The Galisteo Dam was completed in 1970 by the US Army Corps of Engineers and built solely for flood control and sediment impoundment on the Rio Galisteo because of its long history of violent floods including one that wiped out the Kewa or Santo Domingo Pueblo. To accommodate the dam project the Pueblo and main line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad were relocated and a newer rail bed serves Amtrak's Southwest Chief and the New Mexico Rail Runner.
Sam Peckinpah shot a bunch of scenes for the 1978 film Convoy out here, too. Above image courtesy of neighbor, Phil taken about 1980.
The Corps has long abandoned responsibility for the dam road's maintenance and blocked access to a recreation area at the dam in 2018. In research for its 2024 Master Plan the Corps found trespassing cattle were the most significant impact on the Galisteo Dam.
Protect Public Access to Highway 16 and Red Rock Road — A Request from the Residents of the Baja Waldo and Red Rock Community —
Dear Officials,
We are writing on behalf of the Baja Waldo and Red Rock community, a small group of longtime residents who depend on Highway 16 (Route 16 East) for our only safe and reliable access to and from our homes.
Our community includes 29 households — 15 along Baja Waldo Road and 14 along Red Rock Road. Most of us have lived here for more than 30 years. We are homesteaders, teachers, nurses, artists, and small business owners. Many of us are now retired, and several neighbors are elderly and depend on this road for medical appointments, groceries, and family support.
For over four decades, we’ve used Highway 16 through the Galisteo Dam area to Exit 264 on I-25 for everyday needs — getting to work, school, and the doctor; receiving mail and deliveries; and ensuring that emergency responders can reach us when needed.
If this road were to be closed, it would cut off emergency services, mail, utilities, and delivery access to our community. The only alternate route, through Cerro Chato → Highway 14 → NM-22, is long, steep, and often unsafe, especially during rain, snow, or icy conditions. For many of us, it’s not a realistic option.
We understand and respect the Pueblo’s sovereignty and their right to manage their lands. At the same time, we believe there must be a balanced solution that allows continued public access for residents, emergency responders, and essential services.
We are asking for your help to work together — the New Mexico Indian Affairs Department, NMDOT, Santa Fe County, and Sandoval County — to find a fair and lasting agreement that protects both public safety and tribal rights.
We’ve attached a copy of the USPS letter confirming plans to remove our neighborhood mailboxes and noting that the road to that site “will be closed to public access,” along with a map showing the affected section of Highway 16. We deeply appreciate your time and attention. Many of us have lived here our entire adult lives. This place is home, and we simply want to maintain safe and reasonable access for our families, visitors, and first responders.
Sincerely,
Hamaatsa, Inc. vs. Pueblo of San Felipe settled in 2016 solidified that the State of New Mexico and its courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a tribe unless the tribe waives its immunity or Congress intervenes.
Learn more at the Santa Fe New Mexican. And here.
Not long ago I spoke with Derrick Toledo about the Kewa Pueblo's intent to close NM 16 that Red Rock and Baja Waldo residents depend on for services and commuting. Since the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the lead agency that negotiates easements and leases Representative Leger Fernandez could have dialogue with them at the federal level. I am endeavoring to contact Senators Heinrich and Lujan as well so this matter can be resolved. A call from Mr. Toledo would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Larry Kurtz
67 comments:
Existing roads: If the road already exists, the process may be simplified. You will still need a right-of-way for major infrastructure projects, but you may not need one for casual use like driving on an existing public road.
Access to Galisteo Dam is approximately 6.6 miles south-east on State Route 16 from its point of intersection with Interstate Highway 25 at Cochiti/Pueblo. State Route 16 is the only access road to Galisteo Dam.
The Pueblo leases the land the Galisteo Dam sits on to the Corps of Engineers.
Money has been allocated to the Corps for recreational improvements at the dam for things like bike paths and nature loop.
A gate with a keypad is not impossible. Leases with Pueblos for public roads are ubiquitous in New Mexico.
COMMUNITY UPDATE – Red Rock Road / Baja Waldo
1) 🔎 Current Status (as of February 27, 2026)
I spoke directly with Jerry Valdez today, Undersecretary of the New Mexico Department of Transportation (DOT) Ricky Serna.
DOT is actively working on our behalf and will be meeting with the Pueblo regarding access.
The Secretary of DOT, Ricky Serna personally drove our roads to better understand our situation firsthand.
DOT agrees that the alternate “back way to Highway 14” is not a viable option for our community.
The State and County are fully supportive of maintaining our access through NM-16.
DOT has tools available to support negotiations if necessary, and is interested in pursuing a formal easement to protect long-term access.
2) 💬 Communication Letters & Guidelines
⚠ Note on Communication (VERY IMPORTANT)
It was brought to my attention that a letter may have been sent previously that did not help the situation. This is simply a reminder that how we communicate matters and can influence the tone of discussions. Because of this, it’s a good idea (not a requirement) to pause additional individual outreach to agencies or the Pueblo for now, until DOT has a chance to meet with them.
To keep things positive and constructive, I will continue communicating on behalf of the community and keeping DOT (Jerry Valdez) and NM Indian Affairs (Amanda Nezzi) informed.
“Chat GPT Suggested” Simplified Communication Guidelines
If we need to communicate with the Pueblo in the future, we want to approach it respectfully, as neighbors. These guidelines help us keep messages positive, calm, and non-political.
Respect Tribal sovereignty and clearly acknowledge their authority over their land.
Keep the tone calm, humble, and neighborly.
Avoid describing our hardships.
Instead, we can simply say that we rely on NM-16 for everyday access and hope to work together on a cooperative solution.
Do not imply entitlement. We request — we don’t demand.
Avoid political language or activism-style arguments.
Avoid legal threats, pressure, or mentioning leverage or agencies.
Ask only to listen and have a respectful conversation.
Keep messages short, simple, and sincere.
Avoid emotional language or historical comparisons.
📌 These guidelines are preparation only — no letters are being sent at this time.
We’re waiting to hear from DOT first.
3) ⚖️ Attorney Information (Legal Guidance Only)
We are considering hiring legal support only for guidance, not for lawsuits, demands, or pressure of any kind. This would simply help our community stay informed and coordinated while agencies work on our behalf.
Attorney (Consultation Only):
Dayan Hochman-Vigil, Esq.
Practicing attorney in New Mexico & Legislature for NM ( not our district )
Expertise in government relations, public access, infrastructure, and policy
Currently serves as New Mexico State Representative (District 15)
Legal Cost Summary
Hourly Rate: $295/hr (reduced from $395/hr)
Retainer: $3,500
Used only if consultation occurs
Fully refundable if not used
📌 This would be a resource for legal clarity only, not legal action.
📌 If we choose to use her for guidance, we would first ask for everyone’s approval before sharing any costs.
📝 Next Steps
DOT will meet with tribal leadership.
We will wait for their update and share it with the community.
We stay respectful, unified, and thoughtful in all communication.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and level-headed approach. Staying positive and coordinated helps protect the progress already being made. And if anyone has any issues with the steps we are taking, please speak up.
Santa Fe County And Four Pueblos Reach Monumental Agreement On Roads
“The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior oversees the process for granting new rights-of-way on or through tribal lands, following a detailed regulatory scheme under modern law, separate from the old RS 2477 statute.”
Since "the R.S. 2477 issue is highly contentious and often handled through litigation or specific negotiation processes, such as disclaimers of interest or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)."
From google AI: describe the ownership of the road rights of way from I 25 over new mexico 16 to the galisteo dam
Interstate 25 (I-25) and NM 16: The rights-of-way for I-25 and NM 16 are owned by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), as they are part of the state highway system. The NMDOT holds the title (generally a conditional fee for public purposes) for land used for state highways.
Project Access Road/Local Roads: The final segment of the route, which is described as a "project access road" leading directly to the dam from the I-25 Exit 264 area, passes through lands belonging to the Santo Domingo Pueblo Indian Reservation. The right-of-way for this final access road is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for access to the federal facility, but the underlying land is part of the Pueblo's reservation, with easements granted for public access.
Galisteo Dam Facility: The Galisteo Dam area itself is a federally owned and managed public property under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
In summary, the ownership is segmented as follows:
I-25 and NM 16: State of New Mexico (NMDOT).
Access Road to Dam: Federal government (USACE manages the right-of-way for public access), but the land is within the Santo Domingo Pueblo Indian Reservation.
Galisteo Dam site: Federal government (USACE).
For official property records and specific details, the NMDOT's Right of Way Bureau creates title reports and manages property transactions for state-owned rights-of-way.
• DOT is actively leading this issue.
I spoke with Jerry Valdez late today (he works under Secretary Serna), and the DOT has multiple staff involved. They also confirmed that Representative McQueen’s office reached out to them this week. I let McQueen’s office know that DOT is already handling things well and that we’ll keep them informed of any changes.
• Santa Fe County is aware and engaged.
The Chief of EMS for Santa Fe County has been involved and informed Commissioner Bustamante, who is aware of the situation and interested in what’s happening. I passed this along to DOT so they know who may be contacting them.
• Major update about the Pueblo meeting.
The Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of DOT met with the Pueblo the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. According to DOT, the conversation was productive. The Pueblo said they did not know the USPS letter was going to be sent and were very apologetic. DOT and the Pueblo are now actively negotiating, and the discussions are moving in a positive direction. They are open to finding a solution, and funding may be possible for a right-of-way or easement—this is encouraging.
• Mailbox issue is being addressed.
DOT has reached out to the Post Office to understand why the USPS letter was generated, since it caught everyone off guard. Mailboxes remain part of the overall discussion.
• Next meeting scheduled.
I have another meeting with DOT next Wednesday afternoon, and we should learn more then about what is being negotiated and how things are progressing.
• Legal update.
I also updated the attorney who offered to represent us (Dayan Hochman-Vigil) and let her know we’re pausing legal involvement for now while DOT continues leading.
• Please hold off on contacting any agencies, the Pueblo, or any outside organizations that might publicize the issue.
It is very important that no one reaches out to any agency, the Post Office, the Pueblo, or any outside organizations that might publicize the issue right now. This request came directly from DOT. Outside contact at this stage could unintentionally disrupt or complicate the negotiations that DOT is currently handling on our behalf. Things are moving in a positive and cooperative direction, and keeping communication centralized through DOT is essential to protecting that progress.
Jerry sent me this message tonight, and I think it speaks to how seriously they’re taking this:
“We appreciate the trust you've put in us to fight for this on behalf of you and the entire community.” – Jerry Valdez, NM DOT
I know this has been slow and frustrating, but the progress so far is real. Things are moving in the right direction, and at this point the best thing we can do is give the process the time it needs to play out properly.
In the meantime, we can keep going with our regular lives while this continues behind the scenes.
If anyone has questions or wants to talk, feel free to reach out anytime. I’m happy to share what I know.
Thanks,
Justin
The Santo Domingo Pueblo (Kewa) holds the underlying land title for the final approach, making it subject to tribal sovereignty despite the federal easements.
NMDOT Secretary Ricky Serna resigns: New Mexican.
The Ortiz Mine Grant is a historically significant, privately owned 10.7-square-mile area in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, near Golden, renowned for early 19th-century gold discoveries. Situated in the Ortiz Mountains, it is known for the Old Placer mining district. Currently, it consists of undeveloped, off-grid land used for residential, recreational, or conservation purposes.
The Juana Lopez Land Grant (formally known as the Mesita de Juana López Grant) is a historic Spanish land grant located in north-central New Mexico, specifically within Santa Fe County. In 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made determinations to acquire thousands of acres in the area into trust for the Pueblo of Santo Domingo and Pueblo of Santa Clara, affecting lands within or adjacent to the original grant boundaries.
These 2012 determinations were "mandatory acquisitions," meaning they were required by specific federal statutes rather than being purely discretionary BIA Decisions.
The Jurisdictional Landscape
The 2012 "mandatory acquisition" changed the DNA of the land. Because the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) moved these thousands of acres into trust, the land is no longer under the primary jurisdiction of Santa Fe County or the State of New Mexico.
Entity Role / Interest Legal Instrument
Kewa Pueblo Underlying Fee Owner/Sovereign Tribal Law & 25 CFR Part 169
USACE Dam Operator/Tenant Federal Lease & Road Easement
Residents Beneficiaries of Access Prescriptive Use / Easements of Record
BIA Federal Trustee Trust Oversight / ROW Approval
Key Legal Friction Points
1. The "Easements of Record" Limitation
While the 2012 determination protects easements "of record," many historic access routes in New Mexico are based on R.S. 2477 (old highway rights) or prescriptive use(long-term use without a formal deed). If the residents’ use of the Galisteo Dam access road was never formally recorded as a perpetual easement before 2012, they may find themselves in a "permissive use" category rather than a "vested right" category.
2. R.S. 2477 vs. 25 CFR Part 169
The transition from R.S. 2477 to modern BIA regulations is the most difficult hurdle.
R.S. 2477 is often "self-executing," meaning it exists because the road was used.
25 CFR Part 169 requires a formal application, tribal consent, a survey, and often fair market value compensation to the Pueblo for any new or renewed Right-of-Way (ROW).
3. The USACE "Middleman" Position
The Army Corps of Engineers holds the lease, but their easement is specifically for dam operations. Residents using a DOD-leased road to access private fee land (the Ortiz Mine Grant) creates a liability and security gray area that the USACE is often hesitant to manage on behalf of third parties.
Potential Paths for Resolution
Because this involves mandatory trust land, the residents likely cannot sue in state court to quiet title. Resolution typically requires one of the following:
Tolling Agreements/MOUs: A negotiated Memorandum of Understanding between the residents' association, the Kewa Pueblo, and the BIA to formalize access without a full-blown ROW process.
Congressional Intervention: Sometimes, the legislation that mandated the trust acquisition can be amended to explicitly clarify access rights for specific legacy residents.
BIA Administrative Remedy: Applying for a formal ROW under 25 CFR Part 169. This is expensive and requires Pueblo consent, but it provides the highest level of long-term legal certainty.
Note on Sovereignty: It is crucial to recognize that the Kewa Pueblo’s sovereignty means they have a significant say in who crosses their trust land. Approaching this as a government-to-government or community-to-government negotiation is often more effective than an adversarial legal approach.
This sounds like a situation that may require a formal white paper, a timeline of property transfers, or a summary for a legal or legislative representative.
If the lease with the Corps began in 1970 and RS 2477 is binding even after 1976 we could be good to go.
Key Aspects of Self-Executing R.S. 2477 Rights:
Automatic Conveyance: When the conditions of the statute were met—specifically, the establishment of a "highway" over unreserved public land—the grant automatically vested.
"User" as Construction: In many states, the "construction" requirement was satisfied simply by the passage of vehicles over time ("user") rather than formal engineering.
No Formal Process: No application or action on the part of the federal government was required, and the law explicitly allowed for acceptance through public use.
State Law Governs: What constitutes a "highway" or "construction" was historically determined by the laws of the state where the route is located.
"Frozen" in 1976: Although R.S. 2477 was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) on October 21, 1976, all valid rights-of-way existing at that time were preserved, effectively "freezing" the rights in place as they were on that date.
Arizona Attorney General's Office (.gov) +7
Because of this self-executing nature, many of these rights-of-way are not formally documented in federal land records, leading to ongoing disputes over their existence, particularly in the western United States and Alaska.
Neighbor Karen: "I walked out to where there were 3 men, one on an auger and 2 digging. I asked what they were doing and they said putting in a fence. Why? To keep the pueblo land private. Why? They have had cows killed (3) and people were complaining. About what? Cows roaming. They were very evasive, lots of I don't know and then told me to call the pueblo, which I did and was told to call Pablo Padilla and his mailbox is full. I feel we are getting the runaround from both SD and [corps] of engineers. Sorry for typing/grammar errors. I'm feeling panicked. This fence/gate? could be finished in a week if they want. The guys I talked with are the diggers another group of guys are putting in the post."
BAJA WALDO / RED ROCK COMMUNITY COALITION
Community Communication Update – Road Access Concerns
Dear Neighbors,
As we continue to face the very real and imminent threat of losing our everyday access road to the broader surrounding community due to the proposed closure by our neighboring Tewa Tribe, the Coalition Committee would like to take a moment to acknowledge what many of us are feeling.
We fully understand — and share — the concerns, frustrations, fears, and even anger that arise when a life-sustaining access route to our homes may be restricted or closed. The potential impact on daily necessities such as commuting to work, accessing medical care, transporting children to school, receiving deliveries, and ensuring emergency services access affects all of us deeply.
At this particularly sensitive and precarious stage, it is critical that we act in a coordinated and strategic manner. While your ideas, concerns, and suggested actions are important and valued, we ask that all communication regarding this matter be directed internally to the Coalition Committee at this time.
To best protect our collective interests, it is essential that all outreach to external parties — including representatives of the Tewa community, contractors or workers engaged in fence installation, and any governmental or regulatory agencies — be conducted solely through designated Coalition Committee representatives. This approach allows us to:
• Present accurate and consistent information
• Avoid emotionally driven exchanges that may unintentionally escalate tensions
• Ensure our communications reflect documented hardship and legal considerations
• Maintain a collaborative and respectful posture toward the Kewa Pueblo community
• Support our legal strategy moving forward
Over the past weeks, the Committee has compiled extensive documentation and research related to road access, easements, and jurisdictional authority. This material is being forwarded to the office of our attorney, Diane Hochmann-Vigil, with whom we have a scheduled consultation on Thursday, February 23, 2026.
Additionally, Coalition representatives have already made contact with the following agencies and offices:
• New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) – including four department heads
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Federal Highway Administration – New Mexico Division
• Office of the Governor of New Mexico
• Office of Senator Martin Heinrich
• Office of Representative McQuinn (including direct phone conversations)
We have also initiated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain any relevant access or easement agreements pertaining to this roadway.
During tonight’s meeting, the Committee reached a unified understanding that, until further notice, all communications with outside stakeholders should be handled exclusively by Coalition representatives.
We also discussed the possibility that residents may encounter a situation in which the road is closed while attempting to leave or return home. Should this occur, please contact a member of the Coalition Committee immediately for guidance. We are in the process of developing a response strategy in coordination with our legal counsel and Representative McQuinn’s office.
We would also like to clarify that outreach to media outlets is part of our longer-term strategic considerations and, if pursued, will occur only in consultation and coordination with our legal counsel. To ensure that any public messaging supports — and does not inadvertently compromise — our legal position or collaborative efforts, we ask that community members refrain from contacting media representatives regarding this matter at this time.
We deeply appreciate the community’s patience, trust, and willingness to work together during this challenging time. Your cooperation in maintaining a unified, thoughtful, and strategic response will significantly strengthen our collective position.
Key Steps and Information:
What to File: You must file a Complaint for injunctive relief and a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Requirements: You must demonstrate that you will suffer "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage" before the other party can be heard.
Process: A judge reviews the petition, often without hearing from the other party first (ex parte), to determine if a temporary, emergency order is warranted.
Court Costs: Filing in federal court usually requires a fee (e.g.,
$
405
$
4
0
5
), though you can file an In Forma Pauperis application to request a waiver if you cannot afford it.
Service: Once signed, the TRO must be formally served on the restrained person, often handled by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Mrs. Allen
The State of New Mexico is aware of this issue and has attempted to come to a solution regarding this matter. Secretary Serna (DOT) and Secretary Monette (IAD) have exercised comprehensive due diligence, including direct engagement with Kewa Pueblo leadership to thoughtfully address the concerns raised. During these government-to-government discussions, the State has advanced proposals encompassing potential compensation, the establishment of formalized agreements which do not exist today, and a demonstrated commitment to collaboratively resolve any underlying issues informing the Tribe’s decision-making process.
It is important to understand that this roadway is located on Kewa Pueblo land, which is under the jurisdiction and authority of the Tribe. There are no agreements or laws that force them to keep this road open. Tribal governments are independent, self-governing entities with the authority to make decisions regarding their lands, infrastructure, and public safety. When a Tribal community determines that closing a road within its jurisdiction is necessary, that decision falls within its sovereign authority and they have the right to do so.
While you may feel inconvenienced by such actions, no state or county entity has jurisdiction or authority over roads located on Tribal lands unless there is a formal agreement in place. In the absence of a formal agreement, it would be neither appropriate nor lawful for outside governments to override or challenge decisions made within Tribal jurisdiction. The State engaged in good-faith discussions and respectfully requested reconsideration of the matter. Kewa Pueblo leadership indicated that they would take the State’s concerns under advisement and it now looks like they are following through with their decision to close this road.
Respecting Tribal sovereignty means acknowledging that these decisions are made by duly elected or appointed Tribal leadership in the best interest of THEIR community. Upholding that respect is essential to maintaining government-to-government relationships and honoring longstanding legal and constitutional principles.
Although longer the Cerro Chato, Highway 14, and NM-22. routes remain open for residents in this area as well as for for Fire and Ambulance service.
Jerry Valdez
NMDOT
Leases and settlement agreements for public roads on New Mexico Pueblo lands are common, particularly in the Santa Fe area, often involving 99-year rights-of-way to resolve long-standing access disputes. Key agreements exist with the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque for county-maintained roads.
Santa Fe County (.gov)
Santa Fe County (.gov)
+2
Key Agreements: Major agreements include the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, which cover roughly 34 miles of county-maintained roads.
Structure: These agreements often involve granting rights-of-way to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or the County, often for two 99-year terms.
Purpose: The agreements are designed to address disputes over roads that provide access to private, non-Pueblo property, and to settle issues related to the Aamodt water-rights litigation.
Details: The arrangements include constructing specific roads (e.g., Yellowbird Loop and Blue Dove Road), renaming roads, and defining legal access points.
Significance: These settlements have been necessary to normalize road maintenance and access in areas where, historically, roads crossed Pueblo land without formal agreements.
Santa Fe County (.gov)
Santa Fe County (.gov)
+2
“We respect tribal authority.
We also believe long-standing residents should never be placed at risk without documented safety planning.”
Repeat it.
Calmly.
Consistently.
Every time.
That’s leadership language.
Sagacious words from Justin Sachs.
Cochiti Pueblo Tribal Access Pass: This is the primary fee paid to the Pueblo. It costs $20 per person for adults (ages 16+) and $10 for youth ages 2 to 16. This pass is required to cross tribal land to reach The Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument.
Notice and comment (in many cases)
Review of existing uses and access
Protection of easements “of record”
Consideration of public safety impacts
That’s not optional.
That’s federal administrative law.
If those steps were skipped, rushed, or papered over:
👉 The decision can be challenged as “arbitrary and capricious.”
That’s a real legal standard.
You’re building:
Paper trail
Timeline
Administrative record
Without that, cases fail.
With it, they can win.
Bottom Line
Yes, there is a legal leg.
It rests on:
✔️ Process failures
✔️ Impact analysis gaps
✔️ Reliance interests
✔️ Lack of notice
✔️ Incomplete mitigation
Not on anger.
Not on fairness.
On law.
What Your Lawyer Will Likely Investigate
A good lawyer will now look for:
2012 Trust Acquisition Record
NEPA Documents
BIA ROW Files
USPS Coordination
Emergency Services Assessments
State DOT Correspondence
Any MOUs or draft agreements
If those are thin or missing:
That’s your opening.
⚠️ Reality Check (Honest)
This is not:
❌ “They can’t close the road”
It is:
✅ “They may have closed it unlawfully”
Important difference.
Courts won’t override sovereignty easily.
But they will order agencies to redo bad process.
That buys time.
That forces negotiation.
That changes leverage.
Your Strongest Legal Framing
This is the sentence your lawyer will love:
“Residents’ life-safety access was altered through federal action without adequate review, notice, or mitigation.”
That’s lawsuit language.
Santo Domingo Pueblo Claims Settlement Act of 2000 - Approves the May 2000 Settlement Agreement between the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Justice and the Pueblo of Santo Domingo (New Mexico) to Resolve All of the Pueblo's Land Title and Trespass Claims.
Extinguishes certain Pueblo land and trespass claims. Sets forth provisions relating to the treatment of land or natural resources transferred by the Pueblo prior to this Act's enactment date and ratifies such transfers. Makes this paragraph effective upon the entry of a compromise final judgment in the case of Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. United States.
Establishes the Pueblo of Santo Domingo Land Claims Settlement Fund to be expended by the Pueblo to acquire lands within the exterior boundaries of the exclusive aboriginal occupancy area of the Pueblo and for use for other tribal purposes. Authorizes appropriations. Prohibits disbursal of amounts in the Fund until: (1) the case of Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. Rael has been dismissed with prejudice; and (2) the compromise final judgment described above has been entered in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Declares the boundaries of the Santo Domingo Pueblo Grant, as determined by the 1907 Hall-Joy Survey, to be the current boundaries of the Grant and that any lands currently owned or hereafter acquired by the Pueblo within such boundaries or the Grant shall be considered to be Indian country. S.2917 - Santo Domingo Pueblo Claims Settlement Act of 2000
4️⃣ Why USACE Won’t Save You
The Corps is protecting itself.
Their easement is for:
Dam
Security
Operations
Not for:
Residents
Deliveries
Emergencies
From their perspective:
You’re “third-party traffic on a military lease.”
That’s liability.
So they step back.
Table 7.2 Public Comments from November 29, 2023, through December 30, 2023
Comment Response
Summary of comment: I would like to give my full support to the Galisteo Dam Master Plan. My only concern is the entrance road, route 16, which is in a miserable condition. This could become an issue for visitation now and in the future.
Noted. Galisteo is currently seeking funding to make repairs to the road.
Trevor Wallin from the Corps was quite brusque and completely unwilling to share anything other than to say it’s in Pueblo’s hands. He wouldn’t even say whether the closure was imminent.
3️⃣ R.S. 2477 vs Modern Law
This is exactly right:
Old system:
“If people used the road long enough, it’s a public road.”
New system:
“If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.”
25 CFR 169 is bureaucratic, expensive, and political.
It requires:
Tribal consent
Federal approval
Surveys
Appraisals
Payment
Time (often years)
That’s why the state backed away.
Reliance Interest Doctrine
This one is subtle but powerful.
Courts recognize:
If people relied on government conduct for decades,
government can’t suddenly pull the rug out without justification.
You relied on:
State highway
USPS service
County fire access
Utility routes
That creates “reasonable reliance.”
Courts take that seriously.
Hardly scientific but of the 23 people who responded we each use the dam road an average 3.64 times a week or some 65.5 times a week one way.
The New Mexico Supreme Court decision in Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe (decided June 16, 2016) solidified that New Mexico state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a tribe, even regarding land the tribe owns in fee simple, unless the tribe waives its sovereign immunity or Congress authorizes the suit.
"The 2012 trust action was reviewed. It was a federal BIA action published in the Federal Register �, and it specifically states that existing rights-of-way and easements of record remain in place �.
Fedral Register Vol 77 No 129 Thursday July 5 2012 Notices.pdf None
Fedral Register Vol 77 No 129 Thursday July 5 2012 Notices.pdf None
I have:
– Filed FOIA requests with the Army Corps of Engineers and the BIA.
– Filed an IPRA request with DOT (which did not produce any right-of-way records).
– Provided Day with a full historical breakdown, including the 2012 issue and the easement question.
At this point, we are waiting on documentation. Once we receive the records, we will know exactly where things stand.
We’re not ignoring these issues. They are already in motion.
Justin"
Sept. 10, 2025 – Northern Wisconsin homeowners, who had access to their homes blocked by the Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (LDF), last month received from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin the solution of implied easements.
The district court decision, United States v. Town of Lac du Flambeau, Nos. 23-cv-355-wmc, 23-cv-777-wmc, 23-cv-541-wmc 2025 WL 2244412 (W.D. Wis., Aug. 6, 2025), available at 2025 WL 2244412, may not necessarily end the dispute, here or elsewhere. source
That we're doing this in the Eleventh Hour means that if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.
Herb would call this looking up a dead horse's ass.
The 2012 BIA trust acquisition of thousands of acres by the Kewa Pueblo (formerly Santo Domingo Pueblo) shifted the legal landscape of the Galisteo Dam area from primary Santa Fe County jurisdiction to federal tribal trust land
. This transition has created significant conflicts for residents accessing private property (such as the Ortiz Mine Grant) via roads now under the sovereign control of the Pueblo.
WisBar.orgWisBar.org +1
Key Legal Friction Points
Easements of Record Limitation: The 2012 trust determination protected existing easements of record, but many access routes in the area are based on historically prescriptive use (long-term, unwritten use) or R.S. 2477 (1866 act granting rights-of-way over public lands). If access routes were not explicitly recorded, they may be deemed "permissive" rather than vested rights.
R.S. 2477 vs. 25 CFR Part 169: The BIA now requires a formal right-of-way (ROW) process under 25 CFR Part 169 for access to trust land, which includes tribal consent, surveys, and fair market value compensation. This conflicts with the "self-executing" nature of historic R.S. 2477 rights.
USACE "Middleman" Position: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates the dam and holds leases, but its easement is specifically for operational purposes, not for providing third-party access to private property, creating a "grey area" of liability.
eCFR (.gov)eCFR (.gov) +5
Potential Paths for Resolution
Given that the land is held in trust, residents generally cannot sue to quiet title in state court. The following are potential resolution methods:
FindLaw CaselawFindLaw Caselaw
Negotiated Agreements/MOUs: Creating a Memorandum of Understanding between the Pueblo, BIA, and residents' association to formalize access without a costly, formal ROW process.
BIA Administrative Remedy: Applying for a formal ROW under 25 CFR Part 169. While expensive, this provides maximum legal certainty.
Congressional Action: Amending the original legislation that authorized the trust acquisition to explicitly protect access for specific long-term residents.
LII | Legal Information InstituteLII | Legal Information Institute +3
I ran some projections for a $5 toll for a 24 hour use of the road by one vehicle and with all the service traffic the Pueblo could generate at least $60,000 a year.
Okay, I was ready to just say screw it and throw up my hands but just had a long phone conversation with Derrick Toledo from Rep. Leger Fernandez' office and he is calling the Pueblo right now. I emailed my blog post to him so he knows all i know now.
Corps' lease is functionally a narrow "work permit." They have no legal authority to grant third-party access over Pueblo lands for residential or mining purposes, as that exceeds the specific scope of dam operations.
I spoke to two realtors who were showing the Lobco property to about twelve Pueblo members. Here is the listing.
"The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, made a final agency determination to acquire approximately 7,393.75 acres of land into trust for the Pueblo of Santo Domingo on January 27, 2012." Federal Register.
It's not impossible to realize that the Kewa Pueblo and the Rio Galisteo are the same thing.
"1. Kewa Pueblo and USACE Land Rights
The USACE manages 2,247 acres of fee land at Galisteo Dam, which is located in Santa Fe County and immediately borders Kewa Pueblo lands.
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
+3
"Ancestral Claims: Kewa Pueblo is one of the primary tribes with documented ancestral roots in the Galisteo Basin and is routinely consulted on cultural and land-use matters.
Access and Roadways: While the USACE has primary jurisdiction over dam operations, any roads crossing Pueblo lands to reach the dam are subject to BIA Right-of-Way (ROW) regulations."
The committee meeting today went well but apparently the tribal governor was at the windmill the day I confronted them with what he said was a disrespectful tone so it looks like trespassing is apparently only good for the goose.
The Ball Ranch area, located in Sandoval County, New Mexico, is a significant cultural and ecological landscape primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). While the area is currently federal land, it is at the center of ongoing efforts to return ancestral lands to the San Felipe Pueblo, with neighboring Santo Domingo Pueblo (Kewa) also holding historical and cultural ties to the region.
New Mexico Legislature (.gov)
New Mexico Legislature (.gov)
+1
Land Ownership and Status
Federal Management: The core of the Ball Ranch (approximately 7,167 acres) is managed by the BLM. It was designated an ACEC in 1987 due to its high density of cultural resources, including ancestral Puebloan sites and significant fossil beds.
Tribal Interests: The San Felipe Pueblo is the primary tribe seeking to bring this land into trust. However, the Santo Domingo Pueblo (Kewa) also has documented ties and has been part of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the BLM to protect shared cultural resources in the area.
Trust Acquisitions: In 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acquired approximately 7,393 acres of nearby land into trust specifically for the Pueblo of Santo Domingo.
The ~7,167-acre Ball Ranch Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Sandoval County, NM, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management to protect significant cultural, paleontological, and botanical resources. The area is currently the focus of federal legislation to return the land to the San Felipe Pueblo.
Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (.gov)
Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (.gov)
+4
Key Details on the Ball Ranch Area
Management & Designation: Managed by the Bureau of Land Management as an ACEC to protect sensitive resources, including the tufted sand verbena, which is a rare plant.
Tribal Significance: The area contains ancestral Puebloan sites, making it culturally significant to surrounding pueblos.
Legislative Efforts: In September 2024, Rep. Melanie Stansbury introduced legislation to direct the Department of the Interior to transfer the Ball Ranch area into trust for the San Felipe Pueblo.
Background Context: The San Felipe Pueblo has previously requested assistance in securing this land to protect it for future generations.
Morally and ethically we live on Kewa ground while the Federal Register says otherwise.
Dear neighbors,
We had a meaningful, respectful meeting today with the Governor Raymond Aguilar and 3 additional tribal council members.
Governor Aguilar conducted the meeting. He is positively impressive. He opened and closed the meeting with a prayer in the “Keres” language. Right away he honestly apologized for the letter sent by the post master and understood that we were frightened by it.
He wanted at first to know about all 3 of us and our neighborhood. All of us did an incredible job in representing ourselves and the community accurately and respectfully. We were received with genuine openness.
When the Governor spoke of his community it became very clear that to this day they are shedding tears about all the land that was taken from them and their desire to have it back.
The Governor then expressed in several ways their hurt with unfriendly and disrespectful reactions towards them by some of our community members and in specific quite aggressive behaviors by 1 or 2 persons in the recent past, as well as in prior years. However the Governor and the tribe are interested in a neighborly relationship with us and they think it should have started a long time ago.
Governor Aguilar also mentioned that there was no agreement with the tribal council about the mailboxes.
We mentioned Joe Asher teaching at their school and having talked to some tribal members about allowing mailboxes there, but he said there was no record. Maybe the “institutional memory” got lost.
The Governor assured us that for now the road remains open and that there is some hope. He will present the situation to the tribal council and the decision remains with the tribal council, who is his boss. They meet again in a few weeks.
We as the committee members need now to emphasize urgently to everyone that for our continuous access it is super important for all of us to always be friendly, respectful and non threatening. Don’t ask “what are you doing, why are you here?” Just wave and smile - we are literally treading on thin ice.
Absolutely no contacting, calling any outside agencies, potential advocates or representatives for now.
The governor’s office will contact our committee afterwards on what is next. Unfortunately, Governor Aguilar said he couldn't give us any further information at this point.
Given this current situation we will keep our retainer with our lawyer, give her the information about our meeting today, but ask her not to initiate any next steps until more facts become clear.
If there are more concerns or questions by anyone in our community we strongly prefer to have another in person gathering - the email threads become very taxying and at times confusing.
With good cheers and kindness your neighborhood representatives
Katharina, Lynn and Justin
Information regarding the original right-of-way (ROW) documents for the Galisteo Dam road, constructed in the 1960s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is primarily managed by the USACE Albuquerque District. The Galisteo Dam project, which was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1960 and completed in 1970, includes 2,247.27 acres of USACE fee-owned land, with access roads traversing both federal and private, as well as Kewa Pueblo (Santo Domingo Pueblo) lands.
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
+1
Accessing Original Records and Microfiche
USACE Albuquerque District: The most direct source for the original land acquisition, deed, and ROW documents is the Real Estate Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): Cartographic and land records for Corps projects are often found in NARA collections, particularly those relating to the Office of the Chief of Engineers (Record Group 77) or Bureau of Land Management records regarding federal land transfers.
Santa Fe County Records: Documentation regarding access roads connecting to the Dam may be located in the Santa Fe County Clerk’s office, as the project involved reconfiguring existing roads and infrastructure (such as the Los Alamitos Road/Camino Real).
Albuquerque District (.mil)
Albuquerque District (.mil)
+4
Relevant Historical and Project Context
Access Road History: The access road system crosses segments of the historic Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, also known locally as the Los Alamitos Road.
Archaeological Surveys: Specific surveys conducted for the boundary lines and construction of the dam in the late 1960s and 1970s (e.g., by Dittert and Eddy) contain records of land use and site access that may reference original ROWs.
Land Ownership: The site is heavily constrained by surrounding private lands and Kewa Pueblo lands, making the specific, original ROW documentation crucial for understanding modern access rights.
Albuquerque District (.mil)
Albuquerque District (.mil)
+3
To obtain specific microfiche or digital scans of the original right-of-way maps or deeds, you should submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the USACE Albuquerque District referencing the "Galisteo Dam Project" and specifically asking for "land acquisition plats," "real estate instruments," or "easement/right-of-way documents" related to the access roads.
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
USACE-Albuquerque District (.mil)
·
Sun, Mar 8 at 9:32 AM
Message Body
Larry I am requesting that you don't keep sending out these kinds of scary messages to the community, based on your conspiracy theories of the moment. I am sorry that you believe most people are "dicks" as you said at my table the other night, but we are not going forward with that belief. Yes our country is being run by unbelievably evil dicks, but I, as well as most people I associate with, still have faith in basic humanity.
If you truly believe that ethically and morally we are on Kewa land, as you said above, then you must understand that they do not think they are trespassing when they are on our land. When you go over to the well and tell them that they are, that is aggressive in their eyes. Do we know what they are doing there? No. But I truly can't see how they could steal DM's welI. I also do not understand why the windmill is half on their side. These are things I would like to get clarity on. But we may need to think differently about our private property in regard to the Pueblo and give them access here. They have sacred sites here they mentioned. And before we all settled here they had free reign. As a non-land owner you of all people should be OK with them coming around.
I have happily explored all over everyone's land here in the neighborhood and have been accused of trespassing a few times. I can tell you it felt aggressive and threatening each time. Especially when it was Marga. We are fortunate to live in a place without fences and with great places to walk and explore. I feel like I have the right to do so! And like Woody Guthrie said- on one side the sign said no trespassing, but on the other side it didn't say nothing. This land was made for you and me babe. Sometimes I ask people for permission. Only Marga said no. Don't be a Marga.
You of course have the right to say whatever you want. It's still a free country! But not as a representative of our committee. Please be respectful of our efforts and think about the effect your words may have before you send them off. If you do undermine our efforts I won't be able to forgive you. Sorry.
Lynn
Tell me who said it first. A lawyer is like a gun: if you carry one around long enough sooner or later you're gonna use it.
The former NM State Road 22 that connects NM State Road 14 to I-25 is now Santa Fe County Road 57A and in Sandoval County it is 52A Rd also referred to as FL 1621.
County Road 57A is the dividing line between 355 acres of the San Felipe Pueblo and 2,124 acres of the Santo Domingo Grant.
Santo Domingo Pueblo Tribal Programs
5m
·
Important Notice from Roads & Transportation:
“This information is regarding the setting of Girders on the New Mateo Bridge.
As stated in the project progress meeting Wednesday, AUI, the Construction Contractor, will start placing girders Wednesday 3/18 around 9am. Traffic control will remain in place as is and we will utilize the typical flagger operation that we are using now. Traffic will remain open on SP88 for the duration except for when we are placing a girder. As soon as the girder is set, we will open traffic back up till the next girder is ready to be set. It should take us about 15-20 minutes to set each girder.
We will place 4 girders on Wednesday 3/18 and the remaining 3 on Thursday 3/19. We will start about 9am on Thursday for the remaining 3 as well.
Also, permission has been granted through TPA and AUI will have a drone up to document the girder placement. The recording will be of the girder-setting process only.
If you have questions, please contact me at 505-269-4766.
-Kathy Ashley, Transportation Director"
"Dear neighbors,
I wanted to share a few updates:
As mentioned in our recent meeting, representatives from the Pueblo, along with realtors, may be visiting the Lobco property this Thursday. There is no cause for concern.
We have also learned that the Department of Transportation and Kewa leadership are planning a private meeting later this month to continue discussions on the situation.
Additionally, Jerry Valdez confirmed that they will be driving our roads to better understand our access conditions.
More updates to follow as we learn more.
Warm regards,
Katharina, Lynn and Justin"
"Truthfully I think there's a fair amount of anxiety out there. But there are a few meetings coming up that will help us know more about what is going to happen.
The Tribe and the DOT are going to meet to reengage with the easement issue; Justin and Jerry Valdez from DOT are planning to drive the back way to HWY14 (before the meeting) so he knows first hand that is not a viable access for us; County Commissioner Bustamante with the Fire Chief and the tribal liaison from the county are currently requesting a meeting with Kewa leadership; and sometime soon (mysterious date) the Kewa's tribal council is meeting. There should be good advocacy for us in these meetings. And then the more anxiety producing news is that the Tribe is meeting with realtors, and will likely purchase some or all of the land that is for sale. Which means we will be closer neighbors and we will really need to be allies. We are certainly hoping for that, and it would be a wonderful outcome of this mess. Right now we are in a holding pattern.Still doing research and reaching out. By the end of the month we should know more.
Thanks for asking Michelle! I know we are anxious but lets be patient, stick together, and be kind to each other in the meanwhile!"
Lynn
The Pueblo is pounding sand right up our asses.
“ Good day everyone,
Just a quick notice: we got a text from Jerry Valdez at DoT informing us that the private meeting with DoT and SDTribe which was planned for the end of March is now postponed to the end of April. No further info was given
Exercise in patience continues
Kindly
Katharina”
Stalling talks with NMDoT gives the Pueblo enough time to close their deal on the Lobco property knowing the realtor talked to the tribal council today. There are four parcels totaling about 937 acres: listing.
Dear neighbors-
We want you to know that we drove the backroads with a lawyer (Harry) yesterday who is a consultant for our lawyer Dayan, and is someone who specializes in real estate and land issues. Justin drove his truck from the beginning of Red Rock to Katharina’s turn off and back down and around to Red Rock all the way to Highway 14 and back. We believe the message about the extreme difficulty of traversing this road on a regular basis was conveyed. We discussed the legal situation along the way and Harry was very on board with our determination to work out an amicable decision with the tribe. Harry is a native New Mexican who's practiced law here for over 50 years, lives off Highway 14 in the East Mountains, and is well connected to our politicians and important players. He thinks we need to connect with Heinrich and Lujan, as well as Lujan Grisham, and have all involved at the table. We liked him and think he will be an asset to our cause. We will be writing new letters to try and get everyone involved who should be involved.
Because various meetings have been delayed, we are using this time to dive deeper into researching the history of the Dam road and previous legal decisions. For those who have been wondering what the easement or ROW decision was between the tribe and the ACOE I found this:
• Historical Condemnation: Much of the primary
access for the dam was historically secured by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
through condemnation rather than voluntary
ROW agreements with the
Pueblo. * Santa Fe County (.g... +1
If anyone knows more about this, please pass on the info. This is something we will try to understand better with our lawyers. Also Justin has filed FOIA requests with the ACOE and we are still waiting for their response.
Yeah, no. Condemnation formally seizes private property through eminent domain, but it cannot generally be applied to Indian trust or tribal lands by states. While Congress may authorize the condemnation of allotted Indian lands for public purposes (25 U.S.C. § 357), states cannot take tribal land through eminent domain due to federal trust responsibility and tribal sovereignty.
Comparison to Cochiti Lake Project: For the nearby Cochiti Lake project, a "Memorandum of Understanding" and an "Easement Grant and Agreement" were executed in 1965 with the Cochiti Pueblo, indicating a negotiated rather than condemned acquisition for that specific project.
Access Road: Remnants of the historic "Los Alamitos Road," part of the Camino Real, cross the Galisteo Dam project, and it is a major transportation route used by the project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed the Galisteo Dam in 1970, and the project required extensive land acquisition, including areas historically utilized by the Pueblo, particularly the Pueblo de Cochiti and the Pueblo of Santo Domingo (now known as Kewa Pueblo). While the provided search results do not explicitly detail the legal mechanism (condemnation vs. voluntary ROW) for the primary access road, they establish that the project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1960, involved complex, long-term land impacts on tribal lands.
Albuquerque District (.mil)
Albuquerque District (.mil)
+4
Land Acquisition: The Galisteo Dam and Reservoir Project encompasses 2,247.27 acres of USACE fee land, much of which was acquired during the 1960s.
Pueblo Land Returned: In July 2010, the USACE Albuquerque District returned 310 acres of land that had been acquired to build the Galisteo Dam to the Kewa (formerly Santo Domingo) Pueblo.
Historical primary access for the
Cochiti Dam was indeed largely secured through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) leveraging condemnation (eminent domain) threats against the Cochiti Pueblo.
New Mexico In DepthNew Mexico In Depth +1
Initial Refusal: In 1959, the USACE requested title to 2,600 acres of tribal land for the dam, which the Pueblo refused to surrender.
Threat of Condemnation: By 1965, the USACE formally threatened condemnation proceedings if the Pueblo did not grant a perpetual easement for approximately 4,671 acres.
Forced Agreement: Faced with the threat of losing the land entirely through legal force, Pueblo elders eventually conceded to the project, pleading only for the protection of specific sacred sites.
Compensation: The resulting 1965 "Easement Grant and Agreement" covered 4,070 acres, for which the Pueblo was paid $145,200 (roughly $12.50 per acre).
Historical Legacy: This use of disproportionate bargaining power led to decades of tension. It wasn't until 2001 that the USACE issued a formal apology to the Cochiti Pueblo for the "wrongdoings" committed during the dam's development.
Post a Comment