The U.S. Army has decided to “go back to the drawing board” and draft a plan to expand its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site that will placate southern Colorado residents. We welcome the search for a “win-win” solution to this bitter controversy.
The Army, which already controls 253,000 acres on its existing site, has said it would like to add 418,577 additional acres. If it succeeds, that would mean a training area of more than 1,049 square miles, slightly larger than the land area of Rhode Island, which is 1,045 square miles.
But the Army’s awkward opening gambit triggered fierce opposition from ranchers in the area who fear their land would be condemned and from environmentalists worried about damage to the fragile Comanche National Grasslands. Those are very real concerns. Other citizens voiced concern about the Picket Wire Canyon area south of the existing site that hosts thousands of dinosaur tracks, prehistoric Indian pictographs and other artifacts.
The Army later released a map ruling out those areas and indicating all of the land purchases would be made north of the Purgatoire River and west of the current training site. But by that point, the Colorado legislature had overwhelmingly approved House Bill 1069, that purports to forbid the Army from acquiring land in the area through eminent domain.
Whether the state can truly trump a federal power clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution is somewhere between doubtful and laughable. But U.S. Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar of Colorado won approval 383-34 in the House for an amendment to the defense bill barring the Army from using any of the money in its 2008 budget for any actions related to expanding its land holdings in southeastern Colorado.
That was apparently enough to convince the Army to rethink its approach. The Post welcomes the belated quest for a compromise. But we hesitate to totally rule out eminent domain, if only because that is often what “willing sellers” want.
This seeming contradiction stems from Section 1033 of the federal tax code, which allows sellers to avoid capital gains taxes on property sold “under threat or imminence” of condemnation, as long as they reinvest the proceeds no more than two years after the year in which the sale is made. Given that fact, does Colorado really want to ban a practice that could yield major tax savings to landowners who are truly willing to sell?
As the Army reconsiders its plans, we hope it weighs ideas unveiled by Sen. Ken Salazar in March aimed at “protecting the agricultural, natural, cultural and environmental heritage of the region,” including:
Allowing grazing to continue in the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.
Leasing land from private landowners so ranchers can continue to own and graze their lands.
Using goods and services from southeastern Colorado communities.
The Army has already agreed to a fourth point in Salazar’s March proposals, “Allowing public access to cultural and historic sites in the area.”
To the extent that the remaining three ideas can be integrated with a sound training program, they can help form a viable compromise.
