The Sandoval Signpost

An Independent Monthly Newspaper Serving the Community since 1988


Click Here To submit a letter or a response to the Gauntlet.

Letters are subject to editing for length, clarity, libel, and other considerations. Please limit your letter to approximately four hundred words. Letter submissions are due by the twentieth of the month prior. Please see the Contact Us page for submission options (e-mail, web, fax, mail).

By submitting your comments to the Sandoval Signpost you are granting us permission to reprint all or an edited portion of your message.

letters, opinions, editorials

‘Decolonizing’ is Pueblos’ first step

On August 10, we honored the Okay Owingeh leader, Po’Pay (Popé), who led the Pueblo Indian Revolt, which took place on August 10, 1680. It was the only successful indigenous revolution against the powerful sovereign of Spain. We also commemorate this historic anniversary to all the warriors—the Keres, Walatowa, Tiwa, Tewa, Zuni, Hopi, Apache, Comanche, and Diné (Navajo).

I would like to honor this day with a peaceful gesture, a symbol of hope.

In this spirit and contemporary time, we are all here to address the issue of colonial trauma. The majority of the public have no comprehension of the psychological “brainwashing” still prevalent within the Pueblo communities.

It was Spanish thought and culture from the very beginning that was designed to eradicate our beliefs and institutionalize the Pueblo people.

In 1620, by royal decree of the king of Spain, the Keres, Tiwa, Tewa, Walatowa, and Zuni were formed into a civil government and given Spanish canes (of authority). Mexican officials gave the Pueblos canes after Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, President Lincoln presented canes in recognition of the Pueblos’ nonviolent position toward the United States during the American Civil War.

Most recently, King Juan Carlos of Spain presented the Spanish canes to the Nineteen Pueblo Council. Former New Mexican Governor Bruce King affirmed the same recognition when he presented the nineteen pueblos with canes. In 2007, Spain gave the Pueblo of Acoma a cane so tribal officials would not contest the controversial three-story-tall bronze statue, “The Equestrian,” in El Paso, Texas.

Another example of such interpretation of Spanish influence today is the patron saint Santiago, who appears in a drama acted out during some Pueblo feast days. Santiago appears in the ceremony wearing Spanish-style clothing, carrying a sword and cross. (To us), Santiago is also a “Spanish war cry,” which echoes an eternity of human suffering. Is this the perception of celebration? Who are we honoring this day?

Here in the pueblos, colonialism remains alive with civil obedience to Spanish morals and “morality dramas” of the reconquest. Miles away in El Paso, “The Equestrian” remains a controversial (memorial) to the conquistador, Juan de Oñate.

We can define annihilation of the Pueblo people through colonization and (forced) assimilation.

How detrimental to continue to empower the conceptions of the Spanish institutions! We are at a time in the “conscious thought” of the Pueblo people to begin to bring an end to the system of colonization, move toward independence from the symbolic “Spanish canes” and exercise our inherent right to decolonize from the Proclamation of 1620. Most pueblos need to assert their right to self-determination, and take a stand with a democratic constitution.

Nothing creates more talk and disagreements than our Pueblo Indian women’s lack of human rights. True, some Pueblo women do serve on tribal councils and have served as governors, (but) only when their pueblos have a written constitution. Other Pueblo women have no voice in tribal councils in a system that is molded after the Spanish civil government. Women in Iraq have more political rights—the right to vote. When these exclusions of rights do not exist, there are many hidden exploitations that Pueblo women endure today.

The Pueblo people will look upon this “controversial” issue of historical trauma, and will see the truth and acknowledge the manifestations of the pervasive Spanish institutions, including the legacies that still indoctrinate the Pueblo people today.

Keeping this issue of sovereignty alive is a very real concern today. We must focus on abstaining from participating in Santa Fe’s 2009 and 2010 cuarto-centenario. Support of this event would give the impression that Pueblo people endorse and validate events that commemorate the “genocide” of indigenous people of the Southwest. As Pueblo people, we must secure our rights to speak the truth without fear of intimidation. It is time to speak the truth and “decolonize” our minds.

The opinions expressed in this statement do not represent the Santa Ana Tribal Council or the Nineteen Indian Pueblo Council. The Federal Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 starts: “No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall make or abridge the freedom of speech or the press.”

Today, I exercise my First Amendment right to free speech.



re: response to a resident in August 2008 Signpost

When I read of your “research” into the reasons for the lack of water in Las Huertas Creek this year, I had to wonder where you did your research, since you are pretty uninformed. If it was through the Forest Service, obviously, the Forest Service is no better informed.

To set the record straight, there are three historic acequia systems in the Placitas area—Las Placitas, which supplies both domestic and irrigation water for the Village of Placitas; Las Huertas Community Ditch in the canyon south of Placitas; and Rosa Castilla, north of Placitas. None of these are or have ever been “long-defunct,” and such claims are simply an attempt to steal water rights for development interests. They are protected by New Mexico’s laws covering senior water rights and are quasi-governmental agencies recognized by the State of New Mexico. Interfering with their diversion of water (including vandalism of diversions as happened this year and in past years) is a criminal offense punishable by fines of up to $5,000 and possible jail time. Other punishable offenses are the taking of water from the acequia if you are not a member or have been prohibited by the mayordomo (such as in times of need to alternate irrigation patterns). Mayordomos are elected (not self-appointed as you claim) and it is their job (among other things) to ration water in times of shortages.

All these acequias are spring-fed, as is Las Huertas Creek. When the springs do not produce in any year, spring run-off is not enough to sustain a flow of water into the summer months. The springs can be affected by a number of factors including drought, an increasing number of domestic wells, etc. I can only speak for Las Huertas Community Ditch and point to two situations, both of which have been created by the Forest Service. One is the pumping of water for manufacturing snow at the ski area. In any year that this happens, the springs feeding Las Huertas Creek are impaired. The other is the poor health of the forest in the canyon. Ten years ago, a UNM study talked of the reduction in yield of surface water and how it hampers the irrigation needs of the Las Huertas/La Jara acequia.

In the absence of natural forest thinning (low-intensity fires) or planned forest thinning and clearing of the forest understory, the volume of timber increased radically throughout the twentieth century. These thicker forests consume more water. In hydrological terms, evapotranspiration and plant interception of precipitation reduce infiltration and recharge of hill slope aquifers, resulting in less surface water in down slope streams. The report goes on to say that acequia communities’ access to surface water has been profoundly affected by forest overgrowth in the Sandia Wilderness Area. It also estimates that a mere one percent increase in evaporation transpiration within the Las Huertas watershed could account for a reduction of more than ten acre feet of surface water in Las Huertas Creek.

Keep in mind that this was ten years ago and nothing has been done. We met with the Forest Service in 2006 and again in 2007 and there is no suggested action, except to say that there is no forest use plan for this area and that we are a low priority. Conditions are now so bad that impairment of water flow is a secondary concern to the very real potential for a disastrous fire which would destroy the entire watershed for years to come, to say nothing of the potential for loss of life and property.

John Wesley Powell in 1878 proposed to Congress a settlement pattern for the arid west based upon watersheds. He envisioned economies, planning, and laws tailored to each local resource base—a kind of watershed democracy in which communities would have a voice in protecting upland forests to maximize limited resources. His plan died in the Senate Committee on Irrigation. Washington was unable to reconcile scientific reality with policies based on individualism, entrepreneurial economics, and greed. Not much has changed!

Next time you call the Forest Service, ask them some informed questions such as why they have allowed this situation to happen and whether they are ready to sit down with us and develop a community-focused watershed management plan that would help restore Las Huertas Creek to something we could all enjoy.



re: a unified Placitas

Recently, we attended a Sandoval County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We were there on other business. After our hearing, we remained seated in the chambers to hear a planning and zoning planner’s dialogue with one of the commissioners.

The commissioner had recently attended the meeting on the annexation of “west” Placitas held at our Community Center. During the exchange, the planner stated that the Town of Bernalillo was beginning to feel the “squeeze” and was expected to proceed with the finalization of a development committee’s report recommending action to the zoning issues in the three-mile corridor of Route 165 commonly known as “west” Placitas. On a map displayed by another planning aide, we viewed the sections of Placitas that will be the focus of the annexation and possible commercial development. It was clear from the discussion that the Town of Bernalillo is feeling the “squeeze” and would like to broaden its tax revenue base. Sandoval County and the developers would also be benefactors.

Although I did not attend the community meeting at Placitas’s Senior Center, it seems reasonable to assume that the Town of Bernalillo, Sandoval County, and the developers are ready to move forward with the proposal. After the exchange with the planners, the Commission passed a motion that will provide for a professional facilitator to run the next meeting. That meeting will also include planners from Sandoval County, the Town of Bernalillo, and developers.

To all residents of Placitas, I propose the following recommendations that will keep this action moving in a positive direction:

1. Stand as a unified Placitas and refrain from speaking the words “east“ and “west“ Placitas.

2. Propose to the Town, County, and developers that as one condition of annexation, they finance and build a Placitas water system, making the precious commodity available to all residents of Placitas, and absorb all costs of any additional infrastructure, such as paved roads and natural gas line service.

3. Propose that the three parties become major financial contributors to the Placitas Artists Series, guaranteeing another twenty-plus years of performances.

4. Propose that the three parties become major financial sponsors to our two artist shows.

5. And so on…





Water can be a worrisome thing in the desert

—LYNN MONTGOMERY, Mayordomo, Acequia la Rosa de Castilla
Most of us in Placitas when in need of water, like most Americans, simply turn on the tap and don’t think about it. The water is there for us to use, or at least that is what is assumed by most, and what County officials, the State Engineer, and local housing professionals tell us. We are sitting on an aquifer thousands of feet deep and present pumping will only drop levels a couple feet over centuries, or so we’re told. Some of us experience a steady drop in already low water quality, and some of us even experience wells going dry. Drilling deeper will develop more water, so why worry?

The truth is not as simple. Every gallon pumped results in one gallon less flow in local streams, springs, and rivers. That is a hydrological fact in our region. All those billions of gallons being pumped by the metro area down in the Valley will creep up the hills way underground and also contribute, eventually, to the degradation of our local surface flows. Conversely, our pumping in Placitas will affect the flows of the Rio Grande in a similar fashion, eventually.

So, a new Placitas resident would ask; “What’s the difference if these flows dry up? I don’t see any flowing water near me.” One of the differences is our environment will dry up along with these surface flows. All the wild birds, plants, and animals we enjoy so much won’t have the water and habitat to support them and Placitas will become a very stark place. Another difference is the loss of our old culture, which is land- and water-based, and cannot survive without either. There are three incorporated acequias, or ditch systems, in Placitas that go way back and support the remnants of a very old and venerable agriculture which, until very recently, kept folks up here from starvation most of the time and might, in the future, keep us from starvation most of the time.

These acequias are political subdivisions of the state government, their officers are elected officials of the state government, and they have similar sovereignty as do local governments like the County. Our acequias are quite old and have established rights that precede the state and in most cases, the United States. The authority of the state and the State Engineer over these rights is presently being challenged, and it looks like they will probably not be as subject to state statutes, county ordinances, or State Engineer regulations as we have been led to believe, and the State Engineer will have little authority over them, save a duty to protect them from junior uses.

Junior? Water rights issues are very complex and contorted, and much remains to be resolved, but things are starting to become clearer as stream system adjudications of water rights and other water cases start to establish more precedent in the courts. There is a hard line between two basic types of water rights. This came about in 1907 when the Territory of New Mexico, anticipating statehood (1912), declared all rights previous to 1907 to be “senior” and subsequent rights to be “junior.” As established long before, a priority administration system was created whereby the older rights receive all their water before any goes to junior users, especially in times of shortage. Groundwater, such as wells in Placitas, was included in 1931 and is also subject to priority, adjudications, and rights transfer regulations. It’s all the same water.

Good conservative estimates speculate that there is at least two times as much water right legitimately claimed as there is actual wet water. The Middle Rio Grande Basin, which is a legal entity, has never been adjudicated, although the water code has required the State Engineer to begin one since 1907. It is impossible to administer and manage the water resource properly and keep it from being sorely abused unless there is adjudication and our water rights are determined and verified by the court. The State Engineer cannot determine water rights in any way, only the courts can do this. Thus, many of the transfers of surface agricultural waters from Valencia County into the ground up here in Placitas to serve residential housing could very well be invalid. After the Pueblos have taken their share, which is senior to all others and is an unknown but surely considerable amount, there won’t be much left over for junior rights. The State Engineer and local governments, along with the legislature, have let this situation rot for decades so that development could proceed without hindrance, as money and growing the economy has been their greatest concern. Despite their neglect, Middle Rio Grande adjudication is going to happen soon, as legislators realize values beyond money concerning the water. Pressure from the Lower Rio Grande Adjudication case, which is really going to demand priority administration happen, is also making things move along for once.

What are the final consequences for Placitas denizens? Well, the water we really have is the water flowing in our streams and from our springs, period. Groundwater pumping will dry up, or at least make unusable to acequias, these flows. Our pumping is destroying our water. No amount of money can fix this. When it all comes out in the wash, junior users, from cities to domestic wells, are going to have to find some senior rights to legally pump. These rights must be local in order to protect the resource and senior rights from infringement from other areas and regions. So, the acequias possess the only rights that will be available to us to keep water flowing from the tap.

Presently, the State Engineer says acequias don’t own much right, as much of it hasn’t been used and is forfeited. But, only the courts can actually forfeit rights and senior rights are, in reality, exempt from beneficial use statutes and cannot be reduced for non-use, despite what the State Engineer claims. No senior right has been forfeited since 1966, when the Legislature tightened up requirements of the forfeiture statute. Only if a right has been abandoned for a long time, several decades, can it be retired by the court.

In order for most of us to survive, (some will have to leave or haul water as there won’t be enough “extra” senior rights for everyone), a leasing system that allows acequia parciantes to lease water rights from acequia water rights banks to needy well owners has to be established. The leasing part needs some legislation. The acequia banks already have legality. The acequias would need much assistance to make sure that every square inch of legitimate agricultural land is preserved and that all the rights associated with those lands are preserved in full too.

We all lose if this little pool of rights is diminished. Those that build on old agricultural lands are not making things easy for our grandchildren. Up to now, acequias have been ignored and dismissed as irrelevant in today’s grow and consume society. This has been a big mistake, and it’s a good thing most acequia parciantes are good, responsible, generous folks, despite the immense injustice heaped on them over the years. Placitas has a likelihood of becoming a ghost town or some kind of weird slum. Rio Rancho will surely end up this way. We are small enough, and have better opportunity for true community, so there’s some hope. We also have survivors from the old days who have managed to stomach the massive alteration of the area without fleeing. These long-time residents had a viable and strong community which we could tap into to give guidance.

Those that just got here should attempt to better learn the place they have occupied. It’s one of the most interesting places in the world if given a chance. We have to move on from the bedroom non-community mindset and begin to get involved more. It’s time to invest more in our place, ourselves, and our future community.



Ad Rates  Back Issues  Contact Us  Front Page  Up Front  Animal News   Around Town  Arts Business Classifieds Calendar  Community Bits  Community Center   Eco-Beat  Featured Artist  The Gauntlet Health  Community Links  Night Sky  My Wife and Times  Public Safety Real People Schoolbag Stereogram  Time Off