Pueblo Design
 La Jicarita

A community advocacy newspaper for northern New Mexico

Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, NM 87521

Volume IX

April 2004

Number IV


Current Issue




About Us




Water For All: Organizing Against the Privatization of Water By Kay Matthews


The Water Market Game By Kay Matthews

Puntos de Vista By Orlando Romero, Nambe Resident and Historian

Marching to End the Occupation of Iraq

Who's Reading La Jicarita?

Water For All: Organizing Against the Privatization of Water

By Kay Matthews  

"Remember, we're not in the business of construction, we're in the business of making money."

These are the words of Steven Bechtel of Bechtel Corporation, the company that tried to privatize the water system in Cochabamba, Bolivia, until the citizens kicked them out of town and took back their water during La Guerra del Agua (see La Jicarita, July 2002). Elizabeth Peredo of the Fundación Solón of La Paz, Bolivia, told the wonderful story of la gente's victory in Cochabamba at a recent board retreat of Agricultural Missions at Ghost Ranch. Agricultural Missions is an ecumenical organization whose mission is "To work in partnership with people of faith and conscience around the world to end poverty and injustice that affect rural communities." This year the group is focusing on the geopolitical importance of water and the global crisis faced from its limited availability and privatization.

La Jicarita News was invited, along with other New Mexicans, to join in a dialogue about water with Peredo, Ryan Case of Water Stewards Network, and José Luís Montes of Chihuahua, Mexico. Case presented an overview of how water corporations, financial institutions, professional organizations, and the media are promoting public/private partnerships and free market solutions to water scarcity. Organizations like the Global Water Partnership, the World Commission on Water, and the World Water Council, under the protective umbrella of the United Nations, work behind closed doors to define water as an "economic good rather than a human right." The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are helping move towards water privatization by requiring that loans provided to developing countries be tied to the privatization of water, while the World Trade Organization (WTO) facilitates protection for corporations like Bechtel involved in this privatization.

In 2004 the World Bank will spend $4 billion on big technology water projects. A particularly egregious example of how we are moving away from local, sustainable water delivery is the Tehri Dam project near the headwaters of the Ganges in India. This project, first conceived in the 1970s, will potentially kill the river, submerge an entire agricultural valley displacing as many as 100,000 people, and will probably produce far less electricity than initially estimated. Water in the affected villages has already been privatized, owned by the French corporate giant Suez, while the electricity generated will travel hundreds of miles to New Delhi to provide drinking water and irrigation for sugar crops. The people of Tehri have so far refused to leave their village, despite the lack of water and the bulldozing of their homes. Case summed up this depressing scenario of privatization: "The global economy is held together by one principle: providing profit. You cannot provide water sustainably to people and make a profit at the same time."

Elizabeth Peredo

Elizabeth Peredo's presentation was another graphic example of this scenario, but at least in the short term, a victory for the people. Even though Bechtel fled the country, Bolivia is now being sued by the conglomerate to recover $25 million of "potential lost profits" under the protection of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Peredo is hope-ful that the new Bolivian government elected last year will proactively fight this suit against its people. She also pointed out that the struggle in her country has helped make people more aware of conserving and protecting their water resources (a coalition between rural and urban communities has formed to protect water at its source) and has empowered women, who were on the front line of the struggle.

In the afternoon, José Luís Montes of the Solidarity Task Force of Human Rights in Chihuahua, Mexico, spoke about how the 1944 treaty between Mexico and the United States is pitting Texas ranchers against Chihuahuan farmers and others of the Rio Concha watershed, whose crops and animals are dying and are even without drinking water. He stressed that the drought "doesn't respect borders" and that the Texas ranchers must release water into the Rio Concha so the indigenous people can manage their own resource.

A panel of New Mexicans, including Richard Moore of the Southwest Network for Environmental and Social Justice in Albuquerque, Germán Agoyo of San Juan Pueblo, Kathy and Gilbert Sanchez of San Ildefonso Pueblo, and Kay Matthews of La Jicarita News, provided an overview of water issues in New Mexico, explaining how these same forces described by Case, Peredo, and Montes affect the equitable distribution and management of water in our state. They all stressed the importance of community control of water, but recognized that conflicts among constituencies - pueblos, non-Indian rural communities, environmentalists and the state - still largely drives the dialogue.


The Cry of the Poor

A Call to Peacemaking

The 22nd annual Prayer Pilgrimage for Peace from Chimayó to Los Alamos will take place on Saturday, April 17. The guest speaker will be Sister Dianna Ortiz, native New Mexican, missionary to Guatemala, and founder and director of the Torture Abolition and Survivor's Support Coalition (TASSC). The schedule is as follows:

8:00 am: Gather at Holy Family Church in Chimayó, opening prayer with Gerald Nailor, Governor, Picuris Pueblo, send runners to Los Alamos.

9:00 am: Mass followed by 3 mile Walking Prayer Pilgrimage to Chimayó Santuario led by Los Hermanos of Northern New Mexico.

11:00 am: Interfaith sharing and bread circle at Santuario and lunch.

1:00 pm: Car pilgrimage to Ashley Pond at Los Alamos.

1:45 pm: Music, dances of peace and reflections at Ashley Pond.

2:30 pm: Welcoming of runners, blessing of earth with Governor Nailor, reflections offered by Sister Ortiz, closing prayer and circle for peace around Ashley Pond.

Pilgrims should wear comfortable shoes and layered clothing and bring a sack lunch. Sponsored by the Office of Social Justice, Archdiocese, Santa Fe. Call 831-8205 or David Fernandez at 758-7608.

• The Second Annual Conference of the Adobe Association of the Southwest will take place on May 21, 22, and 23 on the campus of Northern New Mexico Community College in El Rito. The conference will look beyond just the mud and bricks of adobe at some of the cultural, social, and economic impacts, including the contribution of women. It will also address the following topics: affordable adobe construction; thermal properties of earthen materials; historical buildings of note in the United States; historical architects/designers of note; historical developers/ planners of note; new projects; adobe education; manufacture and supply of construction materials. To register, contact Quentin Wilson at 505-581-4156 or qwilson@mail. nnmcc.edu. The schedule is as follows:

Friday, May 21

11 am to 1 pm: Registration

1:30 pm to 4:40 pm: Session I

5 pm to 6:30 pm: Dinner

7 pm to 9 pm: Social hour

Saturday, May 22

9:30 am to 12 pm: Session II

1:30 am to 12 pm: Tour

7 pm to 9 pm: Session III

Sunday, May 23

9:30 am to 12 pm: Session IV

A Better New Mexico is Possible!


Countering Globalization and Building our Local Economy

April 30-May 2, 2004

Friday Evening / Saturday / Sunday

at the Forum, The College of Santa Fe.

Come hear how the global economic system affects us locally. Discuss alternative visions and sound strategies for building life-affirming economic structures. Strengthen your organizing skills and join with others to implement initiatives that build our local economy. Together we can create a vibrant New Mexico for our children!

With Many Leading New Mexican Community Organizers.

Panels will include: Global versus Local Food Systems, Border/Labor/Immigration Issues, Land Grants and Acequias, Environmental Racism, Building Energy Self-Reliance, Ecology and Human Health, Supporting Peoples‚ Movements in the "Third World," and much else!

And Internationally Renowned Voices: Onesimo Hidalgo, CIEPAC (Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria); Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange; Helena Norberg-Hodge, International Society for Ecology and Culture; Michael Shuman, author of Going Local

Cost: Full Program: $100; Fri. or Sat. Eve: $17;Per Day Rate (including evenings): $60; Per Session Fee: $10..

Inquire regarding student rates and scholarships.

Registration at www.nonviolenteconomics.org or by calling the Institute at 995-9793.


• The Online Civilian Conservation Corps Museum is seeking stories about the CCCs, CCC Enrollees, Staff, or Technical Advisors for publication in this online historical resource. If you would like to participate please send your stories, with name, company, number, and location, if known, to CCC Collection, P.O. Box 5, Woodbury NJ 08096 or e-mail JFJ museum@ aol.com.

• Drought and a growing population have made water conservation and protection of water quality more important than ever before. The next generation will be better able to deal with the challenge if they start gaining skills and awareness of water resources now. With this in mind, La Jicarita Enterprise Community is hosting a water education workshop for area educators on May 5, 2004 at the Peñasco School.  This free workshop will be taught by Bryan Swain, New Mexico's Project WET Coordinator, and Ryan Weiss, the Education Program Coordinator for Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council. Each participating teacher will receive a personal copy of the Project WET Curriculum and Activity Guide, which contains materials for more than 90 water education activities.  During the workshop, several of these activities will be presented, including "Raining Cats and Dogs" (which emphasizes literacy and geography), "The Incredible Journey" (on the water cycle), "Pass the Jug" (on water rights and allocation), and "Branching Out" (on watershed mapping).

Interested teachers should register by April 28th by calling Ruby Lopez (Peñasco Independent School District) at 587-2230, extension 2. For more information, call Cordell Arellano (La Jicarita Enterprise Community) at 587-0074.

• Check out the new agricultural website www.e-plaza.org (more on this project in the May/June issue)


The Water Market Game

By Kay Matthews

Reprinted with permission from the El Dorado Sun

At the Santa Fe hearing on the State Water Plan in the summer of 2003 environmentalists, acequia parciantes, farmers, ranchers, and city residents all told the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC - authors of the plan) that unless growth in Santa Fe and Albuquerque is limited we will run out of water - period. At the Las Vegas and Taos hearings the same message was conveyed, this time from the heart of acequia communities that could be the big losers in a water market game. And at the three-day Town Hall meeting in Albuquerque, it was pounded home even harder: no amount of water conservation, water banking, water delivery systems [see article on pages 4 and 5], desalination plants, or combinations thereof is going to solve our water woes if we don't do something to stop the developers from turning Albuquerque into Los Angeles and Santa Fe into a desert wasteland.

Planning staff at the ISC drafted the water plan at the behest of Governor Bill Richardson (also mandated by the state legislature in 2003). It took a year's worth of public hearings and consultation with State Engineer John D'Antonio and members of the Water Trust Board (WTB), comprised of representatives of diverse constituencies including acequia and irrigation communities, Native Americans, environmentalists, and various state agencies. The final draft version of the plan was presented to the governor and the Interstate Stream Commission for their approval in mid-December. Implementation of the plan is both statutory (authorized by state statute) and legislative; the latter will be necessary to fund state agencies responsible for carrying out the plan's various components.

ISC director Estevan Lopez, in charge of the plan's promulgation, brings experience as a Peñasco acequia parciante as well as former Santa Fe County manager, dealing on a daily basis with urban growth and development issues. In an interview last February with La Jicarita News Lopez said, "The criticism of cities is, where does growth end? Or should we be looking at stopping growth? These discussions need to be opened up even if they're difficult and emotional. I don't know if this will provide solutions but at least you start getting at some of the root issues instead of one side saying, 'We can't have any more growth because we don't have enough water,' and the other side saying, 'You're just saying that so you can control growth. Let's have a discussion about the growth, then."

While that dialogue did take place in many of the public hearings on the plan, the final version largely ignores this debate and devotes many pages to "making more water": "creating" more drinking water with desalination plants; conserving water through more efficient delivery systems; banking water (temporarily reallocating water); and of course, buying and selling water on the open market. A policy statement in Section C.2 of the plan reads, "The State shall promote water markets that enable the efficient movement of water rights within the State in accordance with the applicable legislative and legal safeguards." The plan goes on to say, "As water demands from expanded existing and new uses increase, the demand for marketing of water through these voluntary transfers of existing water rights will grow." (The word voluntary was added to the language in the Draft Final.)

This is the direction water policy has been headed the past 20 years: commodification and movement of water to the "highest and best use", meaning, of course, whoever can come up with the most money gets the most water. Currently sitting as "Representative of the Environmental Community" on the WTB, Denise Fort was chair of the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, a committee mandated in 1992 to define the federal role in water policy for the 19 western states. The report released by that commission, Water Management Study: Upper Rio Grande River Basin, states, "We recommend federal agencies in the [Rio Grande] Basin do more to mitigate the constraints to competition that keep water and other resources in low-value uses while high value demands go unmet." The report goes on to say that acequia associations and irrigation and conservancy districts have exercised undue influence on legislation pertaining to water distribution in the state and the Rio Grande Compact "reflects the agrarian economy . . . that existed at the end of the 1920s, not today's highly urbanized economy." Even new innovations such as water banking programs, which the 2003 legislature approved, should, according to the report, only be supported by federal agencies if they determine "that the bank will facilitate voluntary transfer of water to highest-value uses."

The commodification of water has long been a concern of the New Mexico Acequia Association (NMAA), an advocacy group of acequia parciantes and associations across the state. The NMAA was instrumental in helping pass legislation last year that allows acequia systems to bank unused water (water that would be reallocated within the acequia system) and to adopt a provision in their bylaws that gives commissioners the authority to deny proposed water transfers if they would impair the acequia's operation.

At the October 2003 hearing in Santa Fe on the Draft Water Plan, Paula Garcia, director of the NMAA and representative of acequia parciantes on the WTB, asked that the water plan protect acequia water rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and that acequia communities be treated as a distinct entity along with Native American pueblos. She objected to the language in the plan that essentially defines the Office of the State Engineer (OSE) as a "facilitator" of water markets rather than a "regulator" in this process that threatens the water rights of rural northern New Mexico. Trudy Valerio Healy of Arroyo Hondo, the WTB representative of irrigation districts, shares Garcia's concerns. "Some rural areas may sell their water to urban areas, then become ghost towns," she warned.

ISC director Lopez and State Engineer D'Antonio point out that the plan is a "working document" that will evolve over time to incorporate public concerns and technical information that continues to be gathered. In response to Garcia's concerns, which were raised by many others at all the public meetings, the final version references that "acequias assert certain protections under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" and that "Nothing in the State Water Plan will impair or limit the claims that these Native American and acequia water-rights holders assert."

In the meantime, the OSE continues to adjudicate stream systems, which essentially privatizes water rights that have been used as common rights in acequia and pueblo communities for hundreds of years. The adjudication process is also an adversarial one, pitting the state against individual water users who must defend their water rights in a lengthy, litigious process that takes years to complete.

This process of privatization has larger implications in the global water market. As Maude Barlow points out in her definitive book on water privatization, Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World's Water, "Citizens of the most privileged countries simply take water for granted or are able to buy it . . . [and] their lifestyles - SUVs, lawns, and golf courses" are a leading factor in "consumption disparity between rural and urban areas, the rich and the poor." Global water cartels will certainly not provide water to all, and those they do will pay dearly for it, like the citizens of Cochabamba, Bolivia, who successfully fought off a consortium led by Bechtel Corporation (now making millions in Iraq), with whom the Bolivian government contracted to take over the municipal water system [see article on page 1].

Could this be the scenario in New Mexico? Certainly the tension between urban and rural and rich and poor will be exacerbated as water is increasingly commodified and sold on the open market. That's why so many of the policies implemented by our city councils and county commissions and now codified in the State Water Plan make little sense to the people who came to the Water Plan hearings and told the planners that New Mexico is a desert state with a carrying capacity that has already been exceeded.

Albuquerque and Santa Fe want to build diversion dams to access San Juan/Chama water rights that may soon be nonexistent. If the current drought continues, the flow from these rivers into Heron Reservoir may be reduced to a trickle, especially in light of the fact that upstream Navajo rights are senior rights that will keep the water from ever entering the diversion tunnel. Buying acequia water rights, which Healy fears will turn our rural villages into ghost towns will also turn our tourist economy into a fond memory - or not so fond for some folks - once the fields, wildlife habitat, and open space the acequias support dry up. If "management" of our water resources - that is, conservation, new diversion projects, the purchase of water rights, new technology, and conjunctive use (combined surface and ground water) - merely facilitates unlimited residential and commercial growth, we are indeed headed towards social and environmental collapse.

To buy into the "grow or die" argument is to fail to recognize the difference between economic growth and economic development. Several years ago, Maria Varela, longtime New Mexico community activist, wrote a paper on this issue. "Growth increases the amount of money running through a community's economy but may not increase that economy's capacity to steer its own direction. Growth is characterized by dependence on outside capital, technologies and management talent. Economic development, conversely, increases the capacities of the people in the community to attract and pool capital and acquire technologies and management skills. Most of the wealth stays in the community." Our finite water resources must be used to support economic development, not growth, and until the powers that be also acknowledge this concept, the State Water Plan is, as one citizen commented at the hearing on the draft plan, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Puntos de Vista

By Orlando Romero, Nambe Resident and Historian

Editor's Note: What follows is the resignation letter that Vice-President Orlando Romero of the Pojoaque Valley Water Users Association wrote President David Ortiz on February 9. Below the letter is an explanation of the proposed Aamodt settlement.

Dear David:

Regarding our conversation of February 4, 2004, and for the record, the following points are the reasons that lead me to resign my position on the board of the PVWUA.

The so-called settlement or resolution of the Aamodt case with the Pueblos has so many unanswered issues, questions, ambiguities and is so poorly conceived that I for one cannot support the results. My rationale is based on the following:

1. Secrecy. Although we were advised by our legal counsel that the settlement hearings had to be held in secrecy because of their political nature, we do live in a democracy and in a democracy, agreements signed and conducted in secrecy usually are not worth the paper they are written on. People in this valley, including Chupadero, Tesuque, Cuyamungue, Pojoaque, Nambe, Jacona, El Rancho, etc., are very well aware that all hearings were held in secrecy and that they had no input regarding their water rights, especially having to give up their wells. How do we justify this lack of democracy?

2 Priorities. Our legal counsel has advised us that if the Pueblos decide to call on the priority rights awarded to them by Judge Mechem's decision, there will be no water left for the non-Indians for either acequias or wells. Politically, this would be a disaster for the Pueblos. Thousands of angry water users would protest to their respective county, state and federal representatives. In the midst of a drought, while the Pueblos continue to water golf courses, to use this rationale for settling or resolving this suit is faulty at best.

3. Contractual Agreements. The broken gambling compacts approved by federal and state governments with the Pueblos are an excellent example why this settlement should not be agreed to. Even as I write, gambling compacts are now, once again, being renegotiated. The Pueblos have enormous resources from their casinos for lawyers. How can we be reassured that they won't come back, time and again, to "renegotiate" this settlement?

4. Giving Up Our Wells. Explain the logic of having to give up our wells and consolidate those rights in a water "company" or city/county water association so that the county can tap into and continue their uncontrolled growth. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to salvage the stream flow of the Rio Nambe? And if Pojoaque Pueblo is going to receive an additional 300 acre feet of water from this deal, how are we as board members going to justify these additional water rights, especially when the Pueblo continues to water golf courses in the midst of a prolonged drought while our valley folk have to give up their wells?

5. Irrigators. Are we to believe that well users are going to give up their wells so that the few who still irrigate can keep irrigating? You know as well as I do that the county has allowed prime irrigated land to be developed into 3/4 acre home sites. There are now more well users than irrigators.

6. Irrigation Wells. Why and who negotiated into this settlement that "irrigation" wells are exempt from the rest of the wells because they take their source water "directly from the stream flow"? You know as well as I do that many of these so-called deep irrigation wells are owned by very powerful people and are nowhere near the source of direct stream flow.

7. San Juan Water. As a researcher, historian and small-time farmer, I am supremely aware that there is a huge difference between paper water rights and real, honest flowing water in a ditch or pipeline. San Juan water during this prolonged drought is almost nonexistent. The Azotea tunnel has realistically, for all practical purposes, been shut off. Look at Heron Lake; it looks like a pond. And the Navajos are next in line to get priorities off this flow, so how can the city, county, state or feds base a settlement on such a tenuous supply of water - unless the real intent is to divert all our well rights to these massive new water fields at San Ildefonso?

8. The Ranney Water Fields. The presumption that these new "water fields" can take direct source water from the Rio Grande with minimal filtration is very bad science. Ongoing ecological studies are showing that the most sophisticated water treatment plants cannot filter or treat antibiotics and antidepressants that go through treatment plants and are then returned to rivers and waterways. Above the proposed Ranney water fields, the cities of Española and Taos discharge their treated water into the Rio Grande. How can we honestly tell the people of the valley and the county that their new piped water is cleaner than the water they get from their individual wells?

9. City/County Water Board. As I write this letter, the Legislature is trying to pass a bill that would allow the city and county to create a water board that would have condemnation rights on our wells. Is this the same water board that is proposed to run the Ranney fields system and so-called Pueblo pipeline that does not exist yet? If not, where is this new water board going to get its water? What is its point of diversion?

And most important, our legal counsel, both in private and in public, assured us that we were going to have the right of refusal if we did not agree with the proposed Aamodt settlement, especially regarding the issue of giving up our wells. Why is this board and legal counsel advocating this new water board that can condemn our wells? Is this the back door way of telling us "accept the settlement or the county will condemn your wells anyway?"

10. Hookups. How are we to pay for this new water system after our wells have been taken from us? More taxes? How are poor people supposed to pay for this "service"?

I hope you understand why I can no longer serve on this board. I joined this board to serve my community. Instead, I feel that I've been used by lawyers and politicians who cannot or will not serve the needs of their clients or their constituents I don't see much democracy in these negotiations. Instead, there is secrecy and back door deals in which I do not wish to participate.


Orlando Romero

Editor's Note: Subsequent to Orlando's resignation from the Pojoaque Valley Water Users Association, a new group, the Pojoaque Basin Water Alliance (PBWA), was formed by defendants in the Aamodt case to represent the interests of well owners in the Pojoaque Basin. In its March 26 press release, the Alliance "seeks a settlement which is fair and equitable for all defendants." The group is trying to educate the public about the potential effects of this proposed settlement and the legal precedents it could set. PBWA will hold its first public meeting on Wednesday, March 31, 7 pm, in the Frank B. Lopez Gym at Pojoaque Valley High School. For more information contact Julia Takahashi at 455-7069 or Orlando Romero at 455-3315.

The Settlement Agreement

The proposed settlement to the Aamodt lawsuit, which is the subject of Orlando's letter, refers to a lawsuit that was originally filed in 1966 to determine the extent of water rights of non-Indians and Indian Pueblos in the Tesuque, Nambe and Pojoaque watersheds. Under the priority system that has been adopted by the state of New Mexico, those who first put the water to "beneficial use" have priority in times of shortage. This means that the Pueblos, which hold the senior most rights, could petition the court to cut off diversions by junior water rights owners until their full assessment has been met.

The settlement proposal identifies three tiers of priority: first, the Pueblos of Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque and San Ildefonso's existing water rights, which amount to 1,391 acre feet (an acre foot is approximately 326,000 gallons) and their development rights to 2,269 additional acre feet; second: the existing water rights (both surface and ground) of approximately 2,200 non-Indian households within the valley with the proviso that all existing domestic wells be capped and those ground water rights transferred to a proposed water delivery and wastewater treatment facility; and third, 2,500 additional acre feet for future pueblo development. In addition, the settlement calls for the construction of a pipeline which would transport effluent from the waste treatment facility to the Pueblo of Pojoaque for irrigating its golf courses.

The proposed water delivery and wastewater treatment facility will cost an estimated $280 million, of which the federal government would pay $212 million. (This federal funding has not been secured and hinges on Senator Domenici's clout within Congress.) The diversion for the facility (what Orlando refers to as the Ranney water fields) would be on the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, which has not as yet negotiated agreements to access that facility. Moreover, the diversion would be above the Otowi gauge but would service areas both above and below the gauge. Historically, the State Engineer has not permitted water diverted above the gauge to be used below the gauge. Water rights owners above the gauge have expressed concern that this could set a precedent that would allow municipalities and developers below the gauge to shop for water rights above the gauge.

Marching to End the Occupation of Iraq

On March 20 millions people in New York, San Francisco, London, Rome, Tokyo, and Madrid rallied and marched to send a message to the Bush administration that they oppose the continued occupation of Iraq and other imperial wars being waged around the world. In Santa Fe, hundreds of peace activists gathered at the Roundhouse to listen to speakers before marching to the Plaza with their banners, signs, and chants, "Bring the Troops Home Now." Father John Dear, activist priest and member of the Ploughshares community, told the crowd about his plea to National Guard troops in front of his house in Springer to lay down their weapons. Santiago Juarez urged people to get out the vote in the critical presidential election and sent organizers throughout the crowd to register voters. Miguel Angel, of the Las Vegas Committee for Peace and Justice, spoke of the many wars and occupations the United States has perpetrated around the world. And Chopper Sic Balls, a Santa Fe punk band, exhorted the crowd to embrace the diversity of peoples here at home and around the world.

Father John Dear

Santiago Juarez, director of P.A.C.E. New Mexico

Edge Habitat family members Sarah, Mary, Aspen, and friend Emmy

Who's Reading La Jicarita?

Father John Dear

Home | Current Issue | Subscribe | About Us | Environmental Justice | Links | Archive | Index

Copyright 1996-2002 La Jicarita Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, New Mexico 87521.