Udall aims to restrain Army

The battle over the expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site moved Thursday to Congress after Rep. Mark Udall inserted into a federal bill limits on the Army’s ability to take land for the training grounds.

A number of observers took a blasé approach to the legislation, saying it simply puts into law what the Army already is undertaking before it can annex 418,000 acres onto the Las Animas County site. But Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce President Will Temby worries it sends a message that Colorado does not want to work with the Army or Fort Carson.

Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill last week withdrawing Colorado’s consent for the federal government to expand the Piñon Canyon site by condemning property. Though even backers question whether the state has the authority to keep the Army from using eminent domain, they said it sends a message that it must cooperate with local landowners.

Late Wednesday, Udall inserted into the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act nine conditions the Army must meet before it can consider acquisition of land. Those include the completion of an environmental impact statement analysis, the exploration of options such as landleasing or easements and allowing public access to cultural and historic sites on the property, all of which have been discussed before.

But some provisions, such as a guarantee of access for livestock grazing, could be controversial. Conditions that require consultation with the Colorado governor on local impacts and mandate that the Army reach agreement with the governor on use of state lands within the site are being raised for the first time.

Udall, an Eldorado Springs Democrat who is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated next year when Sen. Wayne Allard retires, said it’s time for the Army to explain why it needs the land and become more open with the public. Udall does not want to stop the proposed expansion of the roughly 253,000-acre site, he said, but wants to ensure that if it does happen, it will not damage the local area.

“My amendment is neither a red light nor green light for the Army,” Udall said. “But my proposal will shine a necessary caution light before the Army charges forward.”

Udall hopes to have a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the expansion in which the Army will be asked to make a “compelling case” why it needs to buy land for a tank-training area. He thinks he has enough support to keep the provision in the act, which sets policy and funding limits for the military.

Lt. Col. David Johnson, a Fort Carson spokesman, said all the conditions will be studied as the Army moves forward on a two-year environmental assessment process. Though he did not commit to including all the recommendations in a final plan, he said none will be eliminated immediately.

State Sen. Ken Kester, a Las Animas Republican who sponsored the state legislation, offered a minor criticism that Udall’s condition of getting payment-in-lieu-of-taxes payments to affected local governments is not a cure-all. But Kester appreciated the idea advancing in Congress.

Temby has said roadblocks to the expansion could lead the Army to look elsewhere, taking millions in economic development from the region.

“We do not want the perception of this great state to be construed in any way, shape or form as being anti-military,” he said.

CONTACT THE WRITER: (303)837-0613 or ed.sealover@gazette.com