Turns out it’s not just the people of southeastern Colorado who think the Army needs to better explain why it needs to expand its Piñon Canyon training facility.
An investigative arm of Congress has now called upon the Army to do just that. It’s a welcome voice of reason in a debate that’s been clouded by suspicion and an alarming paucity of information. Army leaders should heed the recommendations.
At issue is the Army’s fervent declaration that it needs to expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. First, the plan was to acquire an additional 418,577 acres. After nearby landowners and members of Colorado’s congressional delegation raised a stink, the Army announced it needed only 100,000 acres.
But as the U.S. Government Accountability Office pointed out, the Army did not explain why it could do with less land or how much of the 100,000 acres would be used for actual training.
The people who own land in that area take the matter very seriously, and for good reason. Some of the land surrounding the site is owned by fourth- and fifth-generation ranchers and farmers who fear the loss of their land and their way of life.
They’re concerned the Army has not been forthright about its plans. Former Sens. Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard wrote legislation requiring the GAO to examine the Army’s justifications for the proposed land acquisition.
Expanding the Piñon site is a potential solution for a bigger problem the Army has been wrestling with.
The Army says its training land shortfall will reach 4.5 million acres by 2013, a situation that has its roots in the base closure process and new initiatives within the military.
In 2004, the Army identified Piñon Canyon, which is near Fort Carson, as a possible site for growth.
At Pinõn, the Army is seeking more training space for rapid deployment units that can quickly cover a 20-mile range. It also wants to train with weapons systems that require greater distances.
From the beginning, the situation has been rife with rumors and suspicion. And the tight-lipped Army hasn’t been open about its plans.
People who feared losing their land have had to rely upon leaked documents and sources who, for whatever reason, often did not provide a clear or accurate explanation of the plans.
The Army needs to make a clean break with its past policies and be frank with those whose way of life is at stake.
We hope they heed the recommendations in the GAO report and make an effort to explain in clear terms why it wants to buy this tract of land in southeastern Colorado.
Those whose lives may be changed by Army plans are due at least that much.
