Sec. 2. Findings

975 words·~4 min read·/bill/115/hr/6365/rh/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: The Western and Southwestern United States have a unique history regarding land acquisition and ownership consequent to the substantial number of Spanish and Mexican land grants-mercedes. These land grants-mercedes were an integral part of the colonization and growth of the region before the United States acquisition under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Under the laws of Spain and Mexico, land grant-mercedes included thousands of acres of land that was owned and used by the communities, within the land grant-merced boundaries, in common.

This included guaranteed right to the use of water, forest, pasture, minerals and other natural resources located on the common lands. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as affirmed by the Protocol of Querétaro protects property rights of land grants-mercedes in the territory ceded by Mexico to the United States of America. Property rights include land, land title, water rights, natural resource rights, mineral rights, and rights to physical access. Congress has enacted several major Federal land laws subject to valid existing rights including the Organic Administration Act of 1897 ( 16 U.S.C. 473 et seq.), the Taylor Grazing Act ( 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.), the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 ( 16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ( 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

Various provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo have not yet been fully implemented in the spirit of the United States Constitution, article VI, section 2. Serious questions remain regarding the rightful ownership of lands in several western and southwestern States. Certain Federal lands are the focus of such questions. The Gadsden Purchase incorporated by reference the property protection provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Land claim commissions, appointed by Congress, have successfully examined disputed land possession claims.

The United States Government has recognized and upheld usufruct rights for other indigenous groups. Between 1968 and 1981, the Forest Service recognized the uniqueness of the land tenure history in New Mexico and instituted what became known as the Northern New Mexico Policy for the Southwest Region to address the socioeconomic and cultural needs of the forest-dependent land grant-merced communities in New Mexico. The United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters, dated June 2004, numbered GAO–04–59, and entitled the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo:

Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico , found the New Mexico land claims confirmation process was inefficient and caused hardships to claimants. Such report provided the following options for congressional consideration in addressing land grant-merced claims: Consider establishing a commission or other body to reexamine specific Land Grant-Merced claims that were rejected or not confirmed for the full acreage claimed. Consider transferring Federal land to communities that did not receive all of the acreage originally claimed for their community land grants.

Consider making financial payments to claimants’ heirs or other entities for the non-use of land originally claimed but not awarded. The General Accounting Office also noted that Congress may disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sandoval 1897 decision and decide that it should be . legislatively overruled , by addressing the affected land grants in some way or taking other action The State of New Mexico’s response to such report, dated August 14, 2008, and entitled Report to the New Mexico Attorney General—A Response to the GAO’s 2004 Report , found the following:

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Findings and Possible Options Regarding Longstanding Community Land Grant Claims in New Mexico The Federal Government had a duty to correctly confirm land grants-mercedes in New Mexico and that duty was understated by the analysis of the General Accounting Office. Most land grants-mercedes were not confirmed by the Federal Government in the correct type of land ownership pattern, as granted by Spain or Mexico to be held in common by the entire community, but rather the vast majority were confirmed as privately owned by the family of a single petitioner or as tenancy-in-common.

The tenancy-in-common designation was foreign to Spanish and Mexican jurisprudence and left land grants-mercedes subject to partition suits that resulted in the significant loss of common land. These facts were omitted by the General Accounting Office report. Most postconfirmation land losses were the direct result of the improper nature of the Federal confirmation, and erroneous Federal confirmations could not be remedied in the court system, contrary to the analysis of the General Accounting Office.

Many land grants-mercedes or their common lands were improperly rejected in their entirety, others lost substantial amounts of acreage by improper application of boundary descriptions, and others were foreclosed from being confirmed by earlier adverse rulings. The Federal Government in a great many cases did not provide constitutionally sufficient notice of its confirmation activities, which contributed directly to many land grants-mercedes being erroneously misconfirmed. The Federal Government and various Federal agents and officials involved in the confirmation process helped create a climate in which land speculators were able to undermine the adjudication process to dispossess land grants-mercedes of their common lands.

Compared to their original claims, land grants-mercedes suffered enormous loss of land to the Federal Government and others. This loss negatively impacted the economic, environmental, and social well-being of these communities. The following land grant-merced priority rights were protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Water rights, including all surface, ground, and runoff water within the former common lands that are now under the management of the Federal Government.

Natural resource rights, including gathering of fuelwood, timber, vegetation, vegetation products, rocks, soils, and grazing and watering of livestock that are now under the management of the Federal Government. Mineral rights, including any and all surface and subsurface minerals located within the existing and former common lands as well as rights to compensation for minerals extracted from former common lands now under management of the Federal Government.

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code

Citation graph

cites case law

Sec. 2

Findings

Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources