Road pits Santa Clara Pueblo vs. state

Rep.: Easement issue could render private residents’ homes worthless

SAN PEDRO — A run-down state road that serves as a lifeline to this largely Hispanic community outside Española is leading to heightened tensions between residents and Santa Clara Pueblo, which asserts it owns the right of way.

The easement issue concerning N.M. 369 — a narrow road known by locals as the Upper San Pedro and Lower San Pedro loop around the community — has been around for years. It has sparked community meetings between concerned residents and their elected officials and closed-door discussions between state government representatives and tribal leaders.

Residents said they were under the assumption the matter had been

resolved. They were wrong.

Last month, Santa Clara Pueblo Gov. J. Michael Chavarria sent state Department of Transportation Secretary Tom Church a letter requesting $600,000 in exchange for a 25-year agreement with an option to renew for one additional 25-year term.

In the letter, Chavarria said the pueblo’s tribal council had “carefully considered” the state’s requests for easements “and for the Pueblo to waive compensation for these easements.” According to Chavarria, not only do federal regulations preclude such waivers, but the tribal council is “unwilling” to accept such terms.

“It must be remembered that this issue is not of Santa Clara’s making, and that the Pueblo is entitled to fair compensation for the use of its lands,” Chavarria wrote. “Moreover, these roads overwhelmingly if not exclusively benefit non-Indians, as they [are] located in a section of the Pueblo’s grant that is primarily composed of private citizens.”

Church told lawmakers during a Thursday meeting of the Legislative Finance Committee that he had forwarded the letter to Gov. Susana Martinez’s legal counsel for policy advice.

“I don’t have any policy direction … at this point,” Church said. “It’s something that we should all be aware of because it’s going to be a growing issue. There are probably a lot more roads out there that we’re unaware of.”

Efforts to reach Chavarria on Friday were unsuccessful.

Church said Santa Clara Pueblo isn’t the only tribe with an easement issue.

“There are multiple roads like Upper and Lower San Pedro that somehow got onto the state system that we don’t know how,” he said. “Ideally, they probably shouldn’t be on the state system, but then we’re just transferring that problem to the local [government] or the county or the citizen. Somehow we need to figure out a policy, a position, as a state, because we’re going to have more of this as it comes up. Picuris Pueblo was just recently in my office bringing the same issue.”

A similar dispute over roadway easements has drawn Santa Fe County into closed-door negotiations with four nearby pueblos and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The pueblos — Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso and Tesuque — say county roads trespass on tribal land. The county has said it will not allocate funds for a regional Pojoaque Basin water system, part of the long-in-the-making Aamodt water rights litigation settlement, until the roadway disputes are resolved. An update on the months-long private negotiations was initially scheduled to be made public at a county commission meeting late last month but was postponed.

State Rep. Debbie Rodella, D-Española, who brought up the N.M. 369 easement issue during Thursday’s meeting, said the dispute leaves San Pedro homeowners in a lurch.

“Folks who have tried to get refinancing on their homes can’t get title insurance. Individuals who have tried to sell homes can’t get title insurance,” she said Thursday. “Basically, their biggest investment and biggest asset, which is a home, basically is worth nothing because there’s no easement in place.”

Chavarria’s letter doesn’t state what would happen if the state doesn’t pony up the money. But Rodella said property owners “could actually be blocked from accessing their own home if there is no easement.”

“That’s a scary situation but something that could potentially happen in the future,” she said.

Pat Chavez, 62, who bought a house along with an acre of land along N.M. 369 about a decade ago, said Friday that he’s not going to let anyone infringe on his property rights.

“There would be a war,” he said. “There would be an Indian war against the natives here if they tried to tell me I couldn’t come through here.”

Philip Fresquez, whose family has lived in San Pedro for three to four generations, said residents’ property is essentially worthless without roadway easements.

“I don’t think the pueblo is being fair with the residents of this location,” he said. “It is my understanding that although we are on reservation land, these were private properties, and the roads that they’re now considering theirs was private property to begin with, so I don’t see how they can claim them as theirs now.”

Fresquez said he was disturbed and perplexed by the pueblo’s proposed 25-year agreement.

“We need these perpetual,” he said, referring to the Easements.

“Twenty five years? Nobody is going to buy our properties for 25 years knowing that they can shut us down in another 25 years and ask for another a million dollars or 10 million dollars or whatever and hold us hostage,” he said. “Hostage on our own land.”