Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] That cruel joke called water law

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] That cruel joke called water law
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:45 -0600


Let me state for the record that we have visited Lynn's place and the
situation is as he describes. We also have DVDs he gave us showing his
testimony in the legal conflicts over water rights. Clearly it is NOT a
simple matter of who got there first gets all the water. As he explains,
water rights today is the result of past negotiation and settlements,
hammered out over centuries of conflict and in the courts. And the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo actually is international law.

At stake is the survival of thousands of small farmers on acequias in New
Mexico, and a unique local culture found nowhere else. Hispanic, Indian, and
Anglos have forged a culture based on the land since the Spanish first
explored up the Camino Real to what is now Santa Fe - the oldest capital city
in the Americas. Here, we're aware of this every time we hit the road - I-25
follows the old Camino Real north from Albuquerque., a half hour to the west
of us, and old U.S. Route 66 runs seven miles north of our place. We see
acequias in Abq. and near one of our markets on the north side they still
water pastures, orchards, and vineyards - as they have for four hundred years.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 7/24/2008 at 10:14 PM Lynn Montgomery wrote:

>I am a holder of pre-1907 water rights in New Mexico, which are also
>protected by the international Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The state
>constitution in it's Bill of Rights continues these Treaty protections.
>The reason that old rights get their's first is that these rights came
>about through a lot of sweat, blood, and negotiation. They represent hard
>won agreements between users to prevent conflict and ensure the
>continuation of cultural and social values. They underpin communities and
>without them, the future of these communities is dust. One should expect
>that one's grandfather's farm that one is still cultivating for a living
>would have some protection of the main resource that makes it all
>possible. I have been in litigation all the way to the NM Supreme Court
>and back down to District Court for a trial de novo, fighting new
>groundwater pumping that is proven, in court, to be drying up the spring I
>depend on for my farm. I know the people that wrote the editorial well,
>and am heartened that they have finally listened to me and many others
>that seek sanity to our water uses and administration. We are going to
>win. So, the little guy who is willing to stand up and sue the bastards
>can win and will, that is, if one can get out of the rut that the rich and
>powerful can never be beat.
> Senior water rights demand constraint in water use. Their main value
>is to limit how much stupidity will get it's way. New Mexico might be
>considered a backward place, but our water law is the most progressive in
>the nation. We even recognize that ground water and surface water are
>directly connected in our law, a scientific fact known the world over, but
>always denied when there is money to be made sprawling and mauling and
>asphalting the Planet over. Hopefully, we can keep on beating the heck out
>of the bureacracy and our bought out politicians, and with our allies in
>the courts, make New Mexico a shining example of how to deal with little
>water in the desert.
>Lynn Montgomery, Mayordomo,
>Acequia la Rosa de Castilla
>Merced San Antonio de las Huertas (Spanish Land Grant est. 1768)
>Placitas, NM
>
>Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:17:27 +1200
>From: Mike <mike.lists@mlxvi.org>
>Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] That cruel joke called water law
>To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing
><livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <4887CA17.2050005@mlxvi.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>It's pretty easy to see the many sides of this argument. But, rest
>assured, the final outcome will be one that benefits the government and
>their friends - certainly not the environment, nor the little guy. With
>water, it is pretty hard to argue that the guy that got here first gets
>it all. But equally, should someone be able to set up, knowing there is
>not enough water?
>
>Then you get the really stupid stuff. Entire cities being set up and
>promoted where there is no water, or simply not enough. Many Australian
>cities are like this. But, then again, if one is stupid enough to move
>INTO one of these cities, then what do you expect?
>
>Mike
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page