Letters to the Editor
Farmers have right to sell water rights
Editor:
Concerning your article, Upstream Battle, published on June 29.
The facts are Dr. and Mrs. Bhasker bought and paid for their land and farmed it for 35 years. It was an investment for them and they decided to cash in with their pre-1907 water rights.
It is their right to dispose of their property as they see fit. Whether they need the money or not is not the issue.
If I had pre-1907 water rights on any of the 130 acres that my husband and I farm and own, we would sell them in a heartbeat.
According to your article, many of Dr. Bhasker’s neighbors have sold their water rights. That speaks volumes. Many young people do not want to follow the farming tradition and frankly I don’t blame them. Farming has become an expensive, thankless and risky endeavor. The farmer has to fight pests, weeds, put up with the high cost of parts and equipment — not to mention the regulations that environmental groups place on the farmer.
While our fields lay parched, we have to keep the river at full capacity for the silver minnow. The farmer is given water only after the minnow has had its fill. There is something wrong in the universe and the world when a fish takes priority over a person’s right to irrigate his crops. By the way, we pay for this water through our conservancy taxes.
My dad used to say that no matter what property you bought, you never finish paying for it even though your mortgage says “paid in full.” And, there was always someone out there putting rules and regulations to make it harder for you to keep it.
Now I know what he meant.
Louisa Lopez, Luis Lopez, N.M.
Don’t blame the lawsuit on me
Editor:
During the past year, criticism has been directed my way, no doubt from people friendly to the interests of long term Socorro Electric Cooperative trustees apparently upset with my early-on refusal to dismiss my SEC lawsuit answer and countersuit.
In my quest for simple, easy to understand, honest, forthright information explaining the “why” of it all, I obtained the latest court filing by the Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm, which reads, in part, as follows:
This court originally held that service on “the vast bulk of the ‘unnamed members’ who were originally named as Defendants in this matter” was ineffective. Since these parties were never served, there was no barrier to dismissing them. Once a party answered, this case could not be dismissed without their consent. Consent to dismissal was tantamount to allowing the question of the application of the bylaw amendments to remain unanswered. Presumably, the Trustees’ would have continued their unwillingness to accept the bylaw amendments as binding and the rights, duties and obligations of the parties would be returned to legal limbo. Thus voluntary dismissal would not end the controversy, would not have resulted in recognition of the validity of the amendments and would have precluded this matter being litigated in the future. It was acceptance by the Trustees of the validity of the amendments and not dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim which would have minimized the overall costs of litigation.
Why any group of honest trustees would initiate a lawsuit of this type against involved member-owners defies legal logic. That expressed, why anyone would fault another for refusing to “back off” from a very much needed and very much required answer and countersuit boggles the mind.
Question: Who do these actors and detractors wish to protect?
Alvin Hickox, San Antonio