|
Latest Water Battle Over
Right to Vote
by Sito Negron |
The latest water war in El Paso is being waged
in the Texas Legislature, where two bills would restrict voting in one of El
Paso's least-known but most important governing bodies.
The bills would allow only property owners to vote in elections for the El
Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, which distributes enough Rio
Grande water to local agriculture annually to service the city of El Paso
more than three times over. The city of El Paso actually buys about 50
percent of its water from the district through a complex series of
contracts, some stretching back to the 1940s.
Critics of the bill say that it would consolidate power among a small group
of wealthy and powerful farmers who control a disproportionate amount of
water, a precious Western resource that must be more fairly allocated
between agricultural and urban use -- particularly in an area like El Paso
where farms are dwindling and the city is growing.
Supporters say that farmers and other people who own land in the district
paid for the system that delivers the water, that farmers use the water, and
that they ought to be the ones to decide on board membership and policies
dealing with future use of the water. They also point to similar voting
restrictions in other water district, most recently one in Maverick County
that passed the Texas Legislature in 2001 with little debate.
Jesus "Chuy" Reyes, general manager and board member of improvement
district, said the bill is meant to "protect the irrigation property water
user."
State Rep. Chente Quintanilla, who introduced the House version of the bill,
said that river water is meant for those who own property in the district,
and their interests deserve to be protected.
"If the vote (for board members) was taken with non-farmers, (eventually)
they could ... leave the farmers without any water," he said. Quintanilla
also deflected the criticism that the bill would solidify the power of a
small group of farmers. He said the majority of water users in the district
are small tract users, "and this is one thing people don't understand, 80
percent of small water users are Hispanic. We're giving the Hispanic the
opportunity to run that board if they go out and vote."
"A SPECIFIC INTEREST"
State Sen. Frank Madla, who represents part of East El Paso and introduced
the Senate version of the bill, said the ability to restrict voting goes
back to the 1970s and has been deemed legal in specific cases.
He said in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that in a "limited purpose district
where landlords were disproportionately outnumbered, in a district basically
financed through property taxes it was all right to add some stipulations as
to who could vote."
Madla said that "the individuals who serve on that board ought to be
individuals who have interest in what that board is doing, so you don't have
just anyone on the board to penalize, in this case, irrigators. It restricts
voting to individuals who have a specific interest in what that board is
doing because they're involved in whatever that district regulates."
He said the bill was the same as one that passed the Legislature in 2001 and
limited voting in a water district in Maverick County .
Madla said he was asked to carry the bill by improvement district board
members. Quintanilla said he was asked by a group representing small-tract
Hispanic farmers, and Reyes said the board concurred with requests from
farmers in approving a policy that called for the voting eligibility
changes.
VOTING IRREGULARITIES
The impetus for the bills was a hotly contested election in 2004, in which
state Rep. Norma Chavez supported a slate of candidates against the
incumbents. The election -- which the district ran itself -- was marked by
accusations of voting irregularities.
"There was a city of El Paso bond election on the same day and same time,
and precincts on the West Side allowed voters to vote for the bond election
as well the water board elections. But voters in the mid-central valley
region, and lower valley (to Socorro) had to go to one precinct to vote for
the bond issue and another place to vote in the water district elections
(another obstacle). In addition, 100 percent of the precincts in my district
voted for new representation (against the incumbents). I have 25 precincts,
Chente (Quintanilla) has 10 and (state Rep. Pat) Haggerty nine precincts,"
Chavez said.
Despite that, the incumbents -- Indar Singh, Johnny Stubbs, and George
Spence -- retained their seats. The other two board members are Reyes, who
as general manager makes more than $100,000 a year, and Arthur Ivey.
Reyes said that it was not a conflict of interest for him to have a job as
district general manager and serve as his own boss as a board member.
"I have four strong board members I report to. The fifth seat I hold until
January," Reyes said. He said he did not plan to run again in those coming
elections. "We're hoping somebody will run."
"TRUE PUBLIC SCRUTINY"
Both Madla and Quintanilla pointed out Chavez and Shapleigh supported the
2001 bill regarding Maverick County .
However, Chavez said, that bill was on "what is known as local and consent
calendar. Not the general calendar where bills of potential controversy are
debated, amended and ultimately voted on. The local and consent calendar is
generally considered a non-controversial calendar of bills that are of local
nature. The people need to understand this.
"We passed those bills on a voice vote, with no debate. Basically no one
caught the bill as it went through the process and the local and consent
calendar is a good way to move a bill forward. That does not, however,
justify voting for another bad bill that further disenfranchises voters in
water district elections. In fact, it is good that the issue is now out in
the open for true public scrutiny."
In fact, she said, "Ultimately if this bill is enacted I believe that a
class action suit will be filed because it violates the Voting Rights Act.
Clear and simple."
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT "PARTICULARLY OFFENSIVE"
Madla said there are three criteria for voting under his bill: a person must
be taxpayer in the district, be involved in irrigation, or pay water taxes
for the purpose of irrigation. It was estimated that the bill would drop the
number of people eligible to vote in the district by about 75,000.
People who meet the criteria must register at the district offices 60 days
before the election.
Reyes explained that the registration requirement was because "we're the
ones who hold the records. We'll do a one-time registration, then our plans
are to contract with the Elections Department to run the elections. ... The
60 days pre-registration is provision we placed so people who want to
register can come in, and it gives us time to give records to elections."
Shapleigh called that provision "particularly offensive."
"Clearly that section of the bill is meant for intimidation. Over the years
great leaders fought many battles so we and our children would never again
face intimidation when we vote in this great nation," Shapleigh said.
Madla said that "if this had been a voting rights violation the Justice
Department would not have signed off four years ago on similar legislation."
He said that the average number of voters in district elections has been
less than 2,000 people.
"When you have (more than) 90,000 in that district who can vote and only
2,000 show up, it's not a question of disenfranchising people with a bit of
legislation. They have done this by not showing up the polls," Madla said.
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BACKGROUND
Reyes said the district covers from the New Mexico state line to Tornillo,
hugging the border. The city owns 3,000 acres of the 69,010 total in the
district. Reyes said the district budget is $4.8 million, which is used to
pay 70 employees. The district is charged with maintaining canals and drains
that deliver water to property. (www.epcwid1.org)
The district gets money from the contracts with the city, from its water
users, and other miscellaneous projects, such as when it sells some right of
way over canals to developers, Reyes said. He put the annual city expense in
a non-drought year for improvement district water at $3 million.
Reyes said the district has 32,000 water accounts, most less than two acres.
People who own property in the district and have water rights pay $34.50 per
acre foot, Reyes said. An acre foot is the amount of water it takes to cover
an acre in a foot of water, about 325,000 gallons. The typical El Pasoan
uses just over 100 gallons of water per day, according to El Paso Water
Utilities figures.
The water comes from Elephant Butte Dam, built in 1916 to provide water for
farmers downstream. (http://www.epcwid1.org/cms/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=2)
Reyes pointed out that "when the project was planned, the option was given
the city to buy in and they refused. They said we have enough water, we
don't need to pay for the dam, canals and drains. The farmers bought into
it, and paid until 1996 when the project was paid for. So it's owned by the
people who use the water and have the property." (http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/riograndeh.html)
"I feel that I am securing the future of the people that irrigate and
utilize project water. As long as there is people out there wanting to
irrigate and farm, we have to protect them and provide that water to them,"
Reyes said.
"A RIGHT TO VOTE?"
Chavez said that "the question is, does the water district sell water to the
city of El Paso . Yes. Do people in the city of El Paso have a right to vote
on who will control the water that is purchased for consumption by El
Pasoans? I believe yes. What do the water boys worry about? They had
opposition and easily won."
Shapleigh said it was up to El Pasoans to get involved.
"Every person can make a difference on this bill. Call Sen. Madla's office
and tell him to quit messing with your right to vote. Call Rep. Quintanilla
and tell him you are personally offended he is trying to intimidate voters.
Write to the chairman of the House Calendars Committee Beverly Woolley and
tell her you are offended. Join us at 10 a.m. Saturday (April 30) at EPWID
headquarters and let them know how you feel about being disenfranchised,"
Shapleigh said.
He echoed Chavez's comments about the illegality of limiting the vote.
If the bill passes, Shapleigh said, "I believe the Justice Department will
bring legal action. If they don't I'm sure Maldef will," Shapleigh said.
"Increasingly Maldef is looking at other voting issues; traditionally it has
been involved in voter registration and education issues, and now in the
American Southwest water is a key area of interest."
The issue has drawn the attention of voter-rights advocates and other
groups. One Capitol insider said that the bill is being opposed by a
coalition of conservatives who promote transparent government, and they are
trying to get the bill bottled up in the Calendars Committee, which
schedules bills for floor debate.
Groups that testified against or have otherwise indicated opposition to the
bill include the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the League of United
Latin American Citizens, the El Paso Interreligious Sponsoring Organization,
and the ACLU.
"THE FARMERS USE THE IRRIGATION WATER”
Quintanilla, who represents part of East El Paso in addition to the farming
areas of the county, said of the competition between urban and agricultural
users, "the farmers use the irrigation water, the water tap users use water
from the PSB."
He said that although PSB customers drink and wash with water bought from
the improvement district, "First allow the farmers water for irrigation,
then what is left give to the city of El Paso ."
Shapleigh said that in the future, "we will see a transition to industrial
and public uses with a fair allocation to agriculture."
In a June 4, 2004 report, the El Paso Times reported that " El Paso County
had almost 250,000 acres devoted to agriculture in 1997, but less than
114,000 in 2002, according to the statistics from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service."
The newspaper reported that "the market value of El Paso agricultural goods
sold in 2002 at $67.9 million, down 13 percent from $79.2 million five years
earlier. ... The county's farms produced $21.4 million worth of cotton in
1997, according to the USDA, but that dropped by 29 percent to $15.2 million
in 2002."
Shapleigh said mechanisms and institutions already exist to fairly allocate
water in the west.
"We have one already called the (El Paso Water Improvement District). Voters
who live in that area are franchised -- they vote, they vote on policy
related to water," Shapleigh said. "The question is, do we want public
institutions in control of our water?"
"WE DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT"
Ed Archuleta, general manager of the El Paso Water Utilities, said that the
Public Service Board, which oversees the utility, "decided not to get
involved in the bill."
"Whether or not people can vote, it's who turns up, and turnout is very
sparse," Archuleta said.
Archuleta said that in a good water year, when plenty of flow comes down
from the mountains of Colorado , "we may use 50 percent of our total annual
water from the river."
But that's only about 15 percent of the total water allocated to the
improvement district, and even less of a percentage of the water released
from Elephant Butte Dam, Archuleta said.
"When you look at the whole allocation released from Elephant Butte and look
at the Mexican water, we get 50,000 of 790,000 acre-feet released. In
reality what we use for municipal use in a good year in terms of diversions
is probably 5 percent, so it pales in comparison to agricultural use,"
Archuleta said.
Of the tension between urban and agricultural use, Archuleta said, "from
their perspective, this thing was set up at the turn of the century as a way
to develop agriculture in this area.
"... If the status quo remains the way it is that's fine. If it changes
that's for other people to decide. That's for the state Legislature, right?
We don't have a dog in this fight. We have a contract with the district.
We're trying to work with them; we just resolved adjudication of water
rights and we don't want to get back in the whole game at this point."
Archuleta said that "80 percent of water in the west goes to farming.
Eighty-some percent in Texas goes to agriculture. Nobody wants to touch
agriculture ... that's the way it remains to get food on our tables."
* * *
Bill Texts:
House Bill 2012
Senate Bill 547
|
|
|
