Pueblo Design
 La Jicarita

A community advocacy newspaper for northern New Mexico

Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, NM 87521

Volume X

November 2005

Number X


Current Issue




About Us




 Norteños on the March: 1996 to 2006


Book Review: Brown-Eyed Children of the Sun: Lessons from the Chicano Movement, 1965-1975 By George Mariscal Reviewed by Kay Matthews

Aamodt Adjudication Update By Kay Matthews

Taos Regional Water Plan: Peñasco Meeting

Matthew G. Reynolds and the Adjudication of Spanish and Mexican Land Claims By Mark Schiller

Editorial: "Opt Out" of Military Recruitment By Kay Matthews

Norteños on the March: 1996 to 2006

Ike DeVargas, Moises Morales, Santiago Juarez and friends marching at Ghost Ranch for land based rights in the Vallecitos Sustained Yield Unit

Chilili land grant at Treaty of Guadalupe celebration, 1999, at Santa Fe Roundhouse

Picuris Pueblo blocking mica mine trucks on ancestral land: the Pueblo got the land back

Janet Gamble and Rebecca Dayton of Guadalupita at Taos anti-war demonstration

Rancher rebellion to protest proposed grazing cuts in front of Forest Service, Santa Fe.


• Another 300 Costilla County landowners were awarded the right to graze and gather firewood on the Taylor Ranch (La Sierra) near San Luis, Colorado on October 18. District Judge Gasper Perricone, who has presided over all the claim decisions, set a January 20 hearing to review the next list of property owners eligible for access rights to the land. He anticipates the process should take another year to complete (estimates vary that between 500 to 1,000 residents will eventually have use rights on the ranch).

• Orlando Romero of the Forest Guild is soliciting work for a forestry crew trained in hand thinning and fence building who carry workers compensation and liability insurance. The crew was slated to start work on a project on Rowe Mesa but because of a recent lawsuit that affects projects released under Categorical Exclusions, the project is on hold. For more information contact Herman Vigil, 505 387-5694 or Romero at 505 983-8992 or 470-0032.

• Acequia Abajo de El Valle recently approved incorporating new amendments to its bylaws requiring approval by its commission for any water rights transfers out of the acequia system and allowing parciantes not using their water rights to protect them from forfeiture by banking the rights with the acequia commission. Both of these amendments were approved by the 2003 state legislature and help empower acequias to control and protect their water rights.

Water Transfer Case Goes to NM Supreme Court

Oral arguments for "Montgomery v State Engineer" will be heard before the New Mexico Supreme Court (237 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe) on November 16 at 9:00 am. This is an important hearing for parciantes and Lynn Montgomery, one of the protestants, encourages all to attend. The case involves the application to transfer surface water rights from Valencia County to groundwater rights in a Placitas subdivision in Sandoval County, and has worked its way up through the courts for several years now (see La Jicarita News, September, 2003). Montgomery and the two other protestants own and use surface water rights in Placitas and contend that the transfer would impair their existing rights as well as be detrimental to public welfare and contrary to conservation. This case is particularly interesting in light of the recent announcement by State Engineer John D'Antonio that water rights transfers in the middle Rio Grande basin are going to be more carefully scrutinized to protect flows in the Rio Grande. The Office of the State Engineer (OSE) recently denied an application by Rio Rancho to transfer water from wells in Sierra County to wells the city currently uses (Rio Rancho has filed a lawsuit against the OSE). The OSE has ordered some delays in pending transfer applications, including one from Truth or Consequences to Santa Fe county's Buckman well field.

Book Review: Brown-Eyed Children of the Sun: Lessons from the Chicano Movement, 1965-1975 By George Mariscal

Reviewed by Kay Matthews

For those of us who came of age in the 1960s and 70s, Brown-Eyed Children of the Sun is a reminder of the movements that defined our attempts to create a more just society: the new left, the Black Power movement, the American Indian movement, the women's' movement, and the subject of this book, El Movimiento, the Chicano movement. But for those who grew up or arrived in the United States during the 80s and 90s, it is a book that tries to set straight the "history and the lessons of the Chicano movement [that] were either poorly understood or completely unknown."

This history is particularly relevant to the Southwest and the land grant movement in northern New Mexico. George (Jorge) Mariscal, who is a professor at the University of California, San Diego, includes a chapter called "Brown and Black Together" that highlights the work of Reies Lopez Tijerina and the Alianza Federal de las Mercedes to validate his thesis that "in the face of renewed forms of exclusionary 'nationalist' and 'race-based' identities and an expanding neo-assimilationist Hispanic class, [it is necessary] to look carefully at the lives of these cultural workers [Tijerina and others] and the lessons they can teach us about identity, resistance, and historical change." Increased attempts by many Mexican American professionals and academics to discredit El Movimiento by dismissing it as "nationalistic" or lacking a place in the postmodern world demands a closer look at a movement that included not only the Alianza's struggle to reclaim the Spanish and Mexican land grants of northern New Mexico but the union organizing of César Chávez, the profound influence of Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution, and "efforts to link domestic struggles to international movements for liberation and self determination."

While many New Mexicans are familiar with the history of the 1966 Alianza symbolic takeover of the San Joaquin land grant at Echo Amphitheater in Carson National Forest and the 1967 Tierra Amarilla Courthouse raid, most are not familiar with Reies Lopez Tijerina's attempts at coalition building, particularly with the African American and Native American communities. According to Mariscal, Tijerina, who embodied "an Indo-Hispano nationalism founded on the cultural particularities of New Mexican culture and history" was like many other Movimiento activists who "refused to insulate themselves from other groups engaged in similar struggles." With longtime New Mexico organizer Maria Varela (who formerly worked for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) Tijerina attended the New Politics convention in Chicago with Martin Luther King, Rodolfo Corky Gonzales, and other leaders, and in October of 1967 invited many black and Native American leaders to attend the inaugural convention of the renamed Alianza Federal de Pueblos Libres in Albuquerque. He pursued these relationships over the ensuing years, and at the Poor People's Campaign in Washington D.C. said, "The poor is the only sector of the country which has the right to question the legitimacy of the rich. I feel the poor, if well organized and properly directed, can bring the rich and the establishment machine to their knees."

This is a particularly important statement in light of the fact that, according to Mariscal, "Because the analytical category of 'class' has been virtually nonoperative throughout most of the history of the United States, economic and cultural inequality are too often reduced to issues of 'race' rather than being construed as an intersection of racializing and gendered practices, economic stratification, and other structural hierarchies." Historians have reduced Tijerina's role in the Movimiento to the issue of the land grants and downplayed his innovative attempts at coalition building with other groups in the sixties and seventies that were addressing the issue of class, which united them against the power elite's attempt to pit them against each other.

In the chapter on Tijerina and the Alianza Mariscal also highlights the work of two other important New Mexicans, Maria Varela and Elizabeth "Betita" Martinez. Varela worked alongside the Alianza and into the seventies and eighties on the issue of land ownership, managed La Clínica del Norte in Tierra Amarilla, and founded Ganados del Valle, a livestock cooperative based in Los Ojos. Martinez, like Varela, also worked for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee before coming to New Mexico, where she published El Grito del Norte, which focused not only on northern New Mexico but the internationalist struggle, particularly in Cuba. Both women were "beacon[s] for a cross-ethnic and internationalist Chicana/o ethics."

Mariscal uses this history to caution today's activists, struggling against even more insidious neoliberal forces than in the days of El Movimiento, to not be sucked into a reactionary nationalism that fails to build the coalitions and internationalism necessary to continue the struggle for economic, social, and political justice. The concept of La Raza is a complicated one, ranging from the separatist "my blood is pure" notion, to La raza cósmica that connects to a larger world, and to the fundamental question of what values Chicanos can bring to an imperialist and consumer society. This book is a guide-and a call to action-for those who want to incorporate the best lessons and avoid the worst mistakes of El Movimiento.

Jorge Mariscal doesn't just write books about political action, he embodies it. He is an organizer with the Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO) that has launched a campaign to educate Latino parents and students about military recruitment in schools. For more information go to the website www.projectyano.org or write Project YANO, P. O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023 (see editorial, page 6).

Aamodt Adjudication Update

By Kay Matthews

The latest proposed settlement agreement to the Aamodt adjudication was supposed to have been released by the Office of the State Engineer on October 17; public meetings initially scheduled for October and November have been cancelled. Apparently the city of Santa Fe and the state have objected to certain provisions in the settltement, and it's unlikely the court's December deadline (or 2006 legislative submission) will be met.

So as we go to press we don't know if there are any significant changes to last June's Conceptual Proposal, which was incorporated into the settlement agreement. The Conceptual Proposal stipulates that non-Pueblo residents will not be required to hook up to a water delivery system; that the Pueblos are guaranteed 3,660 acre feet per year (afy) and that 2,500 afy will be supplied by a pipeline to access imported water from the Rio Grande; and that the Pueblos will use the pipeline water supply of 2,500 afy before exercising their Future Basin Use Rights.

La Jicarita News spoke with Scott Pittman, a member of the Pojoaque Basin Water Alliance, whose representatives have been sitting in on the negotiation sessions, and he wasn't optimistic that this latest proposal is going to resolve any of the fundamental issues that remain extant:

• Where is the pipeline water coming from? The County of Santa Fe continues to look to San Juan/Chama water, but as we've previously pointed out, those water rights will continue to be contested as our drought continues and are sought in the resolution of other adjudications, particularly in Taos. Top of the World water rights, now slated for settlement of the Aamodt adjudication (see La Jicarita News, August, 2005), remain under protest, and the additional thousands of acre feet of Top of the World rights are supposedly being purchased by the county to serve other county purposes.

• The currently constituted impairment fund that would compensate Pojoaque Valley residents in the event that the Pueblos impair their wells is inadequate. The fund is subject to appropriation by the New Mexico legislature and there is no recourse against the Pueblos if continued pumping causes non-Pueblo wells to go dry.

• Where is the money to implement the delivery system? Now that the federal government has reneged on its initial commitment of $214 million, it will be up to the county and state to come up with the money.

• If a water delivery system is not in place by 2016, the settlement is null and void. The Alliance believes that because of the uncertainly of funding there should be a shorter time frame for implementation and if funding is not appropriated within that time frame the Pueblos and non-Pueblos should negotiate "on a simplified approach" to adjudicate water rights. Meanwhile, the Pueblos continue to pump the aquifer.

• Many believe that the settlement facilitates a water grab for the county and plays into the hands of developers who are racing to corner the market on water rights.

Apparently the Pueblos are planning to sign the proposed agreement, but according to Pittman, the Alliance is not prepared to sign until these concerns are addressed. The Alliance believes the Pueblos should be required to find any future development rights and that total current use should be based on the original Judge Meechem findings of 3,660 afy.

Taos Regional Water Plan: Peñasco Meeting

On November 3 Peñasco area residents got a chance to expand and rate alternative solutions the Taos Regional Water Plan Steering Committee has identified as it heads into Phase II of the project. The alternatives identified and rated through this process will be evaluated for feasibility and implementation in the regional water plan.

A diverse group of constituents showed up at the meeting: three members of the Environment Department at Picuris Pueblo; the Las Trampas Land Grant Association president; a representative from Rio Arriba County; residents of Llano San Juan, Vaditio, and Chamisal; County Commissioner Manny Pacheco; and several steering committee members.

Joanne Hilton, project manager, provided an overview of the process, explaining that once the regional water plan is approved its implementation is not mandated but will rely on the local governments, non-governmental organizations, and Taos Soil and Water Conservation District to raise money and go forward with specific projects. Facilitator Rosemary Romero reminded everyone that Trudy Healy is both a member of the steering committee and a member of the Water Trust Board, the organization that funds water project throughout the state. She then walked everyone through the list of alternatives that have thus far been developed. They ranged from solutions dealing with growth and development to protection of water quality and quantity, particularly in our acequia communities.

The two top vote getters were: 1) help acequias adopt bylaws to prevent transfers and establish water banks; and 2) establish area of origin protection within watersheds, and even subwatersheds. It's not surprising that folks from the Peñasco area would rate the protection of acequias and community water as their top priorities. Several acequias as well as those in El Valle (see Announcements, this issue) have recently incorporated these new provisions into their bylaws. Other alternatives that were well received included: respect tribal water quality standards; adopt conservation measures to protect land from development; develop centralized water and sewer systems; and support local community efforts to improve watersheds and devise local solutions.

When La Jicarita asked why no one had voted for the first alternative listed, "Control growth and development through management", several people grumbled "It's hopeless." But Manny Pacheco claimed that Taos County has already stepped up to the plate with an updated land use plan and subdivision regulations as well as fire planning in collaboration with communities, the Forest Service, and the BLM.

The next step in the regional water planning process is to convene a county-wide meeting in January to come to consensus on the alternative priority list. A meeting date will be announced.











Matthew G. Reynolds and the Adjudication of Spanish and Mexican Land Claims

By Mark Schiller

The New Mexico State Records Center and Archives recently acquired a microfilm copy of the files of the United States Attorney for the Court of Private Land Claims, which are part of the Thomas B. Catron Papers owned by the University of New Mexico. The New Mexico Historical Records Advisory Board has given me a small grant to examine these papers and I'd like to discuss some of what I've learned about the role of the United States Attorney, Matthew G. Reynolds, in adjudicating Spanish and Mexican land claims during that Court's tenure from 1891 to 1904.

Reynolds has been characterized as a man "dedicated to the defeat of as many claims as possible. If he could not defeat them, he strove to reduce the acreage confirmed as much as possible." In his 1894 Report to the Attorney General summing up the activities of his office Reynolds boasted: "In New Mexico and Arizona the total area claimed in the suits disposed of . . . was 4,784,651 acres; amount confirmed, 779,611 acres; amount rejected and not confirmed 4,005,040 acres. The result is very gratifying to me . . . you will notice that in most of the grants where judgments were obtained, the areas have been much reduced . . . the amount of land saved in this way alone during the term of court just past will more than compensate the Government for the cost of this court and the salaries of its officials during the entire time for which it was created." He went on to state explicitly whose interests he represented: "The celebrated Cochiti cases, four in number, were all tried, two defeated entirely and the other two so reduced in area as to make a complete victory for the Government, and this has relieved the public excitement growing out of fear that confirmations might be made so as to include the recently developed mining district covered by these claims." In his 1892 Report Reynolds acknowledged the government's unjust advantage over impoverished, non-English-speaking Mexican claimants, stating, " . . . those holding the small grants and those owned by communities, I have no doubt are being delayed from ignorance in many cases, and often from inability to obtain counsel to prosecute their claims." These statements make it abundantly clear that he was not a public servant dedicated to the "just" prosecution of Spanish and Mexican land claims but, a colonial bureaucrat whose job, during this era of aggressive expansionism, was to defeat or reduce all claims, regardless of their validity, in order to make land available for Anglo settlement and capitalist development.

Let's take a look at one of the more than 280 land claims Reynolds opposed. The Santo Domingo de Cundiyó grant, also known simply as the Cundiyó grant, was made in 1743. During the late summer of that year, four residents of Chimayó petitioned Governor Gaspar Domingo de Mendoza for a tract of land, the boundaries of which were: north, the Pueblo Quemado land grant; south, an arroyo of clear water and the northern boundary of Nambe Pueblo; east, the mountain range; and west, the lands of Juan Martín. The petitioners were placed in possession of the tract, as outlined in their petition, in September of 1743 and there is abundant archival evidence to demonstrate that the community was continually occupied from that date forward.

Sometime in the early to mid nineteenth century a man named José Antonio Vigil settled in Cundiyó. Formerly a resident of Santa Cruz de la Cañada, by the time he died in 1861, Vigil owned most of the grant. His heirs continued to amass land in the area and when the grant was adjudicated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it had evolved into a quasi-community grant owned largely by the extended Vigil family.

Although the petition for the Cundiyó claim was filed before the Court of Private Land Claims by Vigil's son, José Antonio Vigil II, on 3 March 1893, Reynolds did not respond to it until 29 December 1896. In that response Reynolds, as he did with all claims, denied the claimants' allegations and asked the court to enter a decree rejecting the petition.

No further action was taken until March 1900 when Reynolds' file shows he directed special agent Clayton G. Coleman to conduct a field investigation of the tract. Because this was clearly a legitimate claim, underwritten by unimpeachable documentation and over 150 years of continuous settlement, Reynolds concentrated his attention on trying to reduce the approximately 20,000 acres included within the boundaries as delineated in the claimant's petition, rather than trying to defeat the claim itself. Coleman's report, which formed the crux of Reynolds' response to the claim, unjustly rejected three of the boundaries shown on the map submitted by the claimant's attorney, Ralph Emerson Twitchell. As a result of his fieldwork, Coleman created an alternate description of the grant, which relocated the boundaries and reduced the tract from approximately 20,000 acres to less than 2,200 acres.

Predicated on this new description, Reynolds proposed a stipulation, which stated that Coleman's description "correctly delineates the land in controversy . . . [and] any decree of confirmation in said cause shall embody said description as the basis for the survey to be made of the Santo Domingo de Cundiyó grant."

Apparently Twitchell did not feel this wholesale diminution of the grant was worth fighting over because shortly after Coleman's field study he agreed unconditionally to the stipulation. Bear in mind that he was working on a contingency basis and probably didn't want to expend any more time defending the claim than was absolutely necessary. Better a pre-trial agreement and a quick profit than a lengthy litigation process, whose successful outcome he may have doubted given the Court's dismal record. Moreover, this kind of unethical practice was not uncommon: Lawyers who represented Hispano land claimants often held their own interests above those of their clients.

Agreeing to the stipulation meant that the boundaries were no longer litigable and Twitchell made this critical decision without the approval of his client, José Antonio Vigil II, because on 9 August 1900 he wrote Reynolds' assistant, William Pope, stating: "You may file the enclosed stipulation in the case. I have tried to get Vigil there several times, but he is an old man and sick most of the time. I have written to him and it will take at least a week before I hear from him."

The Court of Private Land Claims tried the claim on 5 and 7 December 1900. Vigil was the only witness at the trial. Interestingly, when he was questioned about the boundaries, he referred to the boundaries outlined in the 1743 grant rather than those agreed to in the stipulation, so he still may not have been aware of the stipulation. At the end of the transcript of the trial, which amounts to only three pages, it's noted: "That is the evidence for the plaintiff with the stipulation that was made between Mr. Twitchell and Mr. Pope which is to be filed as part of the record in the case." In other words, it was a "done deal" and the trial was merely a formality.

On 19 December 1900, the Court of Private Land Claims confirmed the grant in accordance with the stipulation. Apparently Reynolds agreed not to contest the confirmation if it was reduced to the boundaries contained in the stipulation because once the Court of Private Land Claims acted upon the claim Reynolds, uncharacteristically, recommended that no appeal be made.

Incredibly, the controversy over the boundaries did not end there, however. After the confirmation of the claim, the Office of the Surveyor General directed Deputy Surveyor Joseph F. Thomas to undertake a survey of the grant as outlined in the stipulation. Thomas duly reported that after going into the field he found that the Cienega Pajarita, listed as the northern boundary, was not located where Coleman designated it in the stipulation. The report regarding this problem written by Surveyor General Vance states: "This matter was called to the attention of the U.S. Attorney for the Court of Private Land Claims and said court sent Clayton G. Coleman, one of its Special Agents on the ground. Mr. Coleman assisted Deputy Thomas in locating the boundaries as now reported surveyed and as are supposed to be in strict conformity with the intentions of the Court of Private Land Claims." Thus, the survey was not even in compliance with the stipulation, but rather with some arbitrary notion of Coleman and Reynolds.

On 11 February 1903 a patent for the Cundiyo grant was issued to José Antonio Vigil II. It totaled 2,137.08 acres. The grant had been reduced by approximately 18,000 acres.

To put the enormity of the injustice that occurred during the tenure of the Court of Private Land Claims in perspective, we only have to look at the results. Excluding the obviously fraudulent Peralta Reavis claim, Spanish and Mexican land claims totaling approximately 22,000,000 acres were heard by the Court. Of those 22,000,000 acres, less than 2,000,000 acres were confirmed. According to land grant historians Malcolm Ebright and Victor Westphall, "70 percent of the court's rejections [more than 15,000,000 acres] . . . are subject to serious question."

Although the federal government did not use its army to dispossess Hispano communities in the southwest, as it had with Native Americans, the result was the same: loss of their land-based economy leading to loss of cultural integrity and all the associated social problems. The dispossession of these communities through the legal chicanery of men like Matthew G. Reynolds should be viewed in the same light as the dispossession of the people of Chiapas, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Palestine. In order to contextualize the injustices that occurred during the adjudication of Hispano land grants in New Mexico, they must be viewed as colonialist policy and the bureaucrats who implemented that policy should, at least historically, be held accountable.

Editorial: "Opt Out" of Military Recruitment

By Kay Matthews

My seventeen-year old son recently received a letter from a U.S. Navy recruiter with a toll-free phone card. He was supposed to activate the card and answer a survey so the recruiter could call back and "shorten the distance . . . between where you are and where you want to be." The letter also promised that the Navy would take him to "the four corners of the world", help him achieve "just about any skill you want to get your hands on", and "earn up to $70,000 toward college."

All of these promises were deconstructed at the presentation given at Peñasco High School earlier this year by the Santa Fe Veterans for Peace (see La Jicarita News, May, 2005): money the military makes available for college is often not enough to cover expenses at private or even state schools; world travel usually means a two-day Hawaiian layover to a trouble spot where you may be killed; and American soldiers are seen as colonizers, not as liberators.

In a March interview with La Jicarita News Representative Tom Udall said, " . . . Hispanic and Native American communities have traditionally served in wartime in disproportionately large numbers." Minority populations have been disproportionately targeted for recruitment as well, and northern New Mexico is no exception. Because the military is currently unable to meet its quotas it has stepped up its recruitment in burgeoning Latino communities across the country. Jorge Mariscal, professor of Chicano studies at the University of California at San Diego and author of Brown Eyed Children of the Sun, reviewed in this issue of La Jicarita, is one of the organizers of the Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO), an organization that has launched a campaign to educate Latino parents and students about military recruitment in schools.

In a pamphlet titled "The Military's Not Just a Job . . . It's Eight Years of Your Life!" Project YANO provides information on the following points:

• If military life doesn't live up to the advertising (and a recruiter's job is to sell the military) you can't undo your enlistment: you are obligated to the military for the duration of your enlistment.

• Military training is designed for military jobs, not to help you get a civilian job later.

• You have to pay a non-refundable deposit to qualify for any aid towards college and that aid is not automatic: you have to qualify for special jobs or sign up for an extra-long term. There are many other sources for college money outside the military.

• Racism is a reality in the military. In a 1996 equal opportunity survey, 65% of active-duty personnel reported having experienced racially offensive behavior. In 2002, 38% of enlisted personnel were people of color but only 17.5% of the officers were.

• Discrimination against women is common; they are still limited in the positions open to them. Sexual harassment and rape are a real threat. Thirty percent of women reported being victims of rape or attempted rape while in the military; 75% had experienced sexual harassment.

• Discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is official policy with the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule that has resulted in increased forced discharges.

• You lose your basic rights of free speech and movement when you join the military.

• The main purpose of the military is to fight wars, and if you enlist you will have no choice if you are ordered to fight for something you don't believe in. Signing up for the National Guard for a "non-combat" job does not mean you won't be in combat.

Project YANO also provides a form letter to exercise your legal right under the "Opt Out" provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that tells your school it may not release your personal information to recruiters (to be filled out by parents). "Opting Out" is your legal right. There is no penalty and school officials must comply with your request. Many schools have their own forms, but if you don't receive one, contact the school or use Project YANO's form (available on the website: www.projectyano.org).

Personal information may also be released to military recruiters if you take the military's Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test at school. If you take this test your personal information will be provided to recruiters even if you "Opted Out." The test is devised by the Department of Defense to measure skills for military jobs. The ASVAB is also being used by the Pentagon to create a national database on all teenagers. This test is not mandatory and there is no penalty for not taking it. Parents should contact the school and tell them they do not want their children to take the test.

Project YANO also provides information on the Delayed Entry Program (DEP), whereby students sign up a year before they have to report for active duty. The military is obligated to release all DEP recruits who request a separation. The Project also has a flier titled "Careers in Peacemaking and Social Change" that encourages students to look for a job that "does not harm others and promotes cooperation and the building of a just society."

For more information, contact Project YANO at P.O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023, e-mail Proj YANO@aol.com or go to the website, listed above.

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.