Friday, March 11, 2011

Udall, Bennet push for pledge not to expand Pinon Canyon site

Fort Carson officials have said for months the Army no longer has the immediate need or money to pursue expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site — but Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet want Army leaders to say so in writing for Southeastern Colorado ranchers. The two Democrats sent a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh asking for that written declaration Thursday, a statement that would signal at least a short-term surrender on the Army's part in the five-year fight between landowners and the Pentagon over the bitterly contested effort to expand the Army's 238,000-acre training area northeast of Trinidad...more

Ranchers, who have been fighting the expansion since 2006, say the threat of condemnation has kept them from making needed improvements, has lowered their land value, and they want the expansion waiver rescinded.

The two primary citizen groups opposing the Army on Pinon Canyon — Not 1 More Acre! and the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition — have been pressing for Udall, Bennet or other Colorado lawmakers to revoke the February 2007 waiver that the Defense Department granted the Army to begin acquiring more land around Pinon Canyon. At that time, the Army was seeking to nearly triple the size of the training area, asking the Pentagon's permission to add another 418,000 acres. Ranchers have argued that the Pentagon would take a large step to reassuring landowners if it revoked the 2007 waiver — although it could also be restored with the pen stroke by any secretary of defense. The Udall-Bennet letter stops short of calling for revoking the land acquisition waiver, saying the senators understand that could cause complications for the Pentagon in other land acquisitions. Lon Robertson, a Kim rancher and president of the opposition coalition, was skeptical about what an Army letter might signify if the Pentagon retains the 2007 authorization to expand Pinon Canyon. "We appreciate that the senators understand our financial situation," Robertson said. "But I wonder what a written statement by the Army would be worth if it holds onto the authorization to expand when money becomes available."

Sadly, the lone Republican has this to say:

Pinon Canyon is located in the 3rd Congressional District where former Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., was a key leader in opposing expansion. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., now represents the district and Thursday, his spokesman said the freshman congressman commended Udall and Bennet for their letter. Tipton is looking for a long-term solution to the controversy, Josh Green said in an e-mail. "In order for that to happen, there needs to be trust on all sides of the issue and the congressman is committed to working to build that trust," he said.

THE WESTERNER sez:

Apparently Udall and Bennet don't want to "complicate" things for the Pentagon, so are seeking a half-hearted piece of paper that over time will mean nothing and thus continue to "complicate" things for the ranchers.

The comments of Tipton are just pitiful, as he becomes a purveyor of pablum about "trust". If he had any knowledge at all of the fed's previous acquisition for the Fort he would know there is absolutely zero reason to trust them. In fact, anyone who trusts them can only be considered a fool. Finally, standard operating procedure for a Congressional Delegation would have been for Tipton to be shown the letter and given the opportunity to sign. He apparently chose not to sign and so the question becomes why? Do we have another Republican who is favoring the feds over property owners and wants to keep the acquisition proposal alive?

The best option is to once again have the language in the DOD appropriations bill that prevents the Army from spending any money to even study the proposed acquisition. Anything less is a subterfuge. Army Brig. Gen. James Doty, Fort Carson's commander, says "...the Army no longer believes there is any need for expanding Pinon Canyon right now and there isn't any money in the foreseeable future (five years) to do that." So the Army would have no reason to oppose the insertion of such language.

If Udall and Bennet really care and want to make sure "lenders and landowners can make prudent land-use and financial decisions," they will put that language in the Senate bill.

The Pentagon is one of the largest landowners in the world as they own 30 million acres. If that's not enough to practice on, they need to get a new coach.


UPDATE

A more complete article is here. The local business community is also seeking revocation of the waiver and apparently Tipton will consider the appropriations language as a last resort and after they "make sure that we’re doing what people want."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

if not there, where? everbody is willing to say where the operating area shouldn't be, but no onw offers a solution to where it should be.

In the meantime, the area where the kids we need to train to deploy gets smaller and smaller and smaller like some Alice through the looking glass nightmare.

Frank DuBois said...

Do you really believe there is nowhere in those 30 million acres where they could train and operate?

In total the feds own 650 million acres, so there is no need to condemn private property.

The Army and all of the feds need to better manage the lands they already have.