Is Colorado considered a national sacrifice area by the federal government?
Or is there just a general dismissive attitude regarding the West? We’re not even halfway into 2006 and already the administration’s made major proposals that could disastrously and permanently affect our Centennial State.
Most recent is the U.S. Army’s May 3 announcement that it wants to expand Fort Carson’s Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site between Trinidad and La Junta so that cannon and tank training with live ammunition can be implemented. Fort Carson is 132,000 acres, and Piñon Canyon 235,000 acres. The Army is perusing an “area of interest” of more than 1 million acres, including the town of Hoehne, with a 343-student school, two U.S. highways, and part of the Comanche National Grassland, home of the nation’s largest display of dinosaur tracks and an important wildlife habitat, and a segment of the historic Santa Fe Trail.
If a May 13 meeting in Pueblo with U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, a deputy secretary of the Army, and 500 ranchers, farmers, outfitters and small business owners is any indication, there may be an acute shortage of willing sellers. A list of 142 area families who say they wouldn’t sell was provided. One speaker testified that Las Animas County could lose up to $23 million each year in the deal.
To enlarge the site, the Army will need approval from the Department of Defense and money from Congress. Salazar said the Army wouldn’t be allowed to condemn the land through eminent domain, but anyone who’s watched the government do whatever it wants shouldn’t be assured.
For perspective: Colorado is 66.6 million acres, of which 57 percent is privately owned; the federal government has 37.2 percent, which includes national forests and parks and Bureau of Land Management holdings as well as four military bases; and the state government has 4.8 percent.
Which leads to other threats to the Colorado we know and love. In February, President Bush announced the administration would sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and BLM lands, which could bring more than $1 billion to help pay for rural schools and roads in 41 states. Colorado would lose 21,572 acres, including popular recreation spots and rare havens of solitude. The public protested by the thousands, and angry opponents charged the sale was to make up for tax cuts for the rich.
Opposition to the plan was one thing Democrats and Republicans in Congress could agree on, and a majority declared that a massive selling off of public lands was a bad idea.
Currently a statewide task force is evaluating Colorado’s 11 national forests and two grasslands totaling 14 million acres, of which just 4 million acres are roadless. The feds have turned the question of which roadless areas should be protected to the states, to make recommendations to the governor. At public hearings, the response has been almost unanimous to not permit new roads in these areas; last week, the Colorado Division of Wildlife came out strongly to protect these roadless areas. Whether the governor will heed these recommendations is anyone’s guess.
There’s a more optimistic scene from the National Park Service, which manages 84.5 million acres in parks, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, seashores, lakeshores and scenic trails. The fiscal 2007 budget proposes an increase of $23 million in operational costs.
Meanwhile, over in northwestern Colorado, while BLM land managers are completing an environmental study of what oil and gas drilling, if any, should be permitted on the54,000-acre Roan Plateau, energy companies are drilling on its 19,000 acres of private lands and cutting roads to the top.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources, conservationists and local municipalities believe the 35,000 acres of federal lands on the Roan should be protected from surface drilling, but the drillers are confident enough to build roads to the top. It appears they know no one will deny them.
From 1997 to 2002, Colorado lost 1.26 million acres of farm and ranches, with a projected loss of 3.1 million acres by 2022. That’s the land that gives us our beloved wide open spaces.
It’s a gloomy picture.
Joanne Ditmer’s column on environmental and urban issues for The Post began in 1962 and now appears once a month.
