by John Cook and bobbing heads on the Public Service Board.

Please see the video created with your money to oppose saving the scenic corridor. Look at it very carefully because it shows some beautiful land that should be preserved and sprawl to the south of that land that did destroy much of the scenic vista of the Franklin Mountains - a sprawl that the PSB wants to repeat no matter how much they protest to the contrary.

They argue that they spent (you spent) $700,000+ for the NW Master Plan and the plan is a good one that preserves open space. The fact is that it isn't a good plan and it will need revising even if there is no NOS re-zoning.

The plan was not as Christina Montoya says in the PSB video you paid for created with "tremendous amount of stakeholder input and support." The truth is that it was a plan forced on stakeholders and stakeholders have since changed their minds. Many, if not most, El Pasoans oppose destroying the scenic corridor which is what will happen if it is not rezoned NOS.

The plan was developed in 2005 which pre-dated the 2006 flood. URS, the same company that helped El Paso formulate its stormwater plan, revisited the NW Master Plan as a result of the 2006 flood. They made 8 specific recommendations for the Northwest Plan including updating the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. (Their recommendations also spoke about concrete lining channel segments of some of the FEMA flow paths (read arroyos!)). Currently, the PSB is reviewing the NE Master Plan in light of the smart growth. They will need to do the same with the NW Plan and include Green Infrastructure/Low Density Development principles. Doing so will cost money. So plan on spending more than the $700,000 no matter what. Besides, a bad and outdated plan is a bad and outdated plan no matter how much it cost.

The PSB says that they have preserved much of the vista. I ask you to view the videotape you paid for that is on the EPWU web site. It well shows the sprawl that creeped up the mountain south of the NW Plan and they want to continue that ugly sprawl all the way across. Where Ms. Montoya stood in the videotape is where they would zone commercial so that Wal-Mart, Lowe's and a Golden Arches can greet everyone - not a natural vista.

They continue to say that we will lose $20 million if we rezone this land as NOS. That is $6 million short of the first figure Ed A. gave to City Council because he added $600,000 as if it were $6million - just a bit of a mistake. (He made the correction after I pointed out the "mistake" publicly.) Many still believe that the $20,000,000 is way over inflated. Nevertheless, it really amounts to little return for ratepayers. In fact, over the past 10 years, PSB has sold 4,182 acres for $37,648,720.06. That comes out to a whopping $9,003/acre. Divide that by 177,000 rate payers and you get a great nickel back in your pocket. Perhaps that nickel should be minted with an image of Ed A. rubbing his hands over the BIG DEAL he has gotten for us. The fact of the matter is this: rate payers fund just about the entire budget of the EPWU. Land sales are not really significant and their telling us that they help keep our rates low is just one big bunch of HOOEY.

They keep saying that by developing all of the NW land, that we will gain $12,000,000 in tax revenue. Of course, they don't mention all that we will pay in additional taxes and fees for additional services such as police, fire, schools and so forth. They don't mention that we will pay more in our water bill for maintaining the added infrastructure. Ever see your rates go down? Hmmm?

They argue that, if the land is zoned NOS, they won't be able to build necessary reservoirs, water tanks, dams and so forth for adjacent land. NOT TRUE! The NOS Ordinance is already being revised to allow for major and minor utility structures in land zoned NOS.

John Cook keeps telling people in his letter that Transmountain Road can't be widened to 4 lanes in the area if the land is rezoned NOS. NOT TRUE! The PSB already gave right-of-way to TxDOT in exchange for some corridors under the highway. It can and should be widened and nobody favoring preserving the scenic corridor as NOS is opposed to widening the highway from 2 lanes to 4. Ed A., his bobbing heads, John Cook and the rest of the mere handful who spend your money opposing what you want are just not being straightforward.

One other thing and it has to be told over and over and over: We keep hearing this is "PSB land". By Texas law, they can't own any land. The City of El Paso (all of us as the City) OWN the land. The PSB merely manages it and City Council can direct that the land be managed differently when the occasion arises. It has arisen.

Mistakes in Case Against NOS

In case you have not gotten the news, the rezoning issue will not go before the CPC tomorrow. It has been moved to its Thursday, November 18^th, meeting rather than the November 4^th meeting. The CPC meets in the Council chambers of City Hall at 1:30 p.m. Please send your comments now to Maria Acosta -AcostaMD@elpasotexas.gov and let the CPC know that you support preserving land in the NW Master Plan as Natural Open Space. If you can, please plan to go to the meeting on the 18^th. It is important that we have as many people as possible attend this meeting.

Please email the Mayor and City Council Representatives – especially the Mayor and your City Council Representative.

Just so you know – Council voted on October 6, 2010 to direct staff to rezone land along Trans Mountain as Natural Open Space (NOS). The City Council Plan has undergone staff review and next goes to the CPC on November 18^th for its recommendation. It then goes back to Council for a final decision. The date it will be included on Council agenda has not yet been set as far as I know. On October 6^th, 5 representatives voted for it: Lilly, Byrd, Holguin, Ortega and O’Rourke. 2 voted “no”: Emma Acosta and Carl Robinson. Rachel Quintana was absent. The Mayor has said he will veto the Council Plan to rezone although he may be operating under some mistaken notions. 6 votes are needed to make it veto-proof or override a veto.

In his reply to emails, the Mayor has said some things that are mistaken:

First, he has said that there can be no construction in the Natural Open Space zoning. He contends that Trans Mountain can’t be widened under that zoning – so the TxDOT project will be killed. The fact is this: The PSB already transferred right-of-way for the highway to TxDOT in exchange for conduit under the road in 4 locations. So widening the road to 4 lanes is perfectly okay. We prefer at grade. The Open Space Advisory Board recommends that Paseo del Norte be re-directed to Plexxar near Gas Line Road and a road from there be built to the State Park entrance. This will make accessing the park much safer.

In a form response, he wrote:

Actually, we are dealing with two issues. The first involves pending residential and commercial development between I-10 and the State Park. Developers already own the land and under Texas law have the right to develop it. We are working with them to assure that any development protects the scenic corridor into the Franklins. We have negotiated successfully to limit the height of signs and to receive many acres of land for hike and bike trails and other amenities.

Yes, private land can be developed in accordance with zoning requirements and building codes. However, he insinuates that all of the land from I-10 to the State Park is private and so we can’t do anything. The fact is that only a portion of the land from I-10 to roughly the Gas Line Road is privately owned. From the Gas Line Road to the State Park the land is owned by the City of El Paso and managed by the PSB. It’s our land, folks, and we sure can rezone it as NOS. Go here for maps showing distances between private and public lands along Trans Mountain from Interstate 10 to the Franklin Mountains State Park.

John Cook goes on to say:

“The second issue is a highway project that will widen transmountain[sic] road to four lanes and provide limited access from the adjoining properties. It is important to note that property owners currently have the right to access transmountain[sic]. Could you imagine dozens of private driveways feeding into the highway and what that would do to safety? The current plan would limit their rights and build overpasses.”

Actually the Mayor’s sentence, “We have negotiated successfully to limit the height of signs and to receive many acres of land for hike and bike trails and other amenities”, belongs with his second issue. Lifting MDA requirements (e.g., signage) along the privately owned portion of Trans Mountain is a carrot stick (not yet agreed to) so that developers will give up right-of-way to TxDOT so that there won’t be “dozens of private driveways feeding into the highway”. What this really means is that developers and not the City (or NOS advocates) seem to be holding up the project because they want some concessions from the City!

His reference to “hike and bike” trails is the proposal to continue the pattern of the Pat O’Rourke Trail along Resler parallel to the frontage roads in the TxDOT proposal from I-10 to Plexxar. It has nothing to do with the City Council’s plan to rezone land nearer to the State Park as NOS. By the way, the Open Space Advisory Board agrees with the hike and bike trails and has advised that there be extra space in the buffer zone between bikers and pedestrians and the roadway.

Along with his message, some of you have received a copy of the PSB “Fact” Sheet. Here is a copy of the text on the sheet along with rebuttals.

Finally, there is still time to sign the petition and gather more signatures. Go to www.franklinmountains.org to download the hard copy of the petition or ask others to sign online at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-el-pasos-franklin-mountains/. There are now 1,050 responses online and over 1400 signed petitions. The Montoya Gardens Neighborhood Association turned in over 120 petitions just today!

Email John Cook and Tell Him to Save the Scenic Corridor

Click to enlarge

We have learned that Mayor John Cook has told the El Paso Times that he will veto any attempt to preserve the Trans Mountain scenic corridor as Natural Open Space. As a member of the Public Service Board, he voted with the strongly worded PSB resolution that opposes rezoning land in the Northwest Master Plan to NOS – a resolution which also urges him to veto any attempt at rezoning by Council. The resolution was adopted at last Friday’s PSB strategic planning meeting. The vote for the resolution opposing re-zoning was 6-1. Only Dr. Richard Bonart opposed it.

I suggest that all of you email John Cook and let him know how you feel.

Email him at johnfcook@sbcglobal.net and tell him you support saving the beautiful natural corridor.

We have also learned that the City Plan Commission has moved its consideration of rezoning to its Thursday, November 18^th, meeting rather than the November 4^th meeting. The CPC meets in the Council chambers of City Hall at 1:30 p.m. Please send your comments now to Maria Acosta -AcostaMD@elpasotexas.gov and let the CPC know that you support preserving land in the NW Master Plan as Natural Open Space. If you can, please plan to go to the meeting on the 18^th. We will continue to update you.

If you haven’t, please also sign the petition and gather more signatures. Go to www.franklinmountains.org to download the hard copy of the petition or ask others to sign online at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-el-pasos-franklin-mountains/. There are now 1,028 online responses – and many more hard copy signatures!

Cook Promises NOS Veto

Cook would take the sprawl clear across the Trans Mountain corridor.

Elpasonaturally has learned that John Cook has told the El Paso Times that he will veto the Byrd NOS proposal to preserve the scenic corridor of Trans Mountain.

Also developing today: the rezoning of that land to NOS which was to be on the City Plan Commission (CPC) agenda for November 4 was first moved to December 2nd and then later this afternoon moved again to November 18. The only explanation forthcoming was that "upper management" is trying to schedule meetings before the CPC to discuss "conflicting issues with various stakeholders". Translated this means that city management is dealing with the the PSB resolution against rezoning that passed 6 to 1 with the support of John Cook. Many have characterized the document as "belligerent" and "provocative".

One last piece of news: Cook struck again with this reply to an email from a science teacher: "People show their stupidity by writing e-mails such as yours." He also signed it with "warmest regards". More on this later and on reaction of City Hall employees to the Mayor's reaction to citizens who disagree with him.