{"id":27350,"date":"2024-06-03T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/conflict-escalates-between-durango-southern-utes-over-annexation\/"},"modified":"2026-03-30T23:57:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T05:57:42","slug":"conflict-escalates-between-durango-southern-utes-over-annexation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/conflict-escalates-between-durango-southern-utes-over-annexation\/","title":{"rendered":"Conflict escalates between Durango, Southern Utes over annexation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"What
What sort of control over privately held land that falls within the exterior boundary of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation has become a point of contention between the tribe and the city of Durango. (Durango Herald file)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

The city of Durango and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe have escalated a conflict over potential annexation of land south of Durango in a series of battling newspaper columns and articles in which both governments have been accused of obfuscation and deceitful conduct.<\/p>\n

The conflict stems from long-conceptualized plans to develop the area along La Posta Road (County Road 213). Part of the plan has been to annex private land along La Posta Road into the city limits and provide municipal services there.<\/p>\n

However, the SUIT has objected to the annexation, some of which includes privately owned land within the reservation\u2019s exterior boundary, and called the move an illegal attempt to take tribal land.<\/p>\n

In a May 17 article in The Southern Ute Drum<\/em>, the tribal government\u2019s newspaper, a front-page staff report headlined \u201cDurango\u2019s secret efforts to annex Reservation lands<\/a>\u201d slams the city and its annexation efforts.<\/p>\n

City Attorney Mark Morgan fired back in an opinion column<\/a> published May 26 in The Durango Herald<\/em>, in which he accuses the tribe of executing a \u201cwell-orchestrated vilification of Durango.\u201d<\/p>\n

As far back as 1997, city officials have identified La Posta Road as an area for growth and discussed the possibility of annexation. Planning began formally in 2006 and a 100-page plan was adopted in 2013<\/a>. The most recent outline of plans, presented in January 2024,<\/a> details the construction of over 500 housing units and 100 acres of \u201ccritically needed light industrial and commercial property.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"The
The city has eyed parcels south of town along La Posta Road (County Road 213) for development, and possibly annexation, since 1997. (Jerry McBride\/Durango Herald)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"The
The city of Durango has expressed interest in annexing land near the Animas Air Park. The yellow on this map indicates Southern Ute Tribe Reservation lands.<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>
Whose land is it anyway, and who has control?<\/div>\n

Land within the boundary of the reservation falls under the jurisdiction of federal and tribal law.<\/p>\n

Control over cultural resources, some environmental regulatory responsibilities and enforcement of certain crimes falls to federal and tribal enforcement agencies within the boundaries of the reservation.<\/p>\n

The establishment of municipal control overlapping with tribal jurisdiction complicates that equation. Some parts of the law fall to tribal and federal agencies for enforcement, while others are left to state and local departments.<\/p>\n

Both parties acknowledge the complexity of those questions.<\/p>\n

While city officials have argued private property owners may request annexation on their own volition, the question of private property rights is not a matter of uncertainty, Tribal Chairman Melvin J. Baker said in a written statement to the Herald<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cProperty owners do not have a right to change the jurisdiction of the reservation, just like they do not have a right to decide to change what state their property is in,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The situation is akin to a private property owner in New Mexico asking to become a part of Colorado.<\/p>\n

\"Baker\"
Baker<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

\u201cNew Mexico, eyeing some parcels of nice land on the border with Colorado, cannot go to the owners of those parcels and ask if they would like to be annexed to New Mexico without first asking Colorado if they would approve it,\u201d Baker said. \u201cThe same basic principles apply to property owners who own property within the Reservation boundaries.\u201d<\/p>\n

Councilor Melissa Youssef said annexing private property within the reservation would not give the city ownership of that land and the city is not trying to take it.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe city would just be bringing water and sewer to the land, if it helps the region and the area,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Baker argues that annexation is not required under state law before a municipality can provide municipal services.<\/p>\n

Tribe takes a stand<\/div>\n

According to the tribe\u2019s version of events, city officials continually avoided and obscured their intentions with respect to annexation.<\/p>\n

Tribal leaders have invoked historical wrongdoing \u2013 particularly the 1874 Brunot Agreement, which shrunk the Ute land by 3.7 million acres and was negotiated under false pretenses \u2013 and argued that taking tribal land should remain a \u201cshameful legacy,\u201d rather than an ongoing reality.<\/p>\n

At a Feb. 12 meeting between city and tribal officials, city staff members indicated La Posta Road annexation plans were \u201con hold,\u201d the Drum <\/em>story said.<\/p>\n

The meeting was not recorded.<\/p>\n

However, at a Feb. 28 meeting<\/a> that was recorded, Durango\u2019s Community Development Director Scott Shine said the opposite.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do expect to get petitioned by the landowners in the near future for annexation,\u201d Shine told the Tribal Council.<\/p>\n

The tribe, at the time, felt the city \u201cwas being evasive,\u201d according to the Drum.<\/em><\/p>\n

On March 26, Baker sent then-Mayor Melissa Youssef a letter informing her of the tribe\u2019s intention to oppose annexation efforts unless the tribe gave its explicit consent.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that the City has actively engaged in efforts to forcibly annex Reservation land for the City\u2019s own economic benefit reflects the lack of respect the City has for the Tribe\u2019s history and sovereignty,\u201d Baker wrote in his letter to the mayor.<\/p>\n