The debate over the Army’s desired expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site has been hijacked by emotional rhetoric and political posturing, particularly over the issue of eminent domain.
Up until the Colorado legislature passed symbolic but questionable legislation to withdraw state consent for federal eminent domain, we have had a semi-debate fraught with emotion, some facts, numerous half-facts, and more than a few cow patties thrown on the Army’s efforts. Even the Army’s recent unveiling of its targeted land has done little to quell the emotion or clarify the issue. It is time to move on.
So far, this debate has reminded me of sparring in a boxing ring but with one difference: there was only one contender in the ring. In this case, the Army in Washington has been missing by not presenting the case that should have kicked off this issue: why it needs the land. Up to now, everything has been backward, with the issues of where and how preceding the why of the attempted acquisition.
Aside from its recent announcement, the Army has said little regarding the reasons it needs to expand. Thus, the field is left open to a number of players, some with real concerns, such as the ranchers, but also others who are using this issue to push their own political agenda.
Nothing illustrates this more than seeing some members of the El Paso County delegation scurrying for cover during the debate on the state legislation or the spectacle of Gov. Bill Ritter signing the aforementioned bill. Behind him stood two legislators, both with congressional aspirations, who pounced with such pithy quotes as, “It is a clear message to the United States Congress to keep your hands off of our land.”
Nevertheless, the Army bears the onus for not articulating clearly its need upfront. Some may look to Fort Carson for answers, but the base is dealing on a daily basis with the deployment of three of its four major troop units to Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the combat deaths of more than 200 soldiers. You would think the Pentagon and the Army in Washington could find time to support the troops in the field, in this case in Colorado.
Aside from the Army’s lack of clarity on the need for expansion, two issues deserve a closer look: eminent domain and environmental stewardship.
In taking on the emotional hot button of land condemnation, we must acknowledge that the residents of southeast Colorado have a case to be heard and considered. It is their land and livelihood that may be at stake. But does everyone have their best interests in mind? From the beginning, and from all opponents of the Army, the main proposal on the table has been to eliminate eminent domain as an option for the federal government. That sounds good, but whom does it help?
What many seem to forget or conveniently ignore is that some land owners in the area most certainly do want to sell all or part of their land, either now or in the future, but are staying quiet for a number of reasons. In fact, there was a recent sale of the River Canyon Ranch, a spread of 110,000 acres south of Piñon Canyon, bought by a gentleman from Denver.
Even for willing sellers, eminent domain is actually the best route for them. The simple fact is that if land is condemned, the owner is not required to pay capital gains tax on the proceeds.
The case of environmental stewardship exposes fault lines where bias against the military rears its ugly head and takes precedence over reality on the ground. Take a trip to Piñon Canyon and you will see a stark contrast between the Army’s land and that of the surrounding ranches. The former looks good; the latter does not.
Tom Warren, the man in charge of Piñon Canyon for Fort Carson, is a nationally known wildlife biologist and former chairman of the National Wildlife Federation. He has made Piñon Canyon a model of environmental stewardship, protecting the land as well as the historical artifacts there. To raise the specter of a barren wasteland hearkening back to dust bowl days, as some have done quite loudly, is just plain wrong and serves no one well.
We now need a calmer and more reasoned discussion of the issues involved in the proposed expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. A good start would be for the governor and some responsible leaders of our congressional delegation to bring all of the various stakeholders back to the table to search for a win-win situation for all concerned. There are many imaginative options to be explored, some of which we have seen in recent House Armed Services Committee actions.
To date, it is hard for anyone to be proud of this situation, with Colorado passing somewhat dubious legislation and the Army watching from a distance like a wary gopher. Despite the complexities involved, it is time to begin working together seriously to see what solutions, if any, are possible. There is a good possibility that the Army has a compelling case to expand that goes well beyond the immediate needs of Fort Carson, but we need to hear it – and the sooner the better.
Tony Koren is a former Special Forces officer, a partner with the NorthStone Group in Louisville, and military analyst for NBC News.
