 |
|
|
Volume VIII |
December 2003 |
Number XI |
|
|
Land Grant Representatives and Enviros Meet to Find Common Ground By Kay MatthewsRio Arriba County Asks Representative Udall to Help Fund Land Grant Archive and Data Base |
A Brief History of the Middle Rio Grand Conservancy District, 1929-1938 By Mark Schiller Editorial: The Wal-Martization of Northern New Mexico By Kay Matthews "Cultural Energy": Independent Media Voices From El Norte By Robin Collier |
Land Grant Representatives and Enviros Meet to Find Common GroundBy Kay MatthewsThe previous day's snowstorm kept some folks home, but a core group of Land Grant and Land Use Advocates, as the group is formally called, met in Truchas for their second session of dialogue and policy development. Brought together by the Mexicano Land Education and Conservation Trust, the group is developing a list of remedies to address the loss of land grants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that both the environmental and land grant communities can agree on. Representatives from Senators Bingaman and Domenici and Representative Udall's office also attended the meeting.
Participant George Grossman of the Sierra Club As the day's session revealed, this is a very complicated and emotional task. While the members who attended the September meeting in Santa Fe were able to draft a list of potential remedies and then rank them from one to four for review at this second meeting, it was clear that there were still many unanswered questions and issues that needed to be resolved. The four remedies, in order of preference, are listed and discussed below. 1. Establish land grant trust funds to compensate heirs for lost lands. Use trust moneys to create sustainable economic development in land grant communities; to pay for education for land grant heirs; to pay for affordable housing projects; and to pay for land recovery. Some heirs and enviros agreed that to implement this remedy a board of trustees should be formed by the land grants to hold compensation monies in trust for the grants. But there are many obstacles to ensuring equal representation and equitable distribution of funds. While there are a number of extant land grants in the state, with elected boards already in place, there are many others that are unorganized. Jerry Fuentes of the Truchas Land Grant pointed out that all the grants need to set up their own administration or interim board so they can be represented on the larger board and are in a position to apply for reparation. Michael Coca, of Somos Vecinos, suggested that interest from the trust fund be used to help build capacity for the individual land grants, with workshops on how to organize effectively, how to develop bylaws, etc. Others in the group cautioned about the dangers of a trust fund board that could become an unmanageable bureaucracy, with policy coming from the top down rather than the bottom up. Even if the trust were to establish only broad guidelines for how reparation monies would be spent, they questioned how equity could be maintained for individual land grants, and who would set priorities for application. Finally, Miguel Santistevan, Don Fernando de Taos heir who recently completed his master's degree in ecology, cautioned the group that establishing a trust would leave them vulnerable to an unstable economy. His definition of reparation is to regenerate the soil, water, animal, and plant communities of northern New Mexico so heirs and village members may live sustainably on the land. 2. Establish land grant trust funds to pay partial compensation for lands lost and return some grant lands now under public domain. Moises Gonzales, Carnuel Land Grant heir, explained to the group how this remedy might benefit his land grant, situated at the south end of the Sandia Mountain Wilderness Area near Albuquerque. The Carnuel heirs are looking at monetary reparation or their former grant lands that are now part of the wilderness area, while looking south across I-40 for the possible acquisition of private lands and lands currently administered by Kirtland Air Force Base. Jim Scarentino of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance got a big laugh when he responded that environmentalists would be happy if the grant took over the entire base. On a more serious note he pointed out that his community would rather see certain disposable lands that are in danger of being developed come under grant jurisdiction instead. Gonzales, who also works as assistant planner for Rio Arriba County, and John Shepard, associate director of the Sonoran Institute, have been working on a project that would acquire public lands (primarily belonging to the Bureau of Land Management) in exchange for conservation easements on irrigated land, to provide northern New Mexico villages much needed room to expand (see La Jicarita, July 2002). Many of these villages are surrounded by former grant lands, so this proposal is part of the land grant issue as well. Juan Chavez of the Truchas Land Grant showed the group a poster board layout of the village of Chimayó, part of the Santa Cruz de la Cañada Land Grant, as an example of how a community could benefit from this kind of land acquisition. This grant was reduced from 48,000 to 4,000 acres and now has 5,000 people living on more and more of the irrigated land. Todd Shulke of the Center for Biological Diversity told the group that the return of these lands would be more "palatable to enviros than the return of more controversial lands." At this point in the conversation Santistevan brought up the sensitive issue of what currently constitutes a community and who should benefit from land grant restitution. He questioned what the process would be for former land grants that were unable to organize and be recognized as grants and suggested that again, we should identify communities by their ecological integrity within the watershed. Everyone, not only heirs, who lives in the community should be part of the efforts to regenerate the common lands and the communities dependent upon them. 3. Give land grant heirs first preference for public lands use, including logging, grazing and wood gathering. This emotionally charged recommendation was discussed in conjunction with the fourth proposal, which states, "Offer opportunity for land grant heirs to work with federal public lands agencies to create joint sustainable land-based economic development projects on public lands." Several people in the group gave a brief overview of how, during the New Deal in the 1930s and 40s, various government agencies purchased former grant lands that had fallen into private hands and guaranteed use-rights on other federal lands to compensate Hispano land grant heirs for the loss of their common lands (see La Jicarita, November 2003). Gonzales explained that after the World War II, however, as commercial interests intensified their efforts to gain access to these lands, Congress transferred them to the Forest Service, and that agency rescinded the policy of favoring local residents in favor of large corporations. As Gonzales said, "Our people would cry if they knew about this." This conversation was unsettling to some of the enviros present, however. Shulke objected to the idea that heirs would be given preference for these activities, that this was an "alienating" word and that they needed to broaden the definition of who constitutes a community. He preferred that the group discuss ideas of collaboration between local Hispano residents and the Forest Service for restoration work on former common lands that will benefit the entire community. Pam Eaton of the Wilderness Society agreed with Shulke that giving preference to heirs was exclusive of other people and not contexualized in an ecological framework. But even the enviros in the group couldn't agree on this position. Jim Scarentino stated that giving preference to land grant heirs for use of their former common lands was perhaps less controversial than the transfer of public lands. As a partner in collaborative efforts on the Camino Real Ranger District, I pointed out that former attempts to ensure the input of local residents in Forest Service management decisions had largely failed. Gonzales reminded the group that all of the recommendations being discussed were creating options for Congress to consider in making restitution. But Cynthia Gómez, who is both an Hispana land grant heir and a staff member of Amigos Bravos, expressed her frustration that many of the enviros in the room were seeing the concept of "preference" as a threat, when the reason for the dialogue between the land grant heirs and the enviros was to discuss self-determination and redress of past wrongs: "There is a certain right and restitution that needs to be recognized," she said. Gómez articulated the underlying question that percolated through the group's first and second meetings: Is the land grant issue one of restitution for heirs for past injustices or is it one of revitilizing the economy and ecology of rural communities to keep people on the land? ANNOUNCEMENTSThe Quivira Coalition annual conference, Ranching in Nature's Image, will be held January 15-17, 2004, at the Albuquerque Hilton Hotel, 1901 University Blvd. NE. The two-day conference fee is $60 for Quivira Coalition members and $75 for non-members. Registration form and fees are due on January 5 by mail to the Quivira Coalition, 1413 Second Street, Suite 1, Santa Fe, NM, 87505, or by fax to 505-955-8922. This year's conference will include special speakers Linda Hasselstrom, rancher and author of many books that chronicle her life in the west, and Ed Marston, former publisher of High Country News, who will speak to "Why Quivira Coalition Members Are the Salt of the Earth and the Hope of the West." Workshops include: • Romancing the Keystone: Nature at Work, with Bill deBuys, Wayne Elmore, Jim Howell, and Deirdre Kann. • Managing Land Using Ecological Processes with Joel Brown, Brandon Bestlemeyer, and Pat Shaver. • Nature's Wealth: Economy and Society, with Dana Jackson, Jo Robinson, Joe Morris, and Gregg Simonds. • Converting Obstacles into Opportunities, with Ben Alexander, Mac Donaldson, Doug Duncan, Dan Dagget, and Dave Gipe. Other workshops will address many kinds of management and conservation issues. To request a copy of the registration form call the Quivira Coalition at 505-820-2544
|
A Brief History of the Middle Rio Grand Conservancy District, 1929-1938By Mark SchillerAccording to its website, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) "was established in 1925 as a political subdivision of the state under the Conservancy Act of 1923. Its purpose is to provide and maintain river control and flood protection, improve drainage of seeped areas, furnish water storage, apply supplemental water for irrigation needs, and construct and maintain distribution facilities for irrigation waters. The geographic area served is from Cochiti in the north to San Marcial [at the northern edge of Elephant Butte Reservoir] in the south and includes portions of Sandoval, Bernalillo, Valencia, and Socorro counties. Formation of the Conservancy brought 70 acequias together into one unified entity, designed to make lands in the middle valley irrigable." While the Conservancy's stated purpose clearly implies that it was created to benefit all land holders within the district, it's history during the Depression and New Deal (1929-1945) demonstrates that its policies definitely favored the large commercial agricultural interests over small, Hispano subsistence farmers whose families had inhabited the valley for over 250 years and whose land and water rights were theoretically protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The real impetus for the creation of the Conservancy was that large-scale agricultural development in the upper and middle Rio Grande corridor, which began in the late 19th century, was causing enormous amounts of erosion. This resulted in the accumulation of sediment in the middle Rio Grande area, raising the river level and making vast tracts of formerly fertile land adjacent to the river into seeps, which increased the vulnerability of the remaining agricultural lands to flooding. Disastrous flooding did occur in August and September of 1929, destroying many farms and villages along the river south of Albuquerque and leaving hundreds of subsistence farmers homeless, with little or no possibility of reclaiming their farms. MRGCD had previously applied to the Bureau of Reclamation for funding to construct a system of dikes, levees, and reservoirs, but was told that no money would be available from that agency for at least 10 years. District officials, however, made a highly controversial decision to proceed with these construction projects after leveraging 1.5 million dollars from the federal government on behalf of the six Native American Pueblos within the Conservancy and issuing 2 million dollars worth of bonds. The Conservancy claimed the work would allow thousands of new acres to be cultivated and attract "industrious" new settlers to the state. But the vast majority of people within the Conservancy, small-scale Hispano subsistence farmers, couldn't afford the bond assessments and demanded to be excluded from the project. MRGCD, backed by large-scale agricultural interests, however, insisted on proceeding and Conservancy employees actually fought several armed battles with Hispano farmers who tried to prevent the destruction of their traditional acequias when construction began in 1930. According to Suzanne Forrest's book, The Preservation of the Village, small farmers throughout the Conservancy "protested that they could not even pay the interest on the heavy assessments imposed on their lands. Eventually, state officials responded and the legislature passed a law exempting many agricultural tracts . . . from payments on both interest and principal for five years. By that time, it was claimed, construction would be completed and the lands reclaimed to the point that they could begin producing a profit. In the meantime construction costs rose. In 1932, with only thirty percent of the work completed, the district ran out of funds. Unable to sell more bonds because of the business depression, it faced bankruptcy." The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), newly established under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, provided a temporary solution by purchasing the bonds at a reduced rate and expanding the repayment period. However, even the reduced Conservancy assessments were unaffordable for the majority of small farmers within the Conservancy during this period of devastating financial decline. Their financial problems were further compounded because Conservancy assessments were attached to property taxes, which meant that inability to pay either resulted in foreclosure. By 1937 over 2,000 properties within the Conservancy had been foreclosed and another 9,349 foreclosures were pending. (These figures represent over 70 per cent of the owners of agricultural lands in the Conservancy, 89 per cent of which were Hispano and 85 per cent of which were under 10 acres.) According to a November 28, 1937 article in the Albuquerque Journal by New Mexico Congressional Representative J. J. Dempsey, Judge R. H. Hanna and William Oestreich, principle Conservancy district officers, "advanced the opinion that the only way to handle the situation is to foreclose against these thousands of poor people, take their homes and little farms, and 'recolonize' the district with new residents." Dempsey went on to say, "I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that the thousands of land owners in the district who had no voice in the organization of the conservancy district and never have had any self determining voice in its management, should forfeit their homes and little farms because this staggering load of debt has been piled up against them by a group of theorists and politicians who the records of the district show beyond any chance for doubt have been grievously lacking in practical business acumen." This was a position also supported by New Mexico Senator Dennis Chavez. (While there is no reason to question these men's humanitarian motivation, both Chavez and Dempsey also unquestionably feared that the impending foreclosures would swell New Mexico's "relief" roles to unmanageable proportions.) Taking an even more radical stand against the Conservancy was the Liga Obrera, a union of Spanish-speaking workers in New Mexico and Colorado with 8,000 members, and the Joint Farmers Committee, headed by Rabbi A. L. Krohn of Albuquerque's Temple Albert (Krohn was the rabbi at Temple Albert from 1931-38 and a lecturer in the sociology department at UNM). With Krohn as their spokesperson, these two groups demanded, among other things, "That Congress appropriate necessary moneys to pay for the entire construction work by the conservancy district as part payment for damages suffered by landholders of the Rio Grande Valley by reason of permitted diversion of waters to Colorado, Texas and Mexico, the Government having no title to such waters of the Rio Grande. That state legislation be passed to set at rest the ancient and vested prior rights in the Rio Grande Valley which were granted to the citizens of the Rio Grande Valley under the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. That legislation be passed prohibiting compacts such as the Rio Grande Tri-State compact which is attempting to barter away prior rights of the citizens of New Mexico. . . . That an appropriation be obtained from Congress to build the San Juan diversion project which would replace water given to Colorado, Texas and Mexico by the United States." While this position was ultimately ignored, it represents an important instance of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo being invoked to protect water rights as well as land tenure and was taken seriously enough to be featured on the front page of the December 9, 1937 Albuquerque Journal. It very legitimately brings into question whether the state and federal governments could enter into interstate water delivery agreements when they both had agreed to uphold the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article VIII of the Treaty states in part: "In said territories, property of every kind [emphasis added] now belonging to Mexicans . . . shall be inviolably respected." Water rights were included in Spanish and Mexican grants and therefore there is reason to believe that neither the state or federal governments had the authority to negotiate the dispersal of water which had been previously appropriated. Furthermore, during the 1991 hearings for the adjudication of the Rio Pueblo de Taos and Rio Hondo the Office of the State Engineer conceded: "Article 8 of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo protects water rights which were valid under the prior sovereigns of Spain and Mexico as of 1846." In January of 1938, the Conservancy was once again temporarily bailed out by a $600,000 allocation from the RFC and the cancellation of 2.5 million dollars in interest charges on the Conservancy's construction bonds, which RFC now held. With construction halted, and large sections of its land unusable, the Conservancy continued to be plagued by financial problems until it was finally taken over by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1947. In its "Plan for the Development for the Middle Rio Grande Project" the Bureau noted that there was "no remedy to relieve the district from the affect of its original economically unsound basis of assessment . . . short of cancellation of the debt." By that time, thousands of small Hispano farmers had been driven off their land by their indebtedness and the larger farms, owned predominantly by Anglos, had incorporated these small holdings into large, economically viable tracts. Ironically, in the history of the Conservancy on its website, MRGCD completely ignores this period (1929 to 1938) and says only that "During the 1940s the Conservancy was financially unstable . . . [and consequently asked] the Bureau of Reclamation to take over the operation of the District temporarily and retire its outstanding bonds." In 1951 the Conservancy entered into a 50-year interest-free repayment contract totaling $15,708,567 with the Bureau of Reclamation, which paid off the bonds and completed the work begun in 1930. In late 1999, the Conservancy finally paid off the debt to the Bureau, but the thousands of families who were dispossessed of their land and water rights by its ill-advised and unjust policies have never been compensated. Editorial: The Wal-Martization of Northern New MexicoBy Kay MatthewsLast week we found out that Wal-Mart is seeking to buy land in Taos County for another try at building a Superstore in the area and Home Depot, Target, TJ Maxx, Old Navy, and Best Buy are setting their sights on Española. It's all the same developer, J.D. Holdings of Chicago, doing the damage. The developer's spokesperson suggested we should all be thankful for the many jobs and increased tax base these stores will provide to our communities. Remember, folks, that's minimum wage jobs (if you haven't read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed about living on minimum wage, you should), that's money flowing out of the community uphill to corporate headquarters, and that's undercutting locally based businesses and union jobs that provide decent wages and health benefits. There's no question that J.D. Holdings and the front men in Taos and Española have no shame. What's perplexing is the fact that they apparently have no common sense, either. If the Super Wal-Mart that was denied admittance to the town of Taos suddenly appears on the 40 acres it is trying to buy in Ranchos de Taos, at the junction of SH 68 and 518, it will be the second landmark tourists see as they drive into Taos. The first landmark, of course, is the San Francisco de Asis Church, an entity that attests to the spirituality, diverse culture, and aesthetic sensibility of our area. As the second landmark, Wal-Mart will attest to its consumerism, homogeneity, and anywhere in America sense of style. So much for our reliance on the tourist economy. And what do our city and county fathers intend to do about all this? The Taos Town Council held the line when it denied Wal-Mart its big box variance last year. It remains to be seen what the Taos County Commission will do, but based on its record, I'm not hopeful. As far as Española goes, The New Mexican quoted City Councilor JR Trujillo as saying, "You hope to God this [new] development doesn't destroy small business. We want to be the heart of commerce again." This isn't about reenergizing local commerce, Mr. Trujillo, from the bottom up, from the inside out, from local development that employs and empowers people to take control of their own economic destiny. This is just buying into the global economy that robs communities of their heart and soul and continues to disenfranchise workers and small business people. It's a vicious cycle: Multi-national corporations provide low prices that appeal to community people who are earning the unliveable wages these same corporations pay their workers. It's not our interest they have at heart, it's our exploitation. "Cultural Energy": Independent Media Voices From El NorteBy Robin CollierA new Taos non-profit, Cultural Energy, has formed to produce independent media voices from Northern New Mexico. The organization plans to involve the community in producing works in audio, video, still photography, and writing on youth, the arts, the environment, sustainable agriculture, land and water rights, community activism, and social change in the region. KRZA is the Alamosa, Colorado-based community public radio station that serves the upper Rio Grande region. Volunteers such as reporter Mike Tilley have steadily increased the coverage of Taos by KRZA. Yet the station has no facilities or paid staff in Taos. With the encouragement of the KRZA Board, Cultural Energy will establish a media production facility in Taos in space rented from TaosNet, behind Wal-Mart. Initial Board members, Robin Collier from Tierra Wools/Wool Traditions, Deborah Begel a former Pacifica radio reporter, and Scott Randolph of Taos Talking Pictures, bring years of organizing and multi-media expertise. Long time KRZA volunteer Mike Tilley will be paid to recruit, train, and coordinate volunteers for radio production to be offered for broadcast on KRZA and other media outlets. As funds are raised, full time paid staff will provide consistent, ongoing coverage of political, social, and cultural events in the Taos area. Tilley has established an extensive network of community connections, including radio clubs at Taos Pueblo Day School, Taos High School, and production within classes at UNM Taos. Shared use of equipment and staff is planned with Wool Tradition's acequia youth project. Joint production is also planned with Amigos Bravos, SOMOS, the New Mexico Acequia Association, Living Treasures, and other community organizations. While initial production will focus on audio, other mediums of expression, such as video and digital photography, will be explored. Programs covering the arts community, political activism, environmental concerns, a wide range of non-profit organizations, and educational institutions will continue to enrich the Taos community. Cultural Energy will enable youth and the community to express their cultural values in their own words. As well as seeking broadcast on local radio, opportunities for distribution of programming nationally to such outlets as NPR, Pacifica, Latino USA, Radio Bilingue, and Native American stations will be pursued. Funds will be raised directly from the Taos community and foundations. Fiscal sponsorship for donations is provided by the New Mexico Community Foundation. Visit www.culturalenergy.org or call 751-1987 to become involved or donate.
|
Home | Current Issue | Subscribe | About Us | Environmental Justice | Links | Archive | Index
Copyright 1996-2002 La Jicarita Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, New Mexico 87521.