Bill Overview
Title: Land Grant-Mercedes Traditional Use Recognition and Consultation Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior to issue guidance related to certain community land grants in New Mexico made by Spain or Mexico to individuals, groups, and communities to promote the settlement of the southwestern United States (land grant-mercedes). The guidance shall set forth the policies and procedures for notice and comment on planning decisions, routine engagement, and major federal actions that could impact historical-traditional uses of a qualified land grant-merced. In developing, maintaining, and revising land management plans and National Forest System land and resource management plans, as applicable, the USDA or Interior shall consider and, as appropriate, provide for and evaluate impacts to historical-traditional uses by qualified land grant-mercedes.
Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the Land Grant-Mercedes legislation
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill specifically addresses community land grants that were made by Spain or Mexico, indicating these lands are predominantly in the American Southwest, particularly New Mexico.
- The primary populations impacted will be the descendants and communities that were part of the original land grants established during the Spanish and Mexican periods.
- This group may include a mix of Hispanic and Indigenous populations who have historical ties to the land in question.
- The impact will primarily be on individuals and communities in New Mexico, given the specific mention in the bill.
Reasoning
- The policy's budget suggests a reasonable coverage of the intended population, especially those in New Mexico with historical ties to the land.
- With a target population of approximately 250,000, the individual impact will vary based on their involvement and reliance on these lands for traditional uses.
- The policy will primarily benefit those engaged in historical uses of the land; however, some individuals may remain unaffected if their connection is minimal or symbolic.
- The improvement in well-being may be gradual as the establishments of the guidance and engagement processes develop over time.
- Strong impact on those communities that have been actively seeking recognition and rights to traditional land uses.
- People who are unaware of their connection or lack the means to participate in the processes may not experience any impact.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy finally acknowledges the struggles we've had to maintain our traditional practices on these lands.
- I am hopeful that it will ensure sustainable practices and give our community a stronger voice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a positive step for both cultural preservation and environmental sustainability.
- While it doesn't affect me directly, the potential ecological benefits are promising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Teacher (Taos, NM)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating this into the curriculum could enhance awareness and respect for our heritage.
- It gives hope for deeper cultural ties and educational opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Las Cruces, NM)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is critical for understanding the role of traditional practices in modern environmental solutions.
- I am not directly impacted, but I support its goals as they align with sustainable development interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Farmington, NM)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I suppose it's important for history, but I've never been involved in any land grants.
- I don't see how it affects me personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Artist (Roswell, NM)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm inspired by the deeper cultural recognition this policy supports.
- It enriches my work but does not directly impact my daily life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Graduate (Silver City, NM)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the policy because it's opening up new areas of learning and advocacy for me.
- This is a chance to connect with my cultural past more meaningfully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IT Professional (Las Vegas, NM)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even without a personal connection, I see the potential community benefits and cultural justice this policy aims to address.
- It’s good to see such policies being considered, but my daily life won't change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cultural Coordinator (Española, NM)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides a new validation for years of advocacy work.
- I hope it increases resources and attention to our cultural preservation projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Rancher (Socorro, NM)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy like this is crucial for protecting our way of life and ensuring we have a seat at the table.
- I'm optimistic about the future of traditional grazing practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring fair and comprehensive engagement with affected communities might require additional administrative support and resources.
- Potential cultural and social benefits for communities with historical ties to affected land might arise, helping preserve traditional practices.
- The process may necessitate significant time investments by federal staff to understand and appropriately consider traditional land use concerns.