Life, food, events, and community in Albuquerque, NM
Act Now to Fund Recreation on Bernalillo County Ditches!!
I just got the heads up (from MRGCD, of all people) that there is a terrific opportunity for residents in Bernalillo County to open up recreation on the acequia trails.
For those unfamiliar with the history, recreational use of these trails (the major use by most MRGCD taxpayers) has always been trespassing, because the Conservancy District (the land manager in this case) did not want to be liable for accidents (and there are plenty, what with the wacky system of plank bridges and crumbling banks). But the state legislature cleared them of liability, so now their problem is not a problem any more.
But... they STILL are not recognizing recreation as a legitimate use. They severed their ties with the Ditches With Trails group, which had created a draft of a feasibility plan to explore options for managing recreation on the trails. They have turned down other simple requests, like poop bags and trash cans, or removing the "NO TRESSPASSING" signs. Again, the Conservancy District is supported with taxes paid by property owners in the district, over 80% of whom wish to see their money used to support recreation.
SO! There is a new bill in front of the Legislature, SB-222, that gives us non-irrigating taxpayers something for our money. Under this bill, one-half mil for every dollar assessed will go towards supporting recreation on the acequias. And since the MRGCD has shown they don't want to touch the subject, administration and jurisdiction would come under the Open Space division (which actually has a terrific track record on multiple use management).
Right now, the bill is in front of the Public Affairs committee, and which includes Dede Feldman and Eric Griego, and Tim Eichenberg, from the Albuquerque area. If these are your senators, and you care about being able to walk, bike, and ride horses on the ditches, then let them know!! If your representatives are someone else, tell them to look for the bill & support it!!
Link to the Public Affairs Committee
Find your Legislator!
For those unfamiliar with the history, recreational use of these trails (the major use by most MRGCD taxpayers) has always been trespassing, because the Conservancy District (the land manager in this case) did not want to be liable for accidents (and there are plenty, what with the wacky system of plank bridges and crumbling banks). But the state legislature cleared them of liability, so now their problem is not a problem any more.
But... they STILL are not recognizing recreation as a legitimate use. They severed their ties with the Ditches With Trails group, which had created a draft of a feasibility plan to explore options for managing recreation on the trails. They have turned down other simple requests, like poop bags and trash cans, or removing the "NO TRESSPASSING" signs. Again, the Conservancy District is supported with taxes paid by property owners in the district, over 80% of whom wish to see their money used to support recreation.
SO! There is a new bill in front of the Legislature, SB-222, that gives us non-irrigating taxpayers something for our money. Under this bill, one-half mil for every dollar assessed will go towards supporting recreation on the acequias. And since the MRGCD has shown they don't want to touch the subject, administration and jurisdiction would come under the Open Space division (which actually has a terrific track record on multiple use management).
Right now, the bill is in front of the Public Affairs committee, and which includes Dede Feldman and Eric Griego, and Tim Eichenberg, from the Albuquerque area. If these are your senators, and you care about being able to walk, bike, and ride horses on the ditches, then let them know!! If your representatives are someone else, tell them to look for the bill & support it!!
Link to the Public Affairs Committee
Find your Legislator!
- Attachments:
-
-
SB0222.pdf, 51 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bosque Bill on -
Thanks, BoogieMama!
When I looked into this last year the MRGCD had up on their web site that they were not going to open the ditch trails (and severed contact with Ditches With Trails) because public comment was overwhelmingly in disapproval of opening the ditches. The claim was people living next to the ditches were worried about the extra traffic bringing crime into their yards. This seemed like a specious argument to me, as increased traffic would likely reduce the chance of crime... muggers like dark streets and alleys and not busy streets with traffic.
And you are to be commended for the thoroughness of your post which includes a way for us to find our legislators (I knew that voter registration card would come in handy sometime) and the text of the bill. Kudos!!
I have written my State Senator. Please keep us posted of updates and when it reaches the House (if you are able.)
-
Permalink Reply by William Turner on -
Lets be clear about Ditches with Trails and Dede Feldman's SB222. Dede passed a bill two sessions ago as I recall that limits liability for uses of the ditches. This bill applies only to third parties. It does not apply to the MRGCD. Dede has threatened Board Members with withdrawal of this bill and our response has generally been Fine. I have urged her not to do so because it is a step in the right direction. At a later date, her limited liability bill might be amended to make it applicable to the MRGCD.
In January 2008, DWT came before the Board and let us know that they were only contemplating planning functions during 2008. Then on June 24, the Board finds that an $200,000+ bridge has been put across the Griegos Lateral and that our own Subhas Shah had issued a license. Not one Board member had been informed of this construction nor did we know that our constituents money had contributed towards it in the form of manpower and equipment. We had been blindsided by Feldman, City Open Space and whoever else contributed the funding as well as Shah. Our response was three fold. We disassociated ourselves from DWT. We removed Shah's power to issue licenses; and we began to pursue a multiple approach towards communicating with the community and and initiating DWT types of programs. Since this fiasco, the Board has become very proactive. Board Members no longer are willing to give Subhas Shah and our attorney carte blance. In fact in one instance we found out attorney had submitted an application on behalf of a private client that could have resulted in depletions to the river in Bernalillo County and downstream to socorro. The Board ratified my protest to that application and hired an outside attorney because it believed our attorney had a conflict of interest.
With further regard to the DWT program, though I voted with the Board to disassociate the MRGCD from the DWT program, I early on supported it completely. I visited the Los Poblanos area with Attilla Balik (Sp) and supported it in front of the Board and even offered contribute $1,000 of personal funds towards the planning effort. No one ever got back to me.
Let me say too that support for the Griegos Bridge and the DWT report to the Board was very narrow. All Board Members were contacted by emails, telephone calls and letters from those who opposed it. I personally never had a contact from anyone who supported it. As long as we have representative government, the wishes of a few will probably not hold sway over the wishes of the multitudes.
To improve communications with neighborhood associations I have thus far met with about 10 out of 36 homeowners associations from the South Valley to Alameda and from the Westside of the river to Edith. I have created a newsletter of MRGCD happenings that goes out to 36 neighborhood associations so that people up and down the valley can be informed. The MRGCD has totally ignored the NAs forever. That has got to stop. The message to the NAs is let me or the Board know what programs you are interested in implementing. And, we have had some suggestions. They will be given a fair hearing. All Board Members have met with Dede Feldman. The Board has voted to remove the No Trespassing signs and I have no idea why they were put up in the first place unless to prevent illegal dumping on ditch ROWs. Indeed I caught a 10 cubic yard dump truck near Tome doing just that, filed a police report, and had the material removed. The Board is moving ahead with a signange project and I have sent suggestions of types of signs out to the NAs. We do have some suggestions on signage from the NAs.
With regard to Sen Feldman when I met with her I asked her if she was aware of the Rio Grande Park. She said she was not and asked for the map of the project. It was only later that she had proclaimed ignorance of the RGP (also called the the Route 66 Project) some weeks earlier when she met with Board Member Roberts and others. I now find her dissimulation somewhat disturbing. In my meeting with her she continually asked: "What are you going to do for my district (Sen. District 13)" We asked her to involve the NAs in her district to work with the MRGCD. This has not happened because I have met with many of them. The RIo Grande Park was a dream of Sen Domenici and he secured the funding for the first phase from Rio Bravo to I-40. Ultimately it is envisioned to extend to Coralles. The First Phase if valued at $6 million and the contracts have been let. It is designed to integrate existing facilities such as the biopark and the zoo and the refugia and the nature conservancy center with a trail system. Certainly this trail system can be extended beyond the park boundaries to integrate with other trails along MRGCD ditches.
Now for those who have fallen for her aguements and the arguments of a selected few that residents in Bernalillo County are paying a disproportionate share of ad valorem taxes let me say this. First, Director Roberts and I led the fight during our budget hearings to reduce our overall mill levey throughout the district while other taxing authorities increased theirs. Second, while the MRGCD is not a recreational entity, I have spoken at Board Meetings over the past four years to the fact that our ditches are in urbanizing areas and that we need to initiate programs that take this into consideration. I have been a proponent for adding an arborist to our District to maintain the vegetation along the ditches and to prevent private property damage. Thus far the Board has turned a deaf ear as has out administration. I have also asked the Board to approve a system wide audit of our infrastructure and to create a prioritized long term capital improvement program that would bring our infrastructure up to code so to speak. So far they have turned this down. Our administration works on a workplan basis which is a knee jerk maintenance program that responds to emergencies. The Corps of Engineers has just finished a study that shows that many of our levees are poorly maintained. It is the MRGCD responsibility to maintain the levees. The Corrales levees were re-built in 1997 and were designed to protect us against a 42,000 cfs flood. But the MRGCD has failed in its maintenance. What you may not know also is that the MRGCD is charged with drainage and flood control. Those of you who live in the valley can do so because of drainage canals that have dropped the water levels beneath your land so that it could be built upon. That land today is worth up to $400,000 per acre. Our drainage ditches continue to lower the water table. What you may not know also is that our hundreds of miles of canals serve to spread the river out in the valley during periods of flooding. In 2006 we had 7,000 cfs running down the river and all of our canals were bank full moving the water downstream in a controlled manner. Had those canals not been there, the flow in the channel itself would have been greater and the water would have moved out and into your yards. The answer to urbanization problems, maintenance problems, and long range capital improvement plans is to get rid of Board Members and the Executive Director who ignore these problems. We have an election coming up in June. I ask you to reflect upon SB222. Is it wise to remove $800,000 from the MRGCD budget and give it to MRCOG. MRCOG is and agency that thirst for wider powers but it is not an executory agency. It does not maintain anything. It does not protect your property.
Bill Turner
Member of the MRGCD Board
-
Permalink Reply by Bosque Bill on
-
Mr. Turner,
Thank you for your input on this issue. It is great to have a Board member come to this discussion.
I have a couple of questions.
I had only recently moved back to NM at the time of the last MRGCD Board election and must have totally missed it. How do members of the voting eligible public learn the positions and proposed policies of the candidates?
Secondly, I've heard or read somewhere, that there is a bill or proposal to change the MRGCD elections from the current schedule to that of a general election. Do you have information on that? And what is your position on the subject.
Thanks again for your input.
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by BoogieMama on -
Mr. Turner,
Thanks so much for contributing your thoughts and views, and for holding the MRGCD to high standards. I certainly agree that any direction on recreation-related development needs to come from the neighborhood associations, although that leaves out areas like Los Ranchos, where there is spotty organization at best.
If I can pick apart a few points, though....
It would be great if the MRGCD did support developing a recreation program, and I'm glad to hear that the No Trespassing signs are going to be coming down, but why start a new program to study signs, when the work has already been done. Augusta Meyers suggested that the MRGCD could draw from the "good parts" of the DWT report, but instead, it seems like you're beginning the process again?
The levee project you describe is a red herring. This is not an immediate project & hasn't even been authorized yet, and Senator Feldman is working on getting 100% federal funding for it. So take that off the table, please.
Also a bit of a red herring is the Rio Grande State Park. Having a state park there is great, but having a great trails system that not incidentally connects to the park at many points can only enhance things for residents. And why can't the City of Abq Open Space (not MRCOG) manage the trails while the state manages the park? Does that mean the City of Albuquerque can't manage the volcanos as open space because the National Park Service is managing the Petroglyphs nearby? Confusing argument, there.
As for responding to the voice of the people.... the Conservancy Districts OWN SURVEY said that over 80% of people would be happy to see their tax dollars going to support recreation on the ditches. Easily half the people who testified before the board last summer supported at least allowing public comment on the DWT report. Why didn't those respondents get the same kind of consideration you gave to the naysayers? I can attest that a lot of people thought it was a slam dunk because any sane person knows that recreation is the primary use of the ditches for recreation, and they didn't have to bother commenting.
Groups
-
Chow Down in Burque Town
638 members
-
Art in ABQ
430 members
-
Urban Farmers
348 members
-
Living Green
304 members
-
Albucooking
289 members
-
Book Club
276 members
-
The Music Lounge
263 members
-
ABQ Web Geeks
247 members
-
ABQ Dogs
245 members
-
Burque Bikers
228 members
About
© 2010 Created by chantal
