Park Ponds Again Cut into Open Space Funds to Preserve the Mountainside

ParkPonds Funded with Open Space Funds

Read it and weep. Or, as one El Paso conservationist put it, "something to make your blood boil."

Open space in El Paso is funded by 10% of your stormwater fee. Precious mountainside land could be preserved with that money as long as it has a stormwater function. That's not hard to imagine as water rushing down the mountainside is stormwater. Increasingly, that money is being depleted by park ponds with "grass-covered athletic fields, a landscaped perimeter, picnic tables, park benches and a tree-lined walking path."

Nothing wrong with those amenities. But the money should come from Parks and Recreation and not open space!

Is this a good time to approach this City Council (or T-Rex) and ask that P&R pay for the amenities and not open space funds. Hell no. The ponds with their greenery are pork to them to offer the folks in their districts.

Is this the way it is done in other cities? Hell no. However, it should make us the envy of Van Horn, the standard Cortney Niland has set for us.

[If you receive elpasonaturally by email, you may not see the embedded document. Please go to www.elpasonaturally.blogspot.com to see it, read it and weep. Your blood will boil.]

This Changes Everything

So how did the vote on the open space $3.2 million go today? There was no vote. Instead the item was deleted and will most probably go to a Legislative Review Committee of the City Council. How did this come about? Rep. Emma Acosta has other plans. What are the other plans for the $3.2 million? More park ponds! This changes the calculus completely.

Already the email is flying between current council members and at least one former member. Dr. Rick Bonart, our hero for his open space trail blazing and his days on the PSB, doesn't want to give an inch on the $3.2 million and he has some good reasons.

Expect meetings and for the Franklin Mountain Wilderness Coalition to get involved.

Can of worms? You betcha.

Stay tuned.

More on Park Ponds

Charlie Wakeem once again emailed me some information about ordinances concerning the design and payment of park ponds. Here is what he wrote:

"When there is conversion of detention/retention ponds to parks, they should be designed to have a 'more natural appearance' as 'wetlands and passive parks'.  The important sentences are highlighted with the key phrases underlined.  Converting ponds to park ponds is still the city's responsibility, and supposedly cannot be paid for by the 10% open space money from the Stormwater Utility by ordinance." 

Keep in mind that EPWU CEO John Balliew emailed me after a recent post on this subject and said this: 

"My comment about not spending any money on the park ponds was simply to convey that we have not been billed for any park pond projects as of today. I did fail to mention the one exception which is the Saipan/Ledo pond where I think we were billed."

Here is the rest of Charlie's message with highlighting:

OPEN SPACE MASER PLANCHAPTER 5 – OPEN SPACE MASER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS18.  Citywide - Detention Ponds and Linear Park Corridors
Detention Ponds throughout El Paso offer enormous opportunities for open space. The prototype is Feather Lake in the Mission Valley area, which has become a renowned bird watching location, but which still functions as a viable detention basin. El Paso has more than 100 existing detention ponds totaling more than 1,000 acres, and in many cases these are the only open undeveloped areas in the neighborhood that surrounds them.As the city re-considers its drainage master plan, these areas should be adapted to serve multiple purposes. They can readily continue to serve as detention areas in times of extreme floods such as the events of August 2006, but at the same time can be converted into wetlands and passive parks with additional landscaping, trees, walking trails and shade pavilions. The practice of “walling off” these areas from the neighborhoods around them should be discontinued. Instead, the ponds should be refitted with gentler side slopes that do not exceed a 4:1 ratio (slope to rise). Pilot channels and lower areas at the bottom of ponds can contain periodic normal rainfall events and leave the remainder of the pond as usable area. Even if the bottom is not accessible, the perimeter access drive should be configured to be park-like in appearance and in use.
The updated drainage master plan should not be looked on as a way to further limit the use of drainage channels and detention ponds as open space assets. El Paso cannot afford to revert to techniques that have been abandoned in other cities in favor of more attractive uses. If some additional detention areas are required to permit the introduction of wetlands and passive parks into the existing detention areas, then the tradeoff in cost is still much more efficient and helpful in creating a better El Paso for the future.  CHAPTER 6 – IMPLEMENTATIONA-4. Making Drainage and Ponding an Integral Part of the Open Space Plan
Through changes to both zoning and subdivision regulations, require that drainage and pond features be designed to have a much more natural appearance. These features are required in every development. Why then not make them an integral part of the development, rather than an afterthought or features to be hidden away as unusable space while the remainder of the development has no other open areas? While this may require some additional land, the resultant benefits to the appearance of the city as a whole are far greater.

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. 

Catching Up: Stormwater Budget

Study this slide.

Note the $2.6 Million for park ponds. Read sod. Besides the acquistion of the Palisades and a smaller property, there have been no other purchases of natural open space - none from the list of priorities established by the Open Space Advisory Board. EPWU Stormwater officials have claimed in meeting after meeting that they are looking at land but have nothing to show for it except more money for sod and shrubs for park ponds.

When I suggested that the current OSAB members do not have the will to fight the trend to finance park ponds and not to purchase open space, a veteran observer agreed with me and added: "They [OSAB members] sit there while staff and the city attorney dictate to them.  They haven't said a thing to challenge the park pond funding."

Water Conservation

On Tuesday, July 17, Planning and Development staff will present their proposal to City Council that land in the NW Master Plan be conserved by transferring the land to the State Park with a reversion clause that the land will return to the City if it doesn’t remain in use as natural open space recreation. (Some contingencies will be in the deed to allow utility infrastructure if needed.) As reported, the PSB unanimously supported a conservation easement be placed on the land if it should ever revert. Of course, that only begs the question, why not use a conservation easement now? On the 17^th staff will make their recommendation (see Scribd insert at elpasonaturally post). PSB will report their recommendation. Frontera Land Alliance and others will present a case for a conservation easement now. A good way for you to learn more about these easements is to read an article published in the El Paso Inc. by Janae Reneaud Field, the Director of the Frontera Land Alliance: How land trusts conserve natural areas. Do note that the area being “conserved” in the NW Master Plan does not include the principal arroyos through the developed areas. What happened to them?

With water running again in the Rio Grande, El Pasoans are once again enjoying a normal watering schedule. However, one word to the wise from EPWU CEO Ed Archuleta after he recently met with the New Mexico and Texas Irrigation Districts plus Mexican officials and IBWC:  “[I]t looks like the water from the river will last until September 1.  As you know our season is normally March through October so this season started later and will end sooner.”  No doubt that one of the best water management strategies is the one Archuleta has used: limiting the use of water particularly outdoor watering. Along with that restriction has been a concerted effort to educate the public about water conservation including giving away water-saving devices. In a recent Texas Tribune article, confirmation is given to the EPWU’s strategy to conserve water.

Nevertheless, fixing leaks, limiting outdoor watering and using water saving appliances and devices really only postpones the problem of water shortage. It buys time.  Some thoughts:

At a recent City Council meeting, City Engineer Alan Shubert attested that he was already formulating a new list of park ponds to re-do with turf. Guess where they will steal the money from for more turf to water – the 10% stormwater fee meant for natural open space acquisition. More turf or more natural open space? Which conserves more water? Also keep an eye on the fact that City officials have begun calling some parks as “open space” parks. It’s propaganda.

The Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee looking into PSB land management and acquisition issues is now meeting. One issue before them is the method by which land is declared inexpedient by the PSB so that it can be sold. Besides potential revenue, there should be another reason for declaring land inexpedient: the need to preserve natural open space for the sake of natural open space. Some might argue that we would be giving away land. In fact, we would be keeping land that is ours and increasing the value of our land not preserved. Why would the value increase? Because land without water is worthless and, if we keep up the pace of sprawl without preserving natural open space, we will end up with a lot of worthless land.


Smart growth-smart code is good for long-term water conservation.  Just add green infrastructure/low impact development.

Get visionary – really far out there visionary. Los Angeles, a city built on stealing vast amounts of water from other areas to grow a population in an arid environment like ours, is trying to be proactive.  Learn about C-Change.LA, a program for water and energy conservation in the face of rapid climate change.

One of the strategies employed by C-Change.LA is the increase of the urban canopy of trees. Read L.A. Climate Study Shows Need for Cooling Effect of Tree Canopies. Yet, the City of El Paso has only maintained as a tree SUB-committee (of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board) what once was a Tree Board. The SUB-committee is there for mere window-dressing for its Tree USA trophy. Now that Parks and Recreation is reviewing their Design and Construction Standards, one would think that P&R Director Nanette Smejkal would have long sought a meeting of that SUB-committee. Trees must be a huge part of the City’s water conservation, energy and sustainability strategies. As of now, we have a City Arborist under the direction of Transportation and a genuine “blue ribbon committee of tree experts” relegated to sub-committee status.  (Those experts include State Forester, Oscar Mestas, horticulturalist and curator, John White, tree experts Vern Autry and Lewis Wright, City Arborist and tree farmer, Brent Pearson, landscaper Jennifer Barr, Master Gardener President Dave Turner and many other well-qualified persons. AND, they are a SUB-Committee!)

Do checkout Tucson’s rainwater harvesting program. El Paso/PSB/EPWU, where are you? (TecH20 does have a short presentation about rainwater capture on Saturday, August 18^th, from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. Presenter Doc Stalker is quite the expert.  Plan to attend.)

Think water footprint. This way we look at the larger global picture of water and our participation in waste and/or conservation. Don’t get me wrong. Archuleta’s and the EPWU’s water conservation program is great and ought to be followed. But in terms of what is sustainable today, tomorrow and beyond our grandchildren’s great-grandchildren, there is much more to do and to change.

Do check out your water utility’s Less Is the New More program and get involved. Like and follow EPWU’s Facebook page. Finally, if you twitter and tweet, follow EPWU on Twitter. 

And the biggest matter when it comes to saving water and managing an increasingly scarce resource: water law and policy which must become more publicly directed. The PSB is not “public”. Did you vote for anyone on that board? Can you the public remove any of them? Water decisions for the Water Improvement District are limited to a few large farmers and other “water rights owners” now thanks to “Chente” Quintanilla  and Sen. Jose Rodríguez. Instead of disenfranchising 75,000 voters, they should have looked at including all voters. Water law and policy must change . . . radically.

Finally, for what it is worth, my two cents about the new ballpark.