U.S. Customs and Border Protection is looking into concerns by New Mexico's top land manager about whether federal agents can access a milelong stretch of state land along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Federal officials sent New Mexico Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn a letter this month about his concerns over the installation of a border wall, infrastructure and roads on state trust land years ago. The letter released Thursday says the agency is gathering records and plans to meet with Dunn in early April.
Karl Calvo, an assistant commissioner that oversees Customs and Border Protection's facilities and assets, said in the letter that the agency values its relationship with the State Land Office. "An important part of CBP's strategy to successfully secure the nation's borders includes developing and leveraging partnerships and dialogue with state and local stakeholders to ensure that the unique operational needs of each region are effectively met," Calvo wrote.
The letter was sent to Dunn, who is running for U.S. Senate, after he posted signs and cordoned off the land along the border. Dunn said his office was forced to take action in early March after the U.S. government failed to respond to his previous correspondence.
Dunn contends the federal government never got the needed authorization to access the state land and has not compensated New Mexico for using the property. He has called it a state sovereignty issue and said revenue earned from development or use of state trust land helps fund public education.
"I am confident we can agree upon terms that will enable us to collect revenue for New Mexico schoolchildren and them to manage their national security operations," Dunn said in a statement Thursday...
more
"An important part of CBP's strategy to successfully secure the nation's
borders includes developing and leveraging partnerships and dialogue
with state and local stakeholders to ensure that the unique operational
needs of each region are effectively met," Calvo wrote.
And therein lies the issue I'm confident Dunn is bringing to the fore. Rather than recognizing the sovereignty of the State of NM, the feds are treating the state as simply another "stakeholder", like the Sierra Club or other entities. Homeland Security has paid millions of dollars to the Dept. of Interior for the use of their lands but, so far, is not compensating NM for the use of state lands. Congrats to Dunn for bringing this issue to the public's attention.
 |
| The photograph was taken as President William Howard Taft signed the bill to make New Mexico a state on Jan 6, 1912. |
3 comments:
In the case of Interior, USDA or other agencies, "Their land" is all federal land and why should compensation be paid to any of those agencies. As for the state lands that might be another question as to payments. What are the payments for? What is the state losing when the wall is built? What will the state spend the money for? It looks like a money grab on the part of the state of NM, something it is really good at doing. Grab the money from the land grant colleges and spend it for the rail-runner project or some other meaningless, nonsensical political whim which becomes a financial millstone on the neck of the NM taxpayers. This is a stone-age state, led by Neanderthals who have not discovered there is a world outside the boundaries of this state.
Big issue not addressed seems the compensation to the PRIVATE land owners. Time for the tables to be turned and the landowner not be a 'stake holder' but the pinion gear that turns the whole bull gear of property rights. Private property rightd are at the pinnacle of land rights.
To anonymous
I agree about one federal agency paying another to use federal land. In this case, the funds were supposedly for "mitigation" of damage by BP to Interior lands. In reality, they were a way for Interior to raid Homeland Security budget to fund Interior pet projects on the border.
On state charging a fee: If you or I or the state of NM wants a right-of-way across federal lands, we pay a fee. So I think it very appropriate the SLO charge a similar fee to the feds. The other option is for the feds to do a land exchange so they end up owning the lands in question.
Funds generated by the SLO go to the trust beneficiaries (schools) or to the Land Grant Permanent Fund.
The Rail-Runner is a huge boondoggle. See "Passenger Rail not worth the big subsidies it requires" http://riograndefoundation.org/passenger-rail-not-worth-big-subsidies-it-requires/
Post a Comment