County Commission and Spring Ditch File Complaints Against Town of Taos

County’s Quo Warranto

In an astounding development, the County of Taos has filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Quo Warranto” against the Town of Taos. In laymen’s words, the County is contesting the authority of the Town to annex property adjacent to its boundaries due to procedural mishaps. Specifically, the County alleges the “Town of Taos routinely failed to follow procedural requirements and in some cases, failed to follow any process whatsoever in expanding its boundaries.” According to the complaint the defendant—the Town of Taos—must demonstrate the authority i.e. “Quo Warranto” under which the Town legitimately operates.

For years, according to researchers and county records, the Town of Taos has usurped and otherwise annexed residential and commercial property without providing notice to residents, parciantes, the County, filing documents with the County Clerk, or, indeed, passing ordinances per the state’s annexation statutes. There is little in the way of a paper trail that records annexation transactions, according to researchers.

The annexation issue became general knowledge during the controversial approval of the Valverde Commons—Autumn Acres project by the Town. Among others, parcientes and local landowners or neighbors say their rights were ignored. Further, the property in question i.e. the Thais Bullard meadow west of Valverde St. was not annexed, according to procedures, outlined by state regs, say the neighbors. Years ago, Bullard herself told friends that she wanted to preserve the parcel and never mentioned annexation or development.

(The Town has proffered a map but no documents re: ordinances per the process, according to Flavio.)

Under previous town administrations (70s, 80s, 90s, 00s) the Town splurged in an annexation spree, acquired huge chunks of commercial property along Paseo Del Pueblo Sur (South Santa Fe Road) worth millions of dollars in gross receipts taxes. If successful, the County could ask for reimbursements of illegally taken revenue.

Like the controversial Arroyo Hondo Land Grant Claim, which has produced dark clouds for title companies on Hondo residential property, the County-Town controversy could create a cloud on the titles of Town homeowners. In the event of a failed sale due to title problems, the homeowner could file a lawsuit against the town for misrepresenting the boundaries and creating the cloud.

Readers of this column will remember the clouds descending over the Town’s Chamisa Verde Affordable Housing project, wherein the Town violated its own and statewide affordable housing ordinances as well as the anti-donation clause. Suddenly, homeowners were unable to sell their property. But, since that controversy involved the high and mighty nobody has been brought low—except the taxpayers. The AG turned the problem back over to the Town, where the matter has been hushed up.

Spring Ditch is Back!

For more than forty years the Spring Ditch parcientes (acequia source begins next to La Bell Cleaners and McDonalds) have been fighting a rear guard action against urban encroachment by the town and developers. Now, the parcientes of the fabled ditch, represented by attorney Fred Waltz, have filed a complaint in district court, seeking redress from the Town. Allegations against the town include but are not limited to the destruction of the ditch and spring, contamination of stream flow, blocking laterals, and the degradation of water rights due to the drop in the water table because of Town Well No. 5.

When the Town wasn’t polluting the Spring Ditch with storm water, the Town was issuing building permits that effectively reduced and/or stopped the flow of water to thirsty downstream fields and gardens, according to allegations in the complaint. Basically, the complaint alleges that the Town engaged in a number of violations of parcientes’ water rights—all of which are protected by the N.M. Constitution.

Parcientes sought help for years to mitigate the damage but were stonewalled by the town. While the DA did pursue a private party for allegedly violating the parcientes constitutional rights, the state prosecutor has avoided government-to-government matters, pleading “conflict of interest.”

A former town manager, who was allegedly part of the responsible town agency involved in allegedly issuing a building permit that occluded part of the Spring was also allegedly present during the time when the Town violated affordable housing ordinances and anti-donation clauses. The Disappeared (former) Town Manager and former Town Attorney is in work release program, under the  “protective custody” of the DA, according to web site info, somewhere near Clayton, NM—not far from the state line.

(You can see someone coming for miles around in Clayton and get the jump on your pursuers by dashing into Texas or up to Oklahoma.)

According to the facts outlined in the Spring Ditch complaint, “The Spring Ditch has the right to divert and use public waters from the Rio Pueblo de Taos stream system, with a priority date of 1800, for the beneficial use by its members or parcientes.”

You can run over them, build on top of them, drill wells and take their water but you can’t get rid of the parcientes: They just go out and get their shovels and keep on coming.