Washington – The U.S. House Friday blocked the military from moving forward with a plan to expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, at least for one year.
On a vote of 383-34, House members approved legislation from Reps. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, and John Salazar, D-Manassa, barring the military from using any of the money in its 2008 budget to extend its land holdings in southeastern Colorado.
That means the military will not be able to fund a planned environmental impact study needed before it could add 400,000 acres to the training site.
The legislation came in an amendment to a military spending bill, which was approved on a 409-2 vote.
The amendment pitted five of the seven members of Colorado’s U.S. House delegation against one, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs. He was the only one of the seven to vote against the amendment. Reps. Musgrave, Salazar, Diana DeGette, D-Denver, Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, and Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, voted for it. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton, did not vote.
“The military should at least be given a chance to study the possibility of having a training site that’s better for our soldiers,” Lamborn said after the vote.
Musgrave called it a victory for property owners in the area, who feared the military would use eminent domain to take land.
“The Army must stand guard and realize that ownership of private property is a sacred right in our country and the U.S. Congress is not going to give them a free pass on expansions,” Musgrave said.
Fort Carson officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The head of a group opposed to the expansion praised the move.
“We’re thrilled that this unprecedented bipartisan effort to protect the grasslands and agricultural economy of southeastern Colorado has received such strong support from the House,” said Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition president Lon Robertson.
Lamborn and Salazar had sent opposing letters to other House members about the issue.
Lamborn wrote that the amendment “would stop the Army from providing the soldiers with much needed additional training space, an action which could have serious negative consequences for the Army and the brave men and women serving our nation.”
Salazar in his letter said that “as a father whose son served two tours of duty based at Ft. Carson, I take great offense at the (letter) from Mr. Lamborn, implying that opposition to the condemnation of over 400,000 acres of agriculture land in my district would undermine the safety and training of our troops.
“No one can support the taking by force of their constituents land, homes, ranches, and towns,” Salazar added.
Staff writer Erin Emery contributed to this report.
