DENVER-
State lawmakers planted what they hope will be a poison pill in the Army’s plans to enlarge a massive training site in southeastern Colorado on Friday and bluntly told the federal government they hope to make expansion unpalatable.
The House passed a bill giving the state partial control over any property the government seizes for the Pinon Canyon training site through condemnation, which backers hope will be an unacceptable condition.
Legislators also tacked on an amendment saying “it is the intent of the General Assembly to make any such acquisition less desirable to the federal government.”
But some lawmakers said the move was largely symbolic and that the state does not have the power to stop the federal government from using condemnation to force property owners to sell.
The Army is considering whether to expand the Pinon Canyon site nearly threefold, to about 654,000 acres from the current 235,368 acres. The training site is used by soldiers from Fort Carson.
The military has not yet asked Congress for any money for the expansion. The Army has said it that if it does go ahead with the expansion, it has no plans to use condemnation powers and would instead try to lease the property it needs.
Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, called the proposed expansion a land grab that would destroy the economy in a large swath of productive cropland and cattle ranches.
“We cannot afford this,” McKinley said.
McKinley said the bill approved Friday would allow the state to retain some control over any military facility that is built on any property the military might forcibly purchase for Pinon Canyon. He said the federal government doesn’t like sharing control of its facilities.
Opponents of the bill said Colorado was sending the wrong signal in a time of war, and that the military needs the land to train soldiers in tank warfare.
“You’re telling the Department of Defense, the United States of America, with this amendment, ‘Go away, we do not wish to have you in Colorado,'” said Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.
Ranchers say the Army hasn’t proven why it needs more land. The Army has pointed to Fort Carson’s projected growth, from 16,000 troops now to about 25,000 troops in 2009, as part of the reason.
Steve Wooten, whose extended family has hundreds of thousands of acres in the potential expansion area, said the military hasn’t said how it intends to use the property.
“The Army hasn’t demonstrated any need for this,” he said.
He said the military heavily damaged the property it already has in the region while training soldiers in the 1980s.
Lon Robertson, who owns 2,000 acres near Kim, said the Army already has training facilities near Fort Carson.
“They ought to be able to use what they have without pushing people off their land,” he said.
