Community land grants: The legacy

Community

Land Grants: The legacy

CLYDE EASTMAN* New Mexico State University

This IS a study of the contemporary sltuatlons and modes of operation on New Mexico’s remammg Hlspamc commumty land grants Fourteen grants with slgmficant amounts of community land were ldentlfied Operation and management of commumty land presents several unique problems not encountered on other public or pnvate lands and therefore are not usually addressed For that reason, this land ments special attention Problems encountered by the grants mclude dlfficultles with titles, inadequate legal framework, inadequate fiscal oversight and inadequate resource conservation Possible remedies for these problems are discussed An umbrella orgamzatlon of the grants, which would provide an effective means to lobby for needed legislation and other assistance, IS also recommended New Mexico land use maps show Htspamc land grants covermg substantial portions of northcentral New Mexico and the middle Rto Grande Valley This treatment suggests a different pattern of ownership and usage than that currently existent on most land grants It reflects the historical rather than the contemporary situatton The vast malonty of the origmal land grant acreage has passed mto mdividual, corporate and public ownership, and is held and operated in a manner mdistmgutshable from land lying outside grant boundanes The community lands that do remam are vestiges of Hispanic cultural hentage, different from other New Mextco land Conservation and realization of this heritage requtres an understanding of the contemporary situation and the problems facing these communmes The purpose of this study was (1) to identify those grants with land still held m common, (2) to assess the current modes of orgamzatton and operation and, finally, (3) to offer suggestions for enhancing operational efficiency and greater realization of the unique cultural potential The study begms with a brief review of literature followed by a synopsis of land grant history m New Mexico to provide a background for understandmg the contemporary sttuation Little has been wntten on the contemporary orgamzation and operation of the land grants, especially the commons. Commons or community land refers to that part of land grants that residents have rights to use for grazing, wood cutting or other activities Contemporary

*Dnect all correspondence to Clyde Eastman, Department of Agncultural Unwerslty, Box 3169, Las Cruces, NM 88003 Telephone 505-646-2704 The Social Science Journal, Volume 28, Number 1, pages 101-117. Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.

Economics,

New Mexico

State

102

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol 2WNo

l/1991

and which is admmistered for the community by a board of trustees It is “owned” by the community as a whole Most of the substantial land grant literature is either historical or legal m focus The Land Tzrle Study published by the New Mexico State Planning Office examined numerous legal difficulties on the grants and suggested remedies ’ A later study by legal scholars, Charles DuMars and Malcolm Ebnght, documented land title problems in New Mexico and adjacent states, and also suggested remedies ’ A historical approach by Sociologist Clark Knowlton documented the resentment over land losses, and chronicled the protest movement of the late 1960s 3 Historian Robert Rosenbaum recounts numerous acts of resistance to Anglo-American dommation since the earliest contact durmg the Mexican period 4 Victor Westphall’s historical overview of New Mexico land grants provides excellent documentatton of their evolution from the earliest times down to the mid-twentieth century 5Geographer Barbel La Mar documented the losses of Hispanic grants and other small holdmgs caused by irrigation developments and commerciahzation of land m the Mesilla Valley between 1890 and 1930.6 The first chapters of Lund, Water and Culture continued m the htstoncal and legal vem ’ The later chapters, while contemporary m focus, did not deal with mdividual grants These references are only seven examples from a substantial literature that documents an important element of New Mexico’s cultural heritage The present study is designed to extend the existmg literature by treating the rather neglected question “What is the contemporary situation?” The prmciple cntenon for mclusion m this list of contemporary grants with community land was that the remaining commons should be large enough to make a sigmficant difference to the community m a cultural or an economic way. The grant could support a substantial amount of such traditional activities as grazing and wood cuttmg, or it could have a significant value for residential or recreational development Something more than a few acres scattered around a village would be required. The commons merit special attention because management and preservation of it presents so many special problems not encountered on other private or public land GENESIS

OF THE

PROBLEMS

Both the Spanish and Mexican governments made land grants m New Mexico The exact number of grants made is not defimtely known Some of the grants were private and some were community, although it is Olen Leonard’s observation that most private grants became de facto community grants as new settlers arrtved and the resident population expanded 8Congress confumed 45 Hispamc grants m New Mexico containing a total of 8535,162 acres, plus 18 Pueblo Indian grants and the Laguna Purchases The Laguna Grant was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Private Land Claims 9 Indian lands totalled 685,419 acres The Court confirmed 8 1 Hispanic grants totallmg 1,917,657 acres, substantially reducmg the acreage claimed by many of them it also rejected m toto some 200 claims lo The non-mdigenous populatton m New Mexico expanded slowly durmg most of the Spanish period because of the relative isolation of the region and the host&y of several Indian tribes During Spamsh Colonial rule (1598-l 82 1)) agriculture remained at a subsistence level and there was little opportunity to commerciahze land ” However, a growing number of European Americans accompanied the opening of trade

Community

Land Grants

The Legacy

103

over the Santa Fe Trail during the Mexican Period (1821-1848), and opportunities to commercrahze land increased markedly Anglo recipients of large Mexican grants made sporadic attempts to settle their grants, but these grantees tended to be more mterested m speculatton than m long-term agricultural operations I2 The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war with Mexico m 1848, prescribed the treatment of the people and property m the territory ceded by Mexico to the United States. Article VIII provided that “m the said terntories, property of as if the shall be mvtolably respected every kmd now belongmg to Mexicans. same belonged to citizens of the United States “I3 Article VIII thus provided general protection for all classes of property Residents remammg in the ceded terntory acquired U S citizenship. Specific guarantees for land grants were included m Article X However, this arttcle was deleted before ratification at the mststence of the U S government due to concerns over the status of large Mexican land grants m Texas. The Protocol of Queretaro was drafted to explain the deletion of Article X and two other changes made durmg Senate ratification The second pomt of the Protocol .“did not m any way intend to annul the reaffirmed that the American government grants of lands made by Mexico m the ceded temtones.“‘4 The Protocol was ignored by the U.S government after the negotiations and Ebnght argues, “without a standard by which to test the validity of a land grant, Congress and the courts were free to make thetr own rules, which they did, and the results were not always lust “I5 The U S. government took a liberal approach to adjudication of land grants m Florida and Louisiana, was relatively fair m California and was also apparently fair m Texas I6 However, by the time New Mexico’s turn came, the decisions became restrictive As pomted out above, a total of 126 Hispanic land grant claims, plus 19 Pueblo Indian grants, were confirmed m New Mexico, a much larger number of claims were refused Only about 24 percent of the total acres claimed m New Mexico were confirmed compared to about 73 percent m Califomia.‘7 While a few patently fraudulent claims were rejected in New Mexico, it is also clear that many legitimate claims were also refused, often because of incomplete documentation Claimants who had been resident on and m possession of land for generations were denied because part or all of then documents had been lost or because there were mconsrstencies m the documents. In addition several fraudulent claims, generated by those with enough political clout to push them through, were approved To obtam a title, land grant residents had to retam an attorney, file a claim and gather the necessary supportmg documents and testimony Thus, landholders were turned mto claimants who had to mcur a substantial expense to have their property respected Even successful claimants lost substantial portions of their land In the subsistence agrarian economy of the times, there was httle opportunrty to raise cash Consequently, the only way many claimants could obtain legal assistance was by deedmg a portion of their grant to the lawyers This portion typically amounted to from one-third to one-half of the land mvolved Grants that were confirmed somettmes overlapped one another or had other settlers on them Adludrcation of these confhctmg claims was left to the grantees as a separate matter after title confumation This litigation also required legal fees which resulted m further land loss Commerce m the privately-owned grants was bnsk from Mexican times onwards, and as ways were found to alienate them, commerce m the commumty grants also

104

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol 28/No

l/1991

occurred Nearly all community grants have had their commons at least somewhat reduced; more than three fourths of them have sold, assigned or lost essentially all of their commons The chicanery m land grant dealings created a widespread resentment that remains m northern New Mexico to the present time ” In commumty grants, it was common for the ongmal petition for land to bear only the names of one or two mdividuals, plus unspecified others Eventually, the grant would be made m the same way, to one or two named mdividuals and unnamed others, although it was clearly intended to be a communtty grant. Speculators soon found this provided a mechanism to obtain title to community grants The technique was developed with the well-known Tierra Amarilla Grant Speculators bought up the interest of the heirs of the named indtviduals, then represented the land as a pnvate grant m the title proceedings I9 Patents to the Hispanic grants were issued m fee simple and the lands were, m most respects, treated by Anglo-American law as any other private landholdmg thereafter, that is, they were taxed and they could be sold or mortgaged They were also SubJect to adverse possession which permits acquisition of title after possession for a statutory penod under certain conditions Many grant residents have used adverse possession to expand pnvate holdings at the expense of the commons. In marked contrast to the Htspatuc grants, the Pueblo grants are held m Joint trusts between the federal government and the tribes Pueblo lands are not taxed and cannot be sold or otherwise alienated except by mutual agreement of the trustees Once they received title to land, Native Amencans have been able to hold on to most of it In some cases, they have been able to significantly expand their holdings of commons. For example, the Laguna Pueblo have actively acquired land with their own funds at various periods Their title to their earliest purchases was confirmed even before title to their grant The Lagunas also lost about 8,000 acres to encroaching settlers from the Cebolleta Grant Such encroachment occurred on other pueblo land as well On balance, however, the Pueblos have retained a much larger portion of their lands than have Hispamc communmes. The Pueblo experience is relevant m this context because their lands were treated differently This provides an alternative example of what might have been done with the Hispanic community lands had the U S Govemment been so mclmed. Treatment of community lands under U S law after adjudication has also caused difficulties While there were precedents m the Anglo-American legal system for common lands, most commons had long since been enclosed and the emphasis was on private property A number of the leading figures m the early American admmistration married Mexican wives and were well enough acculturated to have Mexican citizenship and to have served the Mexican government *’ They must have known how common lands were treated under Spanish and Mexican law In addition, an English language article on the nature of usufruct or common property under Spanish and Mexican law was published m 1851 Clearly, mformation was available ” However, private property better suited the purpose of Anglo speculators and settlers The statutes governing community land grants appear m Chapter 49 of New Mexico Statutes Annotated (1978) Management and control of each grant is vested in a five-member board of trustees Election and duties of trustees are prescribed in detail “All persons residing within the limits of such grant, who have an interest in the

Communriy

Land Grants

The Legacy

105

common lands, by mherrtance or by purchase of an interest m the common lands, who have resided for the period of five years prior to the election at which they offer to vote, who are qualified electors at the general elections held m this state and who are registered as herein provided, shall be qualified to vote at such elections “** Registration of qualified voters follows the same procedures prescribed for county elections. A special state statute limits interest m the Anton Chico commons to heirs of the ortgmal members Outsiders who purchase or lease private lands within the grant have rights only to that land, but not to the commons, although they may reside in one of the five villages on the grant 23Other than that, no guidance to determme who has an “interest in the common lands” is provided. Section 49-l-8 prescrtbes that the treasurer and any other officer handling money will furnish a surety bond m an amount double the funds handled. Section 49-1-14 stipulates that the secretary “shall keep permanent and legible records capable of audit,” and that no payments shall be made except by written check drawn on a voucher However, there 1s no requrrement that an audit actually be performed Section 49-l-3 empowers the board of trustees to make all the rules and regulations governing use and enjoyment of the common lands, and also to sell, convey, lease or mortgage the commons Section 49-l-l 1 requtres approval of sales, leases and other alienation of common land by a Judge of the district court There was no mdication m the law that the Judge had to do anything other than determine that the formalities were observed. However, the ruling on a 1985 case required the Judge to make certain that the board applies its standards m a uniform and nondtscnmmatory manner 24There is still no requirement that the Judge make any determmation whether sales or leases of commons are appropnate and m the interest of the grantees Several communmes with land grants organized cooperattve livestock associations to qualify for governmental assistance with back taxes toward the end of the Great Depression. Grants now held and operated by cooperattve associations are governed by the statutes appearmg m Chapter 53, Article 4 of NMSA (1978) It was also possible to organize communny grants as corporations under the Laws of 1891 and 1897, amended at vartous times thereafter. The governing statutes and court decisions are ambiguous m several key areas One such area 1s the exact legal status of a land grant Community lands were held to be “quasi-municipal corporattons” by the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1922.25 Ltke private corporations, the community lands were subject to taxation This resulted m much loss of common land, especially during the 1930s when there were many tax sales of property all across Amenca The exact nature of commumty ownership has never been unambtguously established, and is a major root cause of problems plaguing the grants today. The land of a municipality is held m trust for the residents of the mumcipahty, the public It cannot be legally conveyed or managed m a manner inconsistent with the interests of the public Who the public is m the context of a commuruty land grant was not made clear by the temtonal legislature, and has not been clarified by New Mexico courts For example, shareholders or taxpayers may sue pnvate corporations or mumctpalmes if their interests are not being served by the corporation or mumcipahty Land grantees have difficulty m establishmg legal basis for such action 26 The saga of the Atnsco Land Grant m Bemahllo County illustrates the dtfficulties

106

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol 2WNo

l/1991

of estabhshmg the interests of the hetrs m a land grant With the decline of agriculture and the growth of Albuquerque m the 1920s and 193Os, the Atrisco Board of Trustees began to lease grant land for commercial development. A lawsuit was filed m 1935 to determine the legal heirs who should share m the development profits It took years of legal wrangling and the passage of a state law m 1967 to sort out the difficulties. The law permitted a land grant to reorganize as a domestic stock corporation; m this case, the Westland Development Company ” Several grants have restricted the number of memberships, usually based on the number of people who contributed money durmg a time of financial crisis Descendants of those contributors are now considered to be hew, and eligible to hold one of the memberships, while others are excluded This practice of determmmg heirs may well lead to future difficulties similar to those encountered by the Atnsco Grant Another set of legal problems arises from the lack of survey and monuments inside the grants The extenor boundaries were surveyed to satisfy the ongmal patent requuements However, m most cases, internal surveys and monuments are either mcomplete or are entirely lackmg because the U.S Surveyor General did not survey inside the land grants These grants still appear on published maps without township and section lmes.28 One abstractor described the current situation on the land grants as being like a bowl of soup with a few croutons floating m it The croutons representing those few pieces of land that have been surveyed and have good titles are completely surrounded by an amorphous, undocumented mass Title problems have contributed to land loss on many grants, and created difficulties m operatmg the remammg lands that persist to the present time 29 As grant lands were sold or assigned to grantees for bmldmg or farmmg purposes, the deeds typically contained a metes and bounds descrtption tied to impermanent natural features such as rocks, trees or arroyos rather than to surveyed monuments In many cases, transfers of deeds to the private holdings were not recorded. County assessors who have responsibility for assessing land values for the levying of taxes often have large voids representmg community lands on their land ownership maps In these cases, tax assessments are based on estimates of community acreage negotiated between the assessors and the grant board members. On one grant the acreage estimated by officials durmg interviews was four to five times the acreage the grant paid taxes on The commons are often quite fragmented and, lacking surveys, there are no means to make accurate estimates Boundary disputes with neighboring landowners and among grantees are common. Tttle problems abound on many land grants The New Mexico Legal Rights Project demonstrated the feasibihty of qmetmg titles m the Santo Domingo de Cundiyo Land Grant 3o However, that grant was small, and relative harmony prevailed among the landowners About the same time, the Cebolleta Grant used a state grant matched by funds from its mmeral royalties to survey private holdings, the exterior boundaries of the common lands, and to quiet titles to the irrigated land The Cebolleta case provides evidence that grantees see the value of surveys and good titles when funds are available However, title clearance is beyond the means of many New Mexico grants To summarize the mam points of this section, the Amencan government generally followed a narrow mterpretation of the law in New Mexico requu-mg, m many cases, more title documentation than could be found even by legitimate holders Chicanery

Communrty

Land Grants

107

The Legacy

by land speculators was wtdespread and many rightful owners and communities were deprived of their land. Even owners with adequate documentation gave up a substantial part of their land to the lawyers who represented them m the required legal proceedings Although there was information on Spanish and Mexican land customs available, and although it placed Pueblo Indian lands m trust, the Amencan Government gave Hispanics title to their commons m fee sample. This meant that the commons were taxed This taxation of the commons, plus an inadequate legal structure for community land, resulted in much land loss Inadequate surveys and titles continue to plague many land grants. Land loss and related difficulttes have resulted m resentment in northern New Mexico which remains to this day

CONTEMPORARY

SITUATION

There is no central authority or records to document the current status of New Mexico’s land grants The pomt of departure for this work was Charles DuMars and Michael Rock’s hstmg of 34 community grants.3’ That list was developed for a dtfferent purpose than this study They were interested m identifymg communities where land title clearance work was feasible To obtam the data for this study, county assessors, abstracters, county extension personnel and other knowledgeable mdividuals were mterviewed m the counties where land grants were concentrated In this way, grants with substanttal existing commons were located and grant offtcials were identified. An attempt was made to mtervtew officials from every grant Some were forthcommg and helpful while others essentially refused to cooperate The grants are not secret societies but, for a variety of reasons, tt is difficult to obtam much detailed mformation on many of them It is difficult to uncover the often fragmentary records and other wntten materials that may be still m existence Knowledgeable mdtviduals may or may not be willmg to talk with outsiders, depending on the pohtical history of the grant and the personal mchnations of the mdividual. Having been vtctmrized by greedy outstders on many occastons m the past, grantees often refuse to give out mformation as a matter of prmciple When grants are, or have recently been, m htigation, people tend to be guarded about what they say, especially to outsiders. These situations caused the greatest difficulty m data collection These difficulties of data collection probably account for the fact that case studies dommate the land grant literature. It is extraordmanly difficult to locate some grants and the officials associated with them and then to obtain mformation once they have been located. A total of 14 grants with substantial remammg commons were identified. These commons have grazmg, mmeral, residential, recreational or other commercial potential. The ongmal stze and the approximate remaining acreage appear m Table 1. Figure 1 shows the approximate locatton of each grant The Atrtsco Grant, now the Westland Development Corporation, was excluded It had 3,737 stockholders m 1977 It is providing land for development on Albuquerque’s West Mesa, and has clearly been transformed mto somethmg very different from the other commumty grants Also excluded were grants like Torreon and Las Huertas (Placitas), which have small parcels of commons scattered m or around their villages These commons are so small and fractured as to offer little possibility for effective management The

108

THE SOCIAL

New Mexico

Table I with

Rematmng

Gfant

Cebolleta

Vol

28/No

l/1991

(In acres) Remammg Commons4 1o4,3195

378,538

RCCLA’

JOURNAL

Land Grants

Commons

0rrgrnalSize3

Anton Chico

SCIENCE

79,000

(998,780) 199,568

24,000

22,233

17,ooo

Juan Tafoya’

4,2486

Cnst6bal de la Serna Abiqulu

16,788

15,800

Cuber0

16,491

13,ooo

6,953

Jacona

6,OOC’

Chlllll

41,481

5,400

Rosano’

14,787

Tecolote

48,123’

5,o@J 4,369

4,470

3,41Z5

Bartolome Sanchez

not known

Antonlo Martinez

3,@38 7865

17,361

Manzano ‘The RIO CostlIla Cooperative the southern

LIvestock Assoclatlon

land was ongmally

tip of the Sangre de Cnsto Grant which was a pnvate

grant ZThe Juan Tafoya Grant was ongmally part of the Cebolleta SAcreages from White Plannmg Office,

et

al

,

Land Title Study,

Land Grant

Santa Fe

The State

1971

4Estlmates of grant officers unless otherwlse

noted

SAcreage on which taxes are pald 6Suweyed

acres wlthm extenor

‘The full formal Santiago

It

8j J Bowden

IS

name

IS

usually shortened

“Pnvate

Thesis, Southern

boundanes

Nuestra

Setiora del Rosano San Fernando

Land Claims m the Southwest”

Methodist

y

to Rosarto

Untverslty,

1969, Vol

Master

of Laws

3, p 730

spun of the grant embodted m those few scattered acres may still be an tmportant cultural element to the local community However, mamtammg tt is a far different acttvity than managmg and benefiting from a more substantial tract of land. These, and undoubtably other, remammg commons are not on the tax roles of their countres If the commons are sufficiently small and scattered to escape the assessor, they also probably have little economic importance It quickly became apparent that there is no typical commumty land grant m New Mexico That is as true for their histories as for their contemporary situations The hrstory of land loss on several grants has been documented and will be briefly described below In other cases, the stones of reducttons remam to be told A few grants have been able to mamtam their commons pretty well intact The variation m scale and diversity of community activtttes is as large as the considerable vanation m physical size The Rio Costilla Cooperative Livestock Assoctatton (RCCLA) has several lucrative recreation enterprises, Cebolleta has had substanttal mmeral leases, while several grants have substantial development potential Several other grants provide only the tradmonal subsistence activities. For the purpose of this study, three categories are utthzed to summarize the current

Communrty

Land Grants

-7

109

The Legacy

NEW MEXICO

F/gore 7. New Mexico Land Grants with Rematntng Commons.

situatrons on the grants (Table 2). Three grants, plus one splinter grant, are large enough m size and in scale of actrvmes to be set apart from the others On five grants, the commons are stall dedicated to the tradmonal uses provrdmg grazing, firewood, posts and poles, sand and gravel, piiion nuts plus a httle huntmg for members. These grants tend to be mterrnedrate in size. The five remaining grants support few of the traditional acttvities Just mentioned However, each one does have substantial restdentral or recreational development potentral, once legal problems can be resolved The large land grants are Anton Chico, the RCCLA, and Cebolleta. The Juan Tafoya Grant 1s considered m this group because it ts a splmter of Cebolleta, and also because it has a substantial uramum deposit which should provtde large royalties when developed. These grants are quite drverse Anton Chico would be considered with the second group of tradmonal grants, except for the fact that tt 1s so much larger than any in that group The sheer size of the grant provides operational options not feasible on smaller grants As Eastman and Gray pomt out, much of the commons

110

THE SOCIAL

Table 2. Categories

SCIENCE

of New Mexico

JOURNAL

Vol

2WNo

Land Grants

Large Grants

“Tradrtrona/“Grants

Anton Chico

Ablquw

Cnst6bal de la Serna

RCCLA

Cuber0

Jacona

Rosano

Bartolome Sanchez

Tecolote

Antomo Martmez

Chllill

Manzano

Cebolletaand

Juan Tafaoya

l/1991

Granfs wrth Development

Potent/a/

has been divided up mto defucto pnvate operating umts 32This was done to facthtate collectron of annual grazing fees from grantees who run animals on the grant These fees are the only source of operating revenue to pay taxes and the other mmrmal expenses of runnmg the grant. A portion of the commons reman-is open to the cattle of residents without an exclusive grazing area Residents are allowed to cut wood and to take sand and gravel for then own personal use Grazing used to be leased to outsiders, but that practice was drscontmued as demand by the residents gradually increased Demand for grazing now exceeds the supply of land available The land of the RCCLA 1s also known as the Amaha-Costrlla Land Grant This holding was originally the southern tip of the 998,780 acre Sangre de Cnsto Grant. In the early 194Os, 100,000 acres were acquired with assistance from the federal government and the Kellogg Foundation to be used as a commons by the residents of the villages of Amaha, Costilla and Venter0 Ongmally, any resident of these commumties could become a member of the RCCLA for a $1 fee Now there are a limited number of 182 memberships, which can only be held by blood descendants of onginal members Sale of the western end, which was separated from the rest and therefore difficult to manage, reduced the commons to 83,000 acres The commons was further reduced to the present 79,000 acres by development of the 4,000-acre Rio Costilla Ski Area Smce the land was once pnvately owned and 1s now held by a cooperattve livestock assocratron, it 1s not a community grant m a narrow legal sense However, the RCCLA operates ltke a grant under the cooperative assoctatton legal structure and its members relate to it as if tt were a grant With this caveat it will be considered as a grant m this study It should also be noted that several other grants (e g , Abtqum and Chrhh) were also converted to cooperative livestock assoctatrons with little apparent effect on their operation There are several recreation enterpnses that generate substantial revenues A number of elk huntmg permits are sold each year Camping, ptcmckmg and fishing also generate mcome The financtally troubled ski area has yet to become a source of revenue There have been timber sales from time to time, and the Capital Lumber Company leased a site for a sawmill that employed about 60 workers, including a number of grant residents About 50 members run 750 to 800 mother cows on the commons, 5 or 6 members run 50 head or more, while most run fewer than 20 head

Communrty

Land Grants

The Legacy

111

Approximately 30,000 acres are suitable for grazing, and there has been a substantial amount of range improvement work carried out. The grazing fees charged for every cow generate only a small proportion of the budget spent annually on grazing improvements. Altogether, these activtties generate a substantial annual budget, and this is the only grant with a paid, full-time manager.33 The Cebolleta Grant now contams about 15,700 of the original 199,568 acres, plus an additional 8,000 acres m the old Paguate Purchase of the Laguna Pueblo Thus, it is the only community grant m New Mexico to have expanded its common land outside its origmal boundaries. It is also the only remammg New Mexico commons to have a splmter or smaller second commons arise from it The details of the separation were not discovered durmg this study However, it is a matter of pubhc record that the Juan Tafoya Land Grant was incorporated m 1976 to handle leases for a uramum mme and mill Durmg construction of the roll, uranmm prices fell sharply and the facilmes went mto receivership m the early 1980s before production ever began Juan Tafoya contams 4,248 acres and is reputed to lease additional state grazing land There are three villages Cebolleta, Moqumo and Bibo on the Cebolleta Grant The village of MarquCz is located on the Juan Tafoya Grant. Marquez is isolated and is separated from the other three villages by the private holdings of the L-Bar Ranch That separation and isolation apparently contributed to the establishment of the splmter grant An unknown number of cattle graze on Cebolleta because members have refused to abide by a grazing plan developed by the board. Most members run fewer than 5 head or so, while a few have as many as 50 head There was an attempt to develop a grazmg plan and hmit the number of livestock on the common land However, enforcement has not yet been effective.34 Durmg the 197Os, there was a substantial mmeral lease income to Cebolleta That mcome financed a number of proJects that benefited the commumty. The private holdmgs withm the grant were surveyed and the titles quieted Water and sewer systems were built, along with other community facilmes There was a scholarship fund and other activities. These activities have dwmdled as the mmeral leases expired. The second maJor grouping of the remaining commumty grants are Abiqum, Cubero, Tecolote, Chihli and Nuestra Seiiora de1 Rosario San Fernando y Santiago (Rosano) They still provide the traditional activities of hvestock grazmg, firewood, posts and poles, sand, gravel and stone, hunting, a place to gather pidon nuts and other plants, just as they always have since they were ongmally settled These products no longer account for the large portion of the resident’s total subsistence that they once did Beef for the family freezer is the most important economic contribution nowadays Taxes and other operatmg expenses are covered by membership and grazing fees The annual budgets are measured m hundreds of dollars that, after taxes are paid, leaves little for anythmg else. These grants tend to rely on their neighbors for boundary fences The Highway Department, National Forests, Santa Fe Railroad and private landholders build and mamtam the exterior fences of the commons. There are few if any mtemal fences and only mmimal water development. Control over grazing is nominal, for example, m Abiqum and Cubero, to mmimal at Tecolote and Rosario Consequently, the quahty of grazmg is poor to very poor, and erosion is a serious problem Few people run cattle on any of these grants if they have a forest permit

112

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol

28/No

l/1991

or anywhere else to graze them That one fact 1s probably the most accurate mdlcator of the detenorated range’s quahty The Rosmo Grant was described by Forest Service personnel as “eroded beyond reasonable repair “35 Because there 1s little effective control over woodcuttmg, this undoubtably also exacerbates the erosion problem and depletes the forest resources on those grants that still have trees It 1s essentially lmposslble to earn a hvmg from agnculture on these grants and the associated irrigated farm land The villages have become bedroom communities for workers who earn then living from outside Jobs, for retirees and for the mfum. The livestock and small lmgated plots are part-time, small-scale operations that contnbute much more to lifestyle and psychological well-being than they do to household mcomes These grants have vanous pohcles on provldmg homesites to members Ablqum 1s one of the few grants that still assigns house lots or sob-es It has a small subdivision of lOO-by-200 foot lots adJacent to the village In Tecolote, one must buy an existing solar to build on the grant The Tecolote board stopped assigning new homesites m the 1950s when escalating demand threatened to take up all the commons Now, with declining population, fmdmg a homesite 1s not difficult Chlhh’s physical charactenstlcs put It rather cleanly m the traditional category but, m reality, it 1s something of an outher Confhct and htlgatlon have been the primary actlvltles on this grant over the past three decades The common land base has dwindled from the original 41,481 acres to an estimated 5,000 acres Transfer of the commons to a cooperative livestock assoclatlon m the late 1930s facilitated government assistance with delinquent taxes, but it exacerbated the conflict between grant residents who were cooperative members and those who were excluded 36The assignment or sale of the commons by various boards of trustees has resulted m the conflict and constant htlgatlon between rival factlons of the commumty Because the grant generates little revenue, additional land has to be sold or assigned from time to time to meet the constantly recurrmg legal fees The past hlstory of this community provides the most pervasive argument for the need for an mdependent fiscal oversight for land grants The third group consists of five grants with relatively little traditional activity, but which have substantial economic development potential These are Jacona, BartolomC Sanchez, Manzano, Antonio Martinez and Cnst6bal de la Sema Jacona has 103 memberships or shares m the 6,000 acres of community land A half mile of road frontage makes It extremely dlfflcult to equitably divide the acreage among the shareholders The commons were recently surveyed and the title quieted as the first step toward development However, fmdmg a development scheme that satisfies all share holders collectively has proven difficult. There 1s a small amount of unauthorized grazing and wood cutting The BartolomC Sanchez Grant, located between the Village of Hemandez and the northwestern outskirts of Espaiiola, 1s leased out for grazing only occasionally which indicates it has marginal grazing potential Its location assures a commercial value should its members ever be interested m developing It The Manzano Grant pays taxes on 786 acres of commons which 1s scattered among the private holdings of members There have been problems with surveys and titles on this grant from the earliest days Sometime m the past a subdivision of approximately 100 4-acre plots was surveyed However, a dispute over payment of survey costs resulted m much confusion over titles Although a few animals graze the

Communrty

Land Grants’ The Legacy

113

remammg commons their prmclpal value would appear to be as homesltes As Albuquerque suburbs spread eastward over the mountams, pressure for subdlvlslon will only mcrease Cnst6bal de la Sema was divided mto yard-wide stips and assigned to members at one point, apparently as a means for getting members to pay taxes The strips must be recombined and the membership defined before any development can occur on it Grant officials estimated there may be nearly 200 members El Salto de1 Agua Assoclatlon 1s m the process of defmmg membershlp and clearmg title to the Antonio Martmez Grant It will then be m a position to decide on a development strategy for its remammg commons. There have been several notable cases of resistance to development m northern Hispanic commumtles, for example, see Sylvia Rodnquez’s descnptlon of a recent battle m Tacos.37 In those cases, It was development mostly planned and controlled by outsiders for outsiders’ financial gam at the expense of long time residents’ way of life The development opportumtles referred to here are those that would be controlled by grantees and would benefit them m some direct way Given the dlfficulties to be overcome, no grant can be developed without a substantial effort and the agreement of at least a majonty of the grantees RECOMMENDATIONS Commumtles m New Mexico with slgmficant common lands are engaged m what 1s essentially a dual struggle Many residents are struggling to improve an unsatisfactory economic situation and, at the same time, to preserve a umque cultural legacy Community members often express great pride m their common lands, along with the desire to preserve the legacy for coming generatlons. Several things can be done to enhance reahzatlon of this potential Three points ment attention by the state legislature. There are also two major pomts which the commumtles themselves must address The first leglslatlve suggestion 1s new, the other two have been made by previous mvestlgators 1 An mdependent audit of financial records should be required by law As pointed out above, all that 1s now requned 1s that the secretary shall keep records capable of audit Members frequently voice susplclons of impropnetles, a regular independent audit would do much to allay such susplclons and to enhance community sohdarlty Chlhh provides the most extreme example of what can happen when mistrust dlvldes a commumty Fiscal oversight alone 1s not apt to restore harmony m that situation, but It would remove one major cause of mistrust Exactly where m state government such oversight could be best achieved 1s a question beyond the scope of this paper It would depend, m part, on how the legal status dlscussed m the followmg point 1s defined In any event, no new governmental structure nor any other direct mtruslon mto grant management would be desirable 2 The land grants have been hampered by title problems and an inadequate legal framework Deflclencles m the legal framework governing New Mexico land grants have been documented by several authors Among other things, the legal status of commumty grants and the ownership mterest of grant residents needs to be defined

114

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol

28/No

l/1991

Furthermore, d the land grant 1s only a quasi-mumclpahty, what status or interest do residents and heirs of the ongmal grantees have? These issues have been before the New Mexico Supreme Court several times without clear resolution Chlhh, Anton Chico, Cebolleta and Juan Tafoya have all expenenced expensive legal dlfflcultles because of uncertamtles over the property nghts of helrs.38 3 Land title problems on the grants have been described by several authors Suggested remedies include surveys and placing monuments mslde the grants, and the adoption of an expedited system for title clearance The Cebolleta Grant, which for a time had a substantial mineral income, was able to finance, with the aid of a matching grant from the state, a survey of the private holdings wlthm the remammg common lands However, several grants cannot afford such an expense, even with generous matching funds from an outside source As mentioned above, the feasibility of such a title clearance program has been demonstrated.39 Title clearances received state funding for a short penod when there was sufficient political pressure It 1s also a matter of record that a foundation might be wlllmg to help Just as they helped with other matters m the past At least two things can be initiated by the commumtles themselves to enhance the grants’ operational effectiveness 1 An association of New Mexico land grants would be a useful vehicle to lobby m Santa Fe for the legislation and support suggested m the previous three points It IS a political reality that state government pays more attention to those citizens who effectively place their demands upon it Scholars can help identify problems and remedies, but the grant residents themselves must set the pnontles and articulate their needs It 1s no comcldence that the last flurry of state government activity on land grant matters comclded with the heyday of the Ahanza and Reles Lopez TiJerma An organization dedicated to working wlthm the system, with patience and persistence, could reasonably expect to make progress on the issues identified here Such an assoclatlon could also provide an Important educational function by generating and dlssemmatmg mformatlon among the vmous land grants Several land related orgamzatlons do exist However, a umque set of problems face the Hispanic land grants, especially those with commumty land to admmlster For that reason, an organization composed exclusively of the New Mexico grants seems necessary to articulate and promote then unique interests 2 There 1s a need for better resource conservation on most of the grants Resource conservation 1s notoriously difficult to achieve on commumty property because everyone 1s tempted to grab as much as he can, as fast as he can, before someone else gets it However, m several cases, e g Ablqum, Tecolote and Rosarlo, the range 1s so badly depleted that the grazing right 1s worth very little They are classic examples of the tragedy of the commons 4oMembers only run cattle on those grants as a last resort when they have grazing nowhere else Several members of the Anton Chico Grant expressed a concern for their rapidly dwmdlmg wood resource The commons have tradltlonally been a source of firewood, posts and poles Future wood supplies will require management and some controls Woodlands also provide such things as plfion nuts, hunting and recreation, which also require management The

Communrfy

Land Grants

115

The Legacy

RCCLA has already undertaken an extensive range improvement and conservation effort The Soil Conservation Service and other federal and state agencies have programs that provide technical assistance and cost-sharmg for several types of improvements However, mtttative and the active cooperation of the community 1s required to participate m those voluntary programs While land grant commumttes have umque problems and potentials, they do not exist m a vacuum; stockmen and other businesses are subjected to the same forces wherever they operate The temptation to romanticize commumty or cooperative forms of organization, and to expect them naively to solve otherwise intractable dtfficulties, should be resisted A small community operation wtth capacity, for example, for only 100 to 200 mother cows cannot reahsttcally be expected to be more profitable than a private ranch of equal size. It may well be less profitable To expect an operation that will not adequately support 1 family to contribute significantly to 10 or 20 families 1s extremely unreahstrc, yet this 1s precisely the premise of more than one past economic development project and overly romantic author Operations must either earn a profit, be subsidized from other income or fail That is true whether the enterprise 1s owned by a commumty, corporation or an mdivtdual However, the sociocultural value of grazmg for a few hvestock plus free access to woodland should not be underestimated These tangible benefits, together with the ties to ancestral lands, constitute a significant cultural legacy that is well worth preserving Several grants have managed to retam a substantial portion of their ongmal commons A majority of respondents declared a strong desire to preserve their commons However, it should be clear from these analyses without effective management there 1s a tendency for constant erosion of both the amount and the quality of the common land to occur Acknowledgments:

Thus work was funded by Agncultural Expenment Station ProJects NM l-3-42506 and Hatch l-5-27796 at New Mexico State Umverslty The work has benefited from suggestlons by James R Gray, Wllmer M Harper, and three anonymous reviewers However, they bear no responslblhty for any remammg deflclencles An earher version was presented at the Land Grant Sectlon of the 3 1st Annual Western Social Science Assoclatlon Conference m Albuquerque, Apnl 26-29, 1989

NOTES 1 2

3 4 5

White, Koch, Kelly and McCarthy, Attorneys at Law, and the New Mexico State Planning Office, Land Tz& Study (Santa Fe State Planmng Office, 1971) Charles T DuMars and Malcolm Ebnght, “Problems of Spanish and Mexican Land Grants m the Southwest Their Ongm and Extent,” in The Southwestern Revzew (Summer 1981) 177-213 Clark S Knowlton, “Land Grant Problems Among the State’s Spanish-Americans,” New Mexzco Buszness 18 (June 1967) 1-13 Robert J Rossenbaum Mexzcano Reszstunce zn the Southwest, (Austin Umverslty of Texas Press, 1981) Victor Westphall, Mercedes Reales, New Mexico Land Grant serzes (Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 1983)

116

6

8 9

10

11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

IOURNAL

Vol

2WNo

l/1991

Barbel Hannelore Schonfeld La Mar, “Water and Land m the Mesdla Valley, New Mexico Reclamation and Its Effects of Property Ownership and Agncultural Land Use” (Ph D doss , University of Oregon, 1984), pp 267-289 Charles L Brlggs and John R Van Ness, (Eds), Land, Water, and Culture New Perspectlves on HlspamcLund Grants (Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 1987) Olen E Leonard The Role of the Land Grant (Albuquerque Calvin Horn Publisher, Inc 1970), p 94, see the explanatory footnote Questions about the authenttclty of the orlgmal Laguna Grant delayed Its approval However, the Tribe had actively acquired adJoining tracts of land to which title could be proved Laguna’s Purchases approved by Congress totalled 101,510 78 acres The Laguna Grant contained 17,328 91 acres These figures appear m White, et al , Land Title Study, pp 222-234 citing J J Bowden “Pnvate Land Claims m the Southwest” (Masters of Laws thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1969) Vol I pp 216-219, 245-247 They are m substantial agreement with figures presented by Charles F Coan, A History of New Mexico (New York The Amencan Hlstoncal Society, 1925) Vol I, pp 474-479 Westphall, Mercedes Reales, p 35 Zbzd pp 147-154 Treaty of Guadalupe Hldalgo, 1848, New Mexrco Hlstorlc Documents edited by Richard N Ellis (Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 1975) 1 I-20 Hunter Miller (ed ), Treattes and other Internattonal Acts of the United States ofAmerica, Vol 5 (Washington Government Prmtmg Office, 1937) p 381 Malcolm Ebnght, “New Mexico Land Grants, The Legal Background,” Land, Water and Culture, New Perspectives on Hlspamc Land Grants edited by Charles L Brlggs and John R Van Ness (Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 1987) 27-28 Ibid, pp 30-32 See also Thomas Lloyd Miller, The Public Lands of Texas 1519-1970 (Norman The University of Oklahoma Press 1972) 8-10 This author concludes that “the Spanish and Mexican titles m Texas, except the 1 l-league grants, made m 1835 by the legislature of Coahmla and Texas, have, with few exceptions, been upheld by the courts and are valid today,” p 9 Ebnght, “New Mexico Land Grants,” p 33 Knowlton, “Land Grant Problems ” Westphall, Mercedes Reales, pp 127-l 3 1 David J Weber, The Mexican Frontier, 1821-1846 The American Southwest Under Mexico (Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press, 1982) 191-192 An excellent discussion of the personahtles and the hlstoncal context of the Mexican grants 1s provided by Marianne L Stoller, “Grants of Desperation, Lands of Speculation Mexican Period Land Grants m Colorado” m Spamsh and Mexican Land Grants m New Mexico and Colorado edited by John R and Chnstme M Van Ness (Manhattan, Kansas Sunflower Umverslty Press, 1980) 22-34 Michael J Rock, “The Change m Tenure New Mexico Supreme Court Decisions Have affected upon the Common Lands of Community Land Grants m New Mexico,” The Social Science Journal, 13 (October 1976) 53-63 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, (1978) including 1988 Cumulative Supplement, Chapt 49, Set l-5 Ibid, 49-1-21 Maestas v Board of Trustees, 103 N M 77, 703 p 28, 174 (1985) State v Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas 28 NM 237 (1922), cited m Study of Problems that Result from Spanzsh and Mexican Land Grant Clarms, Vol 1 (Report

Communrty Land Grants

26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

The Legacy

117

submztted by the Natural Resources Center, Umverslty of New Mexzco School of Law to the Farmers Home Admmlstratzon, (December 1980), p 165 Zbzd p 165 For a comprehenszve history of the Atrlsco Grant, see Joseph V Metzgar, “The Atrlsco Land Grant, 1692-1977,” New Mexzco Hzstorzcal Revzew 52 (1977) 269-296 Whzte, et al , Land Tztle Study, p 30 Zbzd p 70 Charles T DuMars and Michael J Rock, “The New Mexzco Legal Rights Demonstration Land Grant ProJect,” New Mexzco Law Revzew (Winter 1977-78) l-37 Zbzd p 26 Clyde Eastman and James R Gray, Comnzunzty Grazzng, Practzce and Potentzal zn New Mexzco (Albuquerque Umverszty of New Mexico Press, 1987) 51-57 Clyde Eastman, The Rio Costzlla Cooperatzve Lzvestock Assoczatzon paper presented at the 26th annual Western Social Science Assoclatlon Conference, San Diego, Cahfomla, (1984) Eastman and Gray, Conzmunzty Grazzng, p 76 Personal commumcatlon, U S Forest Service personnel, 1985 DuMars and Ebnght, “Problems of Spanish and Mexican “p 196 Sylvia Rodnquez, “Land, Water and Ethnic Identity m Taos” m Brzggs and Van Ness Lund, Water and Culture, pp 313-403 Study of Problems p 165-168 DuMars and Rock, “The New Mexico Legal Rights ” pp l-37 Garret Hardm, “The Tragedy of the Commons ” Sczence, 162 (1968) 1243-1248