MOU for traditional land uses

Full Title:
New Mexico Land Grant-Mercedes Historical or Traditional Use Cooperation and Coordination Act

Summary#

This bill would require the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to negotiate a written agreement with the New Mexico Land Grant Council to better manage long‑standing, noncommercial uses of Federal land by qualifying New Mexico community land grants (called land grant‑mercedes). The main change is a required memorandum of understanding (MOU) that spells out what traditional uses are allowed, how permits and fees are handled, how maintenance and improvements are treated, and how planning and notice will consider those uses. The broad goal is greater cooperation and clearer processes for historical or traditional use of Federal land by these New Mexico land grants.

  • Main change: Secretaries must enter an initial MOU with the New Mexico Land Grant Council within 2 years and then renew or extend it as needed.
  • The MOU must list types of historical or traditional uses (water use, gathering small amounts of plants or wood, grazing where historically done, subsistence hunting/fishing under state law, cemetery or shrine upkeep, etc.).
  • The MOU must describe permit procedures, any fees, and how to request fee reductions or waivers (including consideration of community socioeconomic conditions and governing body budgets).
  • The MOU must cover rules for vehicle/equipment use, use of nonnative materials, routine maintenance and minor repairs, and processes for major improvements (such as community water systems or roads) if the MOU chooses to address them.
  • Land use plans must, where appropriate, include a section evaluating how other uses affect these historical or traditional uses.
  • The MOU cannot itself approve or authorize a use; existing Federal laws and permits still govern actual authorizations.

What it means for you#

  • Community users (heirs of a qualified land grant‑merced): There may be clearer descriptions of what long‑standing, noncommercial uses you may seek to do on nearby Federal land. The departments must consider community socioeconomic conditions if fee reductions or waivers are possible.
  • Governing bodies of land grant‑mercedes: You can take part in MOU development and may be invited to meetings. The MOU may make it easier to do routine maintenance (trails, wells, fences, cemeteries) by describing authorization paths. Major projects (water systems, roads, fences) may be covered by a process described in the MOU but still need separate approvals.
  • New Mexico Land Grant Council: The Council may represent land grants in developing and implementing the MOU and will be a formal partner with Federal agencies.
  • Federal land managers (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.): Must enter MOUs with the Council, describe permit and fee processes, consider historical uses in land use plans, and consult with affected Indian Tribes.
  • Indian Tribes: The bill requires the Secretaries to consult Indian Tribes that would be directly affected by a proposed historical or traditional use; the MOU must describe how such consultation will occur.
  • State government (New Mexico): The bill preserves the State’s authority over water and game and fish management; it does not change state regulatory powers.
  • General public: The bill does not create any new right to use Federal land by itself and does not change existing Federal rights or permits.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or specific cost estimates for Federal agencies, the New Mexico Land Grant Council, tribes, or municipalities.
  • The MOU process could involve agency staff time for negotiation, consultations, plan revisions, and possible fee‑handling procedures, but the bill does not quantify those costs.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to create clearer, formal coordination between Federal agencies and New Mexico land grants about traditional, noncommercial uses of Federal land.
  • This could be seen as improving clarity about when permits are needed and how fees are set or waived for low‑income communities.
  • The bill appears intended to protect routine maintenance and cultural practices (cemeteries, shrines, monuments) by describing authorization paths.
  • Including historical uses in land use plans could be seen as better accounting for local practices when agencies make management decisions.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the MOU process may not change actual legal permit requirements; the bill explicitly says an MOU cannot itself authorize uses, so users may still need separate approvals.
  • The bill leaves important decisions to the Secretary concerned (for example, whether grazing was traditionally carried out on particular Federal land), which could create disagreement about who qualifies.
  • The text does not provide cost estimates, so it is unclear how much staff time, consultation, or project review will cost Federal agencies or local governments.
  • The MOU may leave unclear how major improvements will be approved in practice, since it only allows the MOU to describe a process rather than grant authority.
  • Although the bill requires consultation with Indian Tribes, it does not specify standards for resolving conflicts between land grant uses and tribal rights or resources; the bill also reiterates it does not affect treaty or tribal rights.