South Valley, Belly of the Beast

Los Padillas Acequia Meeting, south valley, Oct 27, 2009 -- For fans of the original "Milagro Beanfield War," by John Nichols, this update should sound a bit familiar aside from the fact that this is not (yet) about condos in New Mexico. But the meeting illustrated the difficulties of managing an urban acequia, set in the midst of a larger conservation district (MRGCD), with long-time residents and relative newcomers. Set in the south valley of Albuquerque, in the original settlement called Los Padillas, the new acequia association (eponymous, Los Padillas Acequias Association) has had its struggles over the last few years.

This was all too obvious on Tuesday night as the meeting started off with a subtle bang, mainly due to a central instigator (one Ms. McCraw, who run her own 'news' outlet in the South Valley), during which people questioned the legality and very substance of the minutes from their last meeting in March of 09. Someone went so far as to call them "falsified minutes." The glazing to the donut was added in that each 'side' at the meeting had their own attorney present...always an ominous sign for an acequia when the licenciados start circling overhead.

What was clear is that, in spite of their best efforts, the Commissioners for this acequia were under siege. Some present questioned their legitimacy, others contended they had been violating the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, but even the ones disappointed or just confused with the acequia acknowledged that the commissioners had worked hard, and in the best interests of most members of the community. One of the best legal counters of the evening, offered by the commissioners' attorney, was that if the group is not "legitimate" then the OMA doesn't apply. Genius (?).

The meeting also highlighted two aspects about acequia governance that remain unclear to many community members: a) Acequias have the right to form, at will, whenever they want as an organization. They are not "illegal," and they are not breaking state statute, even the MRGCD recognizes this as clear from their March 2008 meetings (see page 2); and b) acequias as organizations have the right to create bylaws with different voting procedures for approval/denial on procedures or proposals for the members (as per Denver v Wilson 1998). On (b) this means that an acequia can have "acreage voting rights" on proposal passed before the members, and then also change that voting procedure when it comes to electing commissioners and mayordomos.

The meeting also illustrated the 1% rule, that there's "always one" person, in this case, whose seeming mission in life is to make everyone else's life hell. This is not a one-sided story; it is disconcerting that so few people were apparently involved in creating this particular acequia body, and long-time residents (along with newcomers) are rightly confused if they didn't have information on the organization from the start. Then again, many people treat invitations/phone calls and e-mails like ostriches (with heads in the sand), so it's not entirely a surprise.
What is more shocking is that people protesting, or countering any motions, the acequia as a body for local governance have not done their research, or read state statutes on acequias (Article 2) apparently. Better than that, the NMAA has put out a very useful (MS Word format, .doc) template on Acequia Bylaws, which clearly shows that parciantes and Commissions have several options for voting rights, that are much clearer than even the section in Article 2 on voting procedures. But this is life in the south valley, as residents have to worry about flooding on the one hand (because of unmaintained MRGCD infrastructure), the larger conservation district on the other, and the mutated third hand of unadjudicated water rights and water bank deposits that are still in the air. It all highlights the urban political ecology of the region, and how challenging any adjudication of the MRGCD will actually be (if it is ever completed in earnest).

If residents do not like being subject to acequia governance, if they have irrigated land or property along an acequia, you are indeed "free to move about the country" and leave New Mexico. It is "a free country," as one dispeptic resident put it, but in this case, no one forced you to live in this state, right?

Finally, the main business of the evening (three hours later) was conducted with a ballot vote in the larger gymnasium; the ballot vote was lobbied for by the largely discontent, and was done on a "one parciante, one vote" basis (as opposed to acreage, and yes, that's perfectly normal and legal). The new commissioners and mayordomo take office in November. Many of the former commissioners, and the incumbent mayordomo, are on this new commission. So far all the hand-wringing or outright complaining by some, community members at least in material terms acknowledged the good work of the past commission. Hopefully this marks the beginning of a more stable, and participatory form of acequia governance for Los Padillas.