PCEOC ----- Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Next meeting - Thursday at the Springs - Crowne Plaza at 6pm

2012-01-25T18:21:00.002-07:00

Both of the first two of three scheduled public comment meetings this week were well attended and many important statements were made and entered into the record.

Monday night in Trinidad there were more people to comment than the time allowed - Good Job all! An article in the Pueblo Chieftain on Monday night's meeting in Trinidad can be read HERE

Last night in La Junta, Jim Herrell with Otero Jr College and Not 1 More Acre! put it into context when he said, "well, here we are again. And again. And again. And again. And again."

He is absolutely on target as we have done this many, many times before and will continue to do it if we have to. 'Enough is enough' is appropriate but we MUST ALSO KEEP OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS informed and get them to end this or we will keep on 'meeting this way'.

Our efforts to keep the Army at bay have always been successful because we are able to use these meetings and other ways to publicly raise awareness of the problems with every step the Army takes to try to expand PCMS.

________________________________________

Thank you to all who made it out to the first two meetings - we hope to see you Thursday in Colorado Springs at the Crowne Plaza hotel!

Don't forget to sign your Private Property Airspace Declaration sheet and get to us! Mail it to: PCEOC, P.O. Box 137, Kim, CO 81049. We'll forward it to our elected officials as well as the Army!
________________________________________

Other Blogs on this issue:

CSIndy

Westerner

Denver Westword

The Army is committed to building community trust- rrriiigghhhttt

2012-01-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

From their EA page 1-5:

1 (the)"Army is committed to open decision-making and building community trust."
[PCEOC: then why have they already made up their mind to implement the final decision? The first week of Jan they sent out a Section 106 consultation to our Counties for CAB training exercises planned at the PCMS. As would be expected they determined there would be no adverse effects. This is the perfect example of their belief that they can do anything they want, as long as they check things off of their to do list. Doesn't help our trust whatsoever....... does it yours?]

5"EA/Draft FNSI for public review. These notices will announce that the public has additional
6 opportunities to participate in the analysis and decision-making process for CAB stationing
7 implementation by: (1) providing two public comment periods; "
[PCEOC: Want to truly 'participate in the decision-making process'? Then come to the meetings and make your comments - get them documented and recorded - AND THEN COPY EVERYTHING TO OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND CALL THEM AND FAX THEM - THEY CAN PUT A HOLD ON THE WHOLE PROCESS IF THEY REALLY WANT TO REPRESENT ALL OF US! The Army doesn't care - never will - if you want to change something get it in writing, and push our reps to do their jobs]

Army CAB Plans Ignore Fed Courts - January 2012

2012-01-08T19:46:00.000-07:00

Your comments are needed!!!

PUBLIC COMMENT MEETINGS ARE SLATED FOR 6 to 8 pm Each evening:
JANUARY 23RD at TSJC IN TRINIDAD;
JANUARY 24TH at OTERO JR COLLEGE IN LA JUNTA;
JANUARY 26TH at CROWNE PLAZA IN COLORADO SPRINGS.

Fort Carson is soon to receive more Federal Dollars (your tax dollars) to bring/create another Combat Aviation Brigade at Ft Carson and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

They've done an Environmental Assessment that says it won't cause any harm and public comment on that 'EA' is open through January. Download the EA HERE

Fort Drum in NY has a CAB with drones now as well.
Fort Riley in KS has a CAB already and will receive their drones in March.
So if Fort Carson gets a CAB then the drones will surely follow - but the EA doesn't mention that.

The overall cost of the CAB is estimated to be in excess of $4 billion. Over $700 million of that is for construction at Fort Carson. The rest is for all the helicopters, drones and ground vehicles etc.
In a time of budget cuts in general and in the Pentagon budget in particular how does this make sense? What are the priorities of our congressional folks who are pushing this?

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition presents to Colorado College

2011-11-01T14:20:00.000-06:00

PCEOC Press Release

For immediate release

Contact:

Doug Holdread- doug@holdread.com 719-680-3933

Lon Robertson- lonr@ghvalley.net 719-980-5114

KIM, Colorado (November 1, 2011)- On Thursday, November 3rd, the Colorado College Non-violence Club will host a presentation entitled, "Working Together" by the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition. The presentation will focus upon how the Pinon Canyon issue has defied traditional political classifications and employed unusual tactics, bringing together a coalition of ranchers, artists, environmentalists, preservationists and peace activists.

According to PCEOC board member, Grady Grissom, "The issue touches on the environment, property rights, big government, the military-industrial complex, cultural heritage, and economic development. It's an ongoing course in civics and political science."

Presenters will include Grissom, an environmentally conscious rancher, Steve Wooten, another rancher who has worked closely with biologists to document the bio-diversity of the region, Rebecca Goodwin, a preservationist who has worked to identify and protect cultural resources at Pinon Canyon, and Doug Holdread, an artist and educator who has mobilized artists to join the cause.

The presenters will focus upon how the coalition has successfully brought together diverse sectors of the local community in taking on a deeply entrenched federal bureaucracy. They will present an overview of their successes over the past five years and discuss issues which remain unresolved. These include the Department of Defense waiver which authorizes expansion and remains in effect, as well as ongoing concerns about military expansions such as Fort Carson's Combat Aviation Brigade, CAB, and Canon Air Force Base's Special Operations Low Altitude Tactical Aviation, LATN proposal.

The presentation will take place in the WAS Room in the Worner Center on the Colorado College Campus at 4:30 on Thursday.

The Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition is a broad-based coalition representing communities across Southern Colorado in their opposition to the proposed military expansion. PCEOC members include business owners, teachers, students, elected officials, ranchers, environmentalists and many others.

The coalition is united in its opposition to any expansion of PCMS. No funding, no expansion.

For more information, please see www.pinoncanyon.com.

# # #

Wayne Laugesen, Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page editor, displays hypocrisy

2011-09-24T10:55:00.000-06:00

In the 3/29/2011 on-line edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, displays an incredible blind spot. The editorial in question involves the closure of the Fort Lyon Correctional Facility near Las Animas. Read the article: http://www.gazette.com/articles/right-115384-view-closing.html

Obviously, reasonable arguments can be made for, or against, closing prisons. What is amazing is the blind spot and hypocrisy on display by Wayne Laugesen. The exact same arguments he makes can be applied to the military installations in Colorado Springs. The following statement of Wayne's illustrates this.

“We will never do away with the need for prisons, but let’s be careful to never confuse a prison as something other than a cost. Prisons bring jobs and wealth to localities that host them, but the money is taken from other regions. This is necessary, but should not be confused as economic gain."

Another notable quote in the article is from State Representative Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs:
“The reality is that we just have too much government,” said Gardner, as quoted in the Bent County Democrat. “Sometimes the most efficient thing is to shut something down, even if people will be impacted in the short term. The role of prison is not one of an economic development tool for a community.”

The truth is, both correctional facilities and military installations are vital; but they are also an overhead cost on society, transferring capital from other uses. Pro-expansion forces see the expansion of the PCMS as economic insurance for Colorado Springs, or as an economic development tool.

Wahoo! Tipton gets Pinon Canyon funding ban reinstated - From the Pueblo Chieftain.....

2011-05-23T23:12:00.000-06:00

Tipton gets Pinon Canyon funding ban reinstated

By PETER ROPER | proper@chieftain.com | Posted: Monday, May 23, 2011 6:19 pm
   Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., has convinced the chairman of a crucial House appropriations subcommittee to restore the annual funding ban that has blocked the Army from spending any money to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site for the past four years.
   Rep. John Culverson, R-Texas, is expected to restore the funding ban to the 2012 military construction budget when it is considered by the full House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. Culverson chairs the military construction subcommittee and his backing of the Pinon Canyon moratorium almost certainly guarantees the ban will remain in place.
   For Tipton, the new GOP congressman in the 3rd Congressional District, the funding ban has been a critical issue because it has been the centerpiece of the opposition to the Army's controversial efforts to expand the 235,000-acre training site northeast of Trinidad.
   Tipton inherited the ban from former Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., and ranchers opposed to the Army's efforts were gravely concerned last week when they learned that the military construction subcommittee had not retained it in the 2012 military construction budget they drafted a week ago. The ban has been in place since 2008.
Tipton was under close scrutiny by those ranchers because he'd promised to defend the funding ban until some kind of long-term agreement could be reached between the Army and the ranching community over Pinon Canyon.

Congressman Titpton to hold Town Hall on Pinon Canyon tomorrow night

2011-04-25T06:10:00.000-06:00

From his office: "Rep. Scott Tipton to Hold Town Hall Meeting on April 26th in Trinidad; Following a tour of Pinon Canyon (and Fort Carson) during the day, Rep. Scott Tipton will host a town hall meeting to TO DISCUSS PINON CANYON and other important issues, and take questions from constituents.
When: Tuesday, April 26th, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Where: Sullivan Student Center, TSJC

Please attend......... we're not sure what exactly is being pushed so of course our eyebrows are raised.........

So we haven't received word from Mr. Tipton on the exact nature of this visit -

We do know he's talking to three individual commissioners from three local counties while at the site,and wanting them to also visit Fort Carson and then fly down to the maneuver site. (we have no qualms about the commissioners meeting with them - and trust those commissioners will stand fast with no expansion positions).

We do know when a staffer was asked if he wanted to speak to the landowners around the current site as part of his 'tour' his staffer advised that 'if they want to talk to Tipton they can come to the Town Hall meeting.'

So yes, we're a bit on edge - will you attend with us?

Army not providing all the facts? Doug Holdread Blog

2011-04-07T20:53:00.000-06:00

Let me try to say this delicately; the Army is not providing all of the facts when they say, "The waiver does not authorize land acquisition-it simply allows the Army to continue studying the requirements and plan accordingly." There is a document that Fort Carson and other bases produce for this purpose. It's called a "Land Use Requirement Study," (LURS). The waiver goes beyond studying and planning. It is a permit. The very first sentence of the waiver approval states it pretty clearly, "the Army is requesting an exception to the subject moratorium in order to acquire approximately 418,000 acres of land, estimated to be valued at 108.8M." If it has no intention of expanding Pinon Canyon, why won't the Army cancel the waiver? After all, they claim it doesn't really mean anything. So why won't they grant us this additional reassurance? All it would take is a simple memo from Secretary of the Army McHugh stating that, "the waiver, granted by my office on February 7, 2007 is hereby by declared null and void." It's pretty obvious that want to keep the waiver in place because it an important weapon in their acquisition arsenal. Right now the safety is on,(year-to-year spending ban) and there's no bullet in the chamber,(Congressional funding), but they've got the gun, aimed and ready. Telling us that there is nothing (currently) in the budget for acquisition is cold comfort. We've seen how military budgets can turn on dime. And what about their "black budget;" all of the billions that nobody is allowed to monitor? What about the fact that a couple of years ago, then Army Undersecretary Keith Eastin said, "we believe we already have adequate money appropriated for that purpose in our current land acquisition budget?" (Pueblo Chieftain, July 18, 2008)

PCEOC Position Unchanged regardless of Army letter - NPR Story on same

2011-04-07T20:40:00.001-06:00

PCEOC Release in response to letter of 5 yrs without money promise

NPR Story April 6, 2011

AP story says 'Army not sure if a procedure exists to withdraw the waiver'

2011-03-31T16:11:00.001-06:00

From an AP story today (by Dan Elliott) READ STORE HERE

"On Wednesday, the Army said the budget is a more important signal of its intentions than the waiver...

The waiver does not authorize land acquisition — it simply allows the Army to continue studying the requirements and plan accordingly," the Army's said. "Only Congress can authorize land acquisition funding."

That statement that only Congress can authorize acquisition funding is meant to mislead the public. In the same breath they state that the waiver allows them to study expansion. In other words "we haven't asked for acquisition funding but we will continue to spend money to research and promote expansion until we get acquisition funding in the future"

In the Army's words on the waiver request in 2007:

"The Army is requesting an exception to the subject moratorium in order to acquire approximately 418,000 acres of land, estimated to be valued at $108.8M, in and around PCMS, a sub-installation of Fort Carson, CO."

AND

“approve the request and require the Army to report periodically to the DUSD (I&E) on the status of consultations with local landowners and on the continued assessment of specific lands necessary to support the training requirement.”

It says nothing about 'budget' in that letter giving approval for a waiver of the moratorium - This waiver ALLOWS THE ARMY TO PROCEED WITH EVERY OTHER EXPANSION PROCESS EXCEPT TRADING TITLE. IT ALLOWS THE SHADOW OF EXPANSION TO LOOM INDEFINITELY.

REFUSING TO REMOVE THE WAIVER IT TANTAMOUNT TO THUMBING THEIR NOSES AT OUR CONGRESS.

So to say they 'aren't going to expand' is difficult to believe as long as that 'internal process and go ahead' exists. "They're not sure if a procedure exists to withdraw it" - give me a break. If it was something they thought would benefit them they would devise a procedure.

Stories on Pinon Canyon

2011-03-11T09:11:00.000-07:00

The Pueblo Chieftain - Udall and Bennet ask Army to put it in writing
The Westerner Blog on Pinon Canyon
West Word continues good articles explaining Pinon Canyon issue

Ranchers: 'No' to more Pinon site training - Pueblo Chieftain

2011-02-19T18:58:00.001-07:00

Click here to read article at Pueblo Chieftain on line

Five-year fight with Army brings community closer | brings, year, closer - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

2011-02-19T13:54:00.000-07:00

Five-year fight with Army brings community closer | brings, year, closer - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

Handout from last night and for tonight's public comment meetings.....

2011-02-17T06:09:00.003-07:00

Army Still Seeks Expansion of the

Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS)

____________________________________________________

In 2007 the Department of Defense (DOD) gave the Army permission in the form of a special waiver to expand PCMS. Because that waiver is still in effect, the only thing keeping the Army from acquiring more land at PCMS is the continuation of the year to year funding ban enacted by Congress.

____________________________________________________

Two Critical Priorities to assure Continued Blocking of

the Expansion of PCMS:

1. Our legislators maintain the annual funding ban that prevents the Army from spending any money related to PCMS expansion

2. Our legislators push the DOD to remove the waiver or declare it null and void

______________________________________________________________

What is “The Waiver”?

(see HERE for document requesting the waiver and HERE for approval document)

In the late 1980’s the Department of Defense (DOD) approved a policy that banned any DOD agency (such as the Army) from buying large amounts of land.

However, in 2006 the Army requested an exception to this policy (a waiver), specifically to purchase more land to expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, stating that the proposed expansion area was a good opportunity because it was “relatively inexpensive and sparsely populated”.

This waiver was granted by the DOD in 2007, giving the Army the green light to pursue expansion. The waiver is still in effect even now.

After a congressionally ordered investigation, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that many omissions were evident in the waiver request. According to the Army’s own procedures, local public approval should have been given prior to any DOD approval of the waiver—this public approval was never sought or approved.

_______________________________________________________________

What You Can do to Help

Please contact your local, state, and federal legislators. Let them know that we MUST CONTINUE THE FUNDING BAN AND TO ASK THE DOD TO REMOVE THE WAIVER.

________________________________________________________________

For more information on the waiver, the funding ban, and for legislative contacts please look for other handouts, call us at (719) 643-5600 or visit our website at www.pinoncanyon.com

Army Blitzes SE Colorado

2011-02-13T21:43:00.000-07:00

We haven't asked in a while but this week WE NEED YOU!

If you could possibly sacrifice a few hours this week to be at some or all of these meetings it will speak volumes to our elected officials.

PLEASE ALSO CALL YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, NEIGHBORS - ASK THEM TO DO THE SAME.......... ANY HELP YOU CAN PROVIDE BY BEING THERE IS VITAL TO OUR BEING HEARD.

The Army seems to be blitzing us this next week, in an effort to

1. gain documentable public/political support they can use against us and

2. sidestep laws and Federal Court orders

Your presence is needed at multiple meetings:

First, Tuesday night, the 15^th of February. The Trinidad City Council will be meeting at 7pm in Trinidad City Hall.

Purpose: Discussion and action relative to enacting a resolution in place of the Army requested 'Covenant'. We are told the Army will have a presence there as well and we need to show support of the City Council for standing their ground by our being there.

Second, Wednesday night, the 16^th of February in La Junta, 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Student Center at Otero Jr College. The Army will be holding public comment meetings on the Environmental Assessment they are issuing - designed to replace/avoid the court vacated Environmental Impact Statement. We need as many people as possible to attend and show our elected officials how decidedly opposed we are on expanding PCMS.

Third, Thursday night, the 17^th of February in Trinidad, 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Sullivan Center at Trinidad State Jr College. The Army will be holding public comment meetings on the Environmental Assessment they are issuing - designed to replace/avoid the court vacated Environmental Impact Statement. We need as many people as possible to attend and show our elected officials how decidedly opposed we are of expanding PCMS.

Be sure to start calling your representatives and letting them know 'enough is enough'. Stop this expansion nonsense now!

Need legislator contact information? Goto the PCEOC website legislator page.

Critically important to start letter writing campaign to Congressman Scott Tipton

2011-02-05T00:16:00.000-07:00

It's time once again to get out the pens and paper and send letters, emails, faxes, call and get your friends to do the same, as well as your friends' friends.

Representative Scott Tipton may not believe that so many are against expansion - he will be meeting soon with the Army commanders and we need to let him know we trust he will protect us and keep the ban in place. The more letters, calls and emails he gets the better obviously!

Please write, call his offices, send a fax, leave a message that you are against expansion and ask Congressman Tipton to keep the spending ban in place.

His contact information is:

Pueblo Office
503 N. Main Street, Suite 658
Pueblo, CO 81003
...Phone: 719.542.1073
Fax: 719.542.1127

Washington, DC
Phone: 202.225.4761
Fax: 202.226.9669

Alamosa Office
609 Main St., #105 Box 11
Alamosa, CO 81101
Phone: 719.587.5105
Fax: 719.587.5137

Grand Junction Office
225 North 5th St., Suite 702
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Phone: 970.241.2499
Fax: 970.241.3053

.

Pueblo Chieftain understands completely what must happen.....

2011-01-29T11:49:00.001-07:00

PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN EDITORIAL
Posted: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:00 am

4 comments

THE ACTING senior commander at Fort Carson says there are no current plans and no money to expand Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site — but only for the next few years.
Brig. Gen. James Doty made the statement during a meeting with The Chieftain’s editorial board this week. And, at the moment, the money for expansion doesn’t appear to be in the Pentagon’s budget.

   On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Congress, by holding the Pentagon to last year’s spending level, would create a $23 billion gap in his department’s needs. In other words, there would be no money for things such as land acquisition.
   In light of that, the Pentagon should order Fort Carson not to spend any money on land acquisition, and it should do so now. As it is, the fort has been granted Defense Department authority in the form of a waiver to pursue expansion. That waiver must be countermanded now.
   However, the Army is prohibited from spending money on acquisition by virtue of an amendment to the Pentagon’s spending authorization legislation. That prohibition first was sponsored by Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar and subsequently renewed by the same amendment sponsored by Reps. Salazar and Betsy Markey.
   Now the area is represented by Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner, whom we earnestly urge to continue the ban in the new budget cycle. The Army has never made a persuasive case that it needs more area at Pinon Canyon. Even though it now appears a change in Army training doctrine will make the alleged need temporarily moot, we must never stop fighting any expansion plan.
   Under that new doctrine, only relatively small units would train at any given time, meaning any need for even more than the 238,000 acres at Pinon Canyon has disappeared. But vigilance is needed, because new officers in charge of Pentagon planning could change doctrine again, and Pinon Canyon could be in the sights of a new regime.
   Nonetheless, the Pentagon should rescind the waiver so that it’s clear that Fort Carson has no authority whatsoever to purchase land around the Pinon Canyon site. Once a bureaucracy — even the Army’s — gets a project under way, that effort gains a life of its own unless it is stopped dead in its tracks.
   What’s deeply troubling is that the uncertainty faced by neighboring ranchers makes it difficult for them to make rational decisions about financing improvements on their spreads. And the cattle industry is huge in Southeastern Colorado.
   La Junta cattle sales are second in volume only to those in Oklahoma City. Ranching and farming provide the lifeblood of the Lower Arkansas Valley’s economy and directly benefits Pueblo’s economy. Just as the valley needs to protect its water for farming, it needs to protect the ranching interests, some of which go back three or four generations.
   The Army has no need to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. It should halt any and all efforts toward that end — now.
.

Commissioners ask for more oversight and truth in care of Historic Sites at PCMS

2011-01-04T09:50:00.001-07:00

Saving history

The Pueblo County commissioners have asked a federal agency to intervene and oppose the Army’s training operations at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

The request came in a letter to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The council provides the means for citizens to help safeguard historic sites by filing request for agency involvement. The agency can require federal departments to report how they are protecting historic artifacts under their supervision.

While Fort Carson long has maintained it has worked to protect sensitive sites at the training area, officials there acknowledged that some damage occurred during a brigade training session there last summer. The training area has a number of sites relating to Indian activities and encampments.

The county commissioners made their request after hearing a presentation from Not 1 More Acre!, a coalition of ranchers and other opponents of the Army’s attempt to expand the training area. The commissioners realize that the economic health of the Arkansas Valley’s farming and ranching industry is vital for Pueblo’s own economic vitality.

All who care about this region’s rich cultural history should thank the commissioners for their involvement

The Pueblo Chieftain Editorial 12/26/2010

PCEOC Resolution supporting our troops

2010-12-27T14:16:00.004-07:00

A resolution expressing the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition's, (PCEOC) support for the U.S. troops and their families.

WHEREAS, men and women in the military are making huge sacrifices and enduring

extreme hardships both during military service and when they return to civilian

life after their service; and

WHEREAS, the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of current service

members and veterans should be one of our highest national priorities; and

WHEREAS, 44% of those serving in the military are from rural America, while only
22% of the American population lives in rural America; and

WHEREAS, the men and women serving in the military should never be used for

public relations purposes to promote private economic interests or to advance

the real estate acquisition agendas of the Department of Defense;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PINON CANYON EXPANSION OPPOSITION COALITION:

1. Supports the U.S. troops currently serving, as well as those that have previously

served, and their families, irrespective of Department of Defense plans for the

expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

2. Welcomes military personnel and their families into our Southeastern Colorado

Communities, irrespective of any Army promises of financial rewards or benefits

which might accrue to our region.

3. Will work to advance the physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of U.S.

troops and veterans irrespective of Administration or Department of Defense

policies.

ADOPTED by the Board of Directors, Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition this 27^th day of December, 2010.

Election still results in support seen for southeast Colorado

2010-12-05T07:26:00.000-07:00

Even while we are losing a committed fighter of no expansion and supporter of rural values in John Salazar we have maintained other elected positions, and have even gained others as we fight for our rights.

We have kept many that have fought valiantly and will continue to do so and gained some in other areas ...... and will continue to get support as newly elected officials become more aware of the real dangers and loss to this Country if any expansion is allowed.

Newly elected Las Animas County Commissioner Mack Louden will continue the fight...

State Rep Wes McKinley will continue the fight...

State Rep Sal Pace will continue the fight...

Newly elected State Senator Kevin Grantham has vowed to continue the fight....

Newly elected Governor elect Hickenlooper is standing with us......(his statement below)
Protecting Colorado's Ranchers: A Position on Pinon Canyon: As most ranchers and livestock operators in Colorado know, there is a great deal of concern about the Army's plans to expand the boundaries of Fort Carson's training facilities at Pinon Canyon in southern Colorado. It is not enough to oppose the use of eminent domain (condemnation) at Pinon Canyon. In an already fragile economy, it is not fair to add more pressure to landowners in the area. That is why we support the state legislative ban on the lease or transfer of state lands for expansion, why we support the Congressional moratorium on expansion activities and why we are opposed to the additional loss of productive land in agriculture and livestock production that would follow from Army expansion. It is important for the communities most impacted by the Army's planned expansion in Southern Colorado to have the ultimate say in whether they would agree to any expansion proposal. It has been clear to us that so far, communities in Southern Colorado are adamantly opposed to the loss of this land (even through leasing) and we believe Colorado's next Governor must stand with them.

Senator Kester has proven track record stopping Pinon Canyon expansion.

2010-10-29T10:07:00.000-06:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition gives State Senator Ken Kester an A+ rating

PCEOC gives Senator Ken Kester, District 2, an A+ rating for his efforts to stop the Pinon Canyon expansion. He is a legislator that has put his legislative efforts where his mouth is to keep Pinon Canyon from expanding.

Ken, along with Wes McKinley authored and co-sponsored two separate bills in the past 4 years specifically designed to stop the expansion from the state level. He was successful in getting legislation passed that withdrew automatic approval of the use of eminent domain by the Feds and now requires them to come before the State Legislature for permission to do so.

He also co-sponsored legislation with Rep Sal Pace and Representative McKinley that prohibits the State of Colorado from selling or leasing any State owned lands for the purpose of expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

The future of southeastern Colorado hangs in the balance – we survive if Pinon Canyon isn’t expanded – we are eliminated if it does.

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition gives McKinley A+

2010-10-28T14:16:00.001-06:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition gives State Representative Wes McKinley an A+ rating

PCEOC gives Rep Wes McKinley, District 64, an A+ rating for his efforts to stop the Pinon Canyon expansion. He is a candidate that has put his legislative efforts where his mouth is to keep Pinon Canyon from expanding.

Wes has authored and co-sponsored two separate bills in the past 4 years specifically designed to stop the expansion from the state level. He was successful in getting legislation passed that withdrew automatic approval of the use of eminent domain by the Feds and now requires them to come before the State Legislature for permission to do so.

He also co-sponsored legislation with Rep Sal Pace and Senator Ken Kester that prohibits the State of Colorado from selling or leasing any State owned lands for the purpose of expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

Wes McKinley thus has a proven track record on stopping the Pinon Canyon expansion.

The future of southeastern Colorado hangs in the balance – we survive if Pinon Canyon isn’t expanded – we are eliminated if it does. That includes almost all of District 64 that Representative McKinley represents.

Betsy Markey earns A rating for legislating against expansion

2010-10-28T14:16:00.000-06:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition gives Congresswoman Betsy Markey an A rating

PCEOC has given Betsy Markey an A rating for her efforts to stop the Pinon Canyon expansion. She is a candidate that has put her congressional votes and legislative efforts where her mouth is to keep Pinon Canyon from expanding.

Betsy Markey co-sponsored and pushed for legislation that included the ban on funding for any expansion of Pinon Canyon. She thus has a proven track record on stopping the Pinon Canyon expansion. The only thing that keeps the expansion from happening at this point is the congressional funding ban that Congressman John Salazar and Betsy Markey have worked to get renewed each year.

The future of southeastern Colorado hangs in the balance – we survive if Pinon Canyon isn’t expanded – we are eliminated if it does. That includes a large part of the 4th Congressional District that Congresswoman Markey represents.

John Salazar earns an A+

2010-10-27T14:23:00.000-06:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition gives Congressman John Salazar an A+ rating

John Salazar has earned an A+ rating from the PCEOC for his efforts to stop the Pinon Canyon expansion. He is a candidate that has put his congressional votes and legislative efforts where his mouth is to keep Pinon Canyon from expanding. He has a proven four year track record no one else has on stopping the Pinon Canyon expansion.

The future of southeastern Colorado hangs in the balance – we survive if Pinon Canyon isn’t expanded – we are eliminated if it does. The issue has a great many manifestations in property rights, citizens rights, conservation, national defense, community planning, historical preservation, economics, and ethics.

The only thing that keeps the expansion from happening at this point is the congressional funding ban that originates in the Committee on Military Affairs. John Salazar worked to get on the Military Affairs Committee and is in a key position to renew the funding ban each year. If Colorado loses Congressman Salazar’s position on that committee we are concerned the funding ban will not be renewed allowing the expansion to go forward.

Voting FOR John Salazar is a definite vote AGAINST the Pinon Canyon expansion.

USAF Flyover public scoping comment meeting next Tuesday in Pueblo

2010-10-14T11:31:00.000-06:00

We hope many can join us in attending the scoping/comment meeting next Tuesday, the 19th, at the 6-8pm, Central HS, 216 E. Orman Ave., Pueblo.

We need to assure we make everyone aware of the concerns we all have relative to the onslaught of DoD efforts to remove us from our property.

The USAF proposed low level flyovers at such low altitudes would certainly disrupt and impede activities on the land surface. An example of that is the fact that the military is currently fighting the creation of wind farms because they interfer with their training activities. There is a conflict between the individual property rights and the rights of the military to conduct training.

Military training at 200 feet has a direct impact upon the land beneath it and should be considered as part of that property. Just one more way to invoke inverse condemnation - they don't have to take it directly if they devalue its use it to the point it forces everyone to leave.

.

Weapons or Wind and Sun - Alternative energy opportunities abound in SE CO

2010-10-04T10:33:00.001-06:00

Doug brings some very important considerations to light in this latest piece of his investigative efforts. Read more HERE
.

Proposed AF Fly-overs in Northern NM and Southern CO part of expansion?

2010-09-28T06:15:00.001-06:00

PCEOC has a number of concerns with the LATN Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been published by the Air Force, proposing low altitude training flights of C-130 and CV-22 Osprey in Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Our concerns and questions are related to the following areas:

•    We are concerned that this EA (EA requires NO public meetings etc.. and is the simplest process required by NEPA) represents the segmentation of a larger foreseeable project; the militarization of Southeastern Colorado and the creation of Department of Defense facility for Joint Forces training through the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

•    We are concerned about Noise Pollution and associated disruptions to wildlife, recreation and ranching activities and that flights at 200 feet will jeopardize buildings, livestock, and other man-made obstructions.

We are concerned, based upon our previous experience, with the credibility and value of the whole NEPA process. The original EIS which established the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in the early ‘80s was poorly done. It didn’t even conclude with an official Record of Decision which would have given us an understanding of why that decision was taken. So we view the current EA with a large dose of cynicism.

The land within and surrounding PCMS represents the cultural heritage and history of our region as well as the entire western United States in significant ways. We are deeply concerned with the increased training burden upon the region that LATN would represent. The EA does not even include a complete description of procedures to protect archeological, paleontological and other cultural resources at PCMS.

And it is not just general cultural and historic assets that are at risk. It becomes very personal when peoples homes, lands, including birth places, wedding sites and burial grounds are involved. Numerous historic and family cemeteries exist within the proposed flight area.

It’s a sad day for America when good, hardworking, patriotic American ranchers have to defend their homes and their way of life against an invasion by its own military in the form of low altitude flights.

SEGMENTATION and INDUCEMENT
We are concerned that this EA segments a larger proposal, treating the proposed action within this EA as if independent from planned future actions, including plans to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. We believe that this segmentation is contrary to the intent of NEPA. We concerned that this EA will attempt to avoid an honest examination of the full scope of planning for the PCMS by splitting the project into smaller projects. We are concerned that by excluding known subsequent phases and associated project components from the EA, decision makers may not be provided with all necessary information to make a fully informed determination about the proposed action. We are afraid that the segmentation of this project may cause it to appear to be unrealistically acceptable to the reviewing agencies and the public.
All known phases of the future planned expansion of PCMS should be considered in the determination of the significance of the LATN proposal. While future phases of expansion at PCMS may be uncertain as to precise design or timing, their environmental significance should nonetheless be examined as part of this action by considering the potential effects of total PCMS build-out.

We believe that segmentation is occurring in the proposed action being considered within the EA for the following reasons:
•    Purpose: There is a common purpose between the LATN EA and the Expansion; namely the increased training burden imposed upon Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. .
•    Time: The actions; Increased training load at PCMS and LATN are being considered at the same time. Even as this EA is being developed, the Department of Defense waiver, permitting the Army to acquire an additional 418,000 acres, as well as congressional authorization to expand PCMS remain active.
•    Location: There are common geographic locations for the proposed additional LATN, and the Expansion.
•    Impacts: These actions; additional training load imposed by LATN and Expansion, share a common impact that if reviewed as one project by decision makers will result in a significantly more adverse impact than if reviewed in segments.
•    Ownership: These segmented aspects of PCMS development are being undertaken by the same lead agency, the Department of Defense. There is good reason to assume a comprehensive awareness to assume the existence of, and relationship between the two projects.
•    Planning: The EA to conduct low-altitude training in Southern Colorado is obviously a segmented component of an identifiable overall plan. This proposal fits into the development of subsequent phases and the approval of LATN would prejudice the objective consideration of alternatives in subsequent phases.
•    Utility: The current EA and the Expansion represent interrelated phases of one project and should be considered functionally dependent on each other.
•    Inducement: The approval of LATN will put additional pressure upon the Army to Expand and induce legislative decision makers in relationship to future expansion legislation.

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Opposing the expansion of Pinon Canyon is the most patriotic thing we can do....

2010-09-21T15:41:00.000-06:00

Doug Holdread pegged it ....... READ HERE

Southeast Colorado voters ARE important - just ask McInnis!

2010-08-30T12:38:00.003-06:00

McInnis' position in favor of Pinon Canyon expansion cost him the election. Southern Colorado was THE KEY to McInnis' defeat. He lost BIG in Las Animas County and all other counties that would be negatively impacted by an expansion. In such a close contest the votes of people here MADE THE DIFFERENCE! Thank you, everyone who voted against McInnis and his pro-expansion position.

The counties of Otero, Baca, Huerfano, Bent, Prowers, Crowley, Kiowa also carried Maes. Those are areas that will be negatively impacted by an expansion. So before anyone writes us off as 'unimportant' politically they need to re-evaluate their assessment!

And another interesting note is that even though the Springs Chamber 'endorsed' McInnis (because of his pro-expansion position) he LOST REALLY BIG IN EL PASO, TELLER COUNTIES......... hmmmmm.

See all counties voting tallies HERE

McInnis backs out on visits to southeastern Colorado

2010-08-09T05:42:00.000-06:00

Gubernatorial candidate McInnis apparently had made arrangements to meet locally in Trinidad and in La Junta on August 2nd but never showed. But then he shows up in Colorado Springs - probably the only place he really feels welcome.

Here's a story on his visit in the Gazette.

An excerpt:

"The chamber’s Stephannie Finley said McInnis won her group’s loyalty by his unwavering support of Army efforts to add 100,000 acres to the 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, a Fort Carson training ground near Trinidad."

So, this writer's opinion is we all need to remember that Scott McInnis' law firm represents defense contractors and he sees dollars in his own pocket by supporting an expansion. As Governor his loyalty is not and will not be with the people of Colorado as much as it is with those that feather his own nest.

Primary Republican ballot for Governor lists Dan Maes (who is against the expansion of Pinon Canyon) and Scott McInnis (who is for expansion). Dan Maes has our vote.........

County questions Army proposals

2010-08-03T16:10:00.000-06:00

County questions Army proposals

Helicopter Brigade effort is obviously intended to promote more desire for expansion of PCMS

2010-07-28T10:28:00.000-06:00

So the Army advised 60 some days ago they wanted to erect 'clamshell' buildings on PCMS - one to be used for 'helicopter maintenance and repair'. We asked then, 'Doesn't this suggest a variance from 'historical use limits' that the Federal Courts placed?'

And today then it was announced they are indeed looking at bringing an entire helicopter brigade to Colorado. (see JULY 28 Pueblo Chieftain ) Suggesting it would help push the new southern gate access to Fort Carson, the Army is also trying again to manipulate/buy off local support via dangling hypothetical economic carrots for an expansion effort that cannot be justified.

With the increased noise level and other associated issues relative to stationing a helicopter brigade at Fort Carson there will be additional pressures for expansion of PCMS.

It appears to anyone wanting to take the time to look that they keep trying to utilize the current site beyond historic levels and to expand PCMS. No matter what they say everyone should be looking at what they are actually doing because they are often two entirely different things.

Expanding PCMS is still a priority for the military and until such time as the Dept of the Army and the DoD revoke their approvals to go forward with it one must assume they are indeed, going forward with that directive. The only thing keeping them from doing so is the year to year funding ban that Congressman Salazar again got through committee for 2011. It still needs to pass in the House and Senate too to remain in effect and we will continue our efforts to support that.

.

Pueblo Chieftain Editorial July 18, 2010

2010-07-19T05:36:00.000-06:00

No means no
Chieftain editorial
Sunday, July 18, 2010

   A KEY House subcommittee has approved a budget bill that includes continuing the ban on the Army from spending any money to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

   The ban again is thanks to Rep. John Salazar, D-Colorado, who serves on the military construction subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. He first put the ban into federal legislation three years ago.

   Rep. Salazar is adamant that the Army should not be allowed to expand the site, where area ranchers fear that would devalue their property even if the Pentagon would never use condemnation to grow the site. And he was unequivocal.

   "I'm not going to allow the expansion of Pinon Canyon as long as I am in Congress," he said last week after the subcommittee's approval of the legislation. That legislation will go now to the full House Appropriations Committee to be folded into the 2011 Defense Appropriations Act.

   The Army has failed to make a persuasive case for its need to expand Pinon Canyon. If it hasn't been able to come up with good reasons by now, we doubt it ever will.

Congressman Salazar and Congresswoman Markey advise 2011 Funding Ban across first hurdle

2010-07-15T10:53:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman John Salazar and Congresswoman Betsy Markey announced that the appropriations funding ban for the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in Southern Colorado will be included in the FY2011 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations.

Early this morning, the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies completed its work on the FY2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act reporting the act out of committee by voice vote preserving the Piñon Canyon funding ban for another year. Congressman Salazar has used his position as the 3rd most senior member of the subcommittee to lead the fight against expansion.

"I came to Congress to defend agriculture and fight for residents of the 3rd Congressional District," said Salazar. "I will always defend the interests of landowners in Southern Colorado who have been living under the cloud of expansion for far too long. As a 5th generation farmer and rancher, I understand their deep connection to the land and will do everything in my power to protect their rights."

"This is an encouraging win in our larger battle for private property rights in Southeast Colorado," said Markey. "Preserving the funding ban for this expansion sends a message loud and clear that our rights will not be trampled on, and I will fight every day for Colorado's farmers, ranchers and landowners against the threat of this expansion."

The Piñon Canyon funding ban will now move to the full Appropriations Committee and then to the House floor for a vote.

###

Army ignores/evades more laws

2010-07-13T05:48:00.000-06:00

Just like the ban on spending, and the federal judge's ruling on historic use of the PCMS, the Dept of the Army chooses to ignore yet another law.

Fort Carson has recently been found to once again having tried to avoid compliance with historical and preservation federal law requirements called 'Section 106'. It was found that Fort Carson was planning on burying electrical lines on the current PCMS, yet they had failed to initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and other entities as required by Federal law.

After finding out from anonymous sources that the PCMS was preparing to bury approximately 8 miles of overhead electrical lines, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) contacted Fort Carson to determine if such a project was underway. After confirming the project, Fort Carson indicated that they had mistakenly thought that they could review the project through the NEPA process and did not have to undertake Section 106 review. This is the same excuse Fort Carson used in 2008 when they completed the Installation Information Infrastructure Modernization Program (I3MP) at Fort Carson and the PCMS without any Section 106 review. The I3MP project included approximately 125 miles of underground fiber optic lines, six communication towers and equipment shelters.

After being told once again that they must comply with Section 106, Fort Carson initiated consultation for the underground electrical lines on June 24, 2010

Many places on the PCMS have been determined significant historic sites. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to conduct Section 106 review and consultation any time their federally funded activities and programs have the potential to adversely effect significant historic properties. "Significant historic properties" are those properties that are included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is a list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The Section 106 process is specifically designed to include the local government entities and the public.

Once again Fort Carson/PCMS has demonstrated a pattern of attempting avoidance and non-compliance with federal law. Expecting Fort Carson/PCMS to adhere to the law of the National Historic Preservation Act is not placing any greater requirement on them than every other military base and government agency in the country. Every military base must adhere to the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 106, and many bases take that responsibility seriously and do a good job. Unfortunately, Fort Carson/PCMS has demonstrated a very different pattern.

Read more about Section 106 at http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/Section_106_FAQs.htm

Colorado Springs City Councilman attacks PCEOC efforts

2010-07-05T12:36:00.004-06:00

Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige has attempted to suggest fighting expansion is being unreasonable - as he wrote in a recent column for a Denver news source.

Here is his attempt at ridiculing and criticizing our efforts to stop expansion: PAIGE

And here are many responses that show Mr. Paige is obviously not seeing nor telling the entire story but only reporting those elements that support his city's justification for sacrificing southeast Colorado for their economic benefit: RESPONSES

.

Pueblo Chieftain - Sunday June 27th

2010-06-28T14:35:00.003-06:00

Fort Carson, critics fight over heavier Pinon use

Fort Carson will be sending two battalions of the 4th Infantry Division to the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in August for several weeks of training — signaling an Army effort to increase its use of the 238,000-acre training ground, even as critics argue that effort defies a U.S. federal court ruling last year.
Col. Robert McLaughlin, garrison commander at the Mountain Post, candidly acknowledged in a recent interview that the Army has made little use of Pinon Canyon for the past five years or longer, but intends to change that starting this summer.

The 4th Division, like other Army divisions, has been rotating its four combat brigades in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan on virtually a yearly basis. The division's 2nd Brigade will be deploying again in the future and McLaughlin said several battalions will be sent to Pinon Canyon in August for training.

"Our plan is not to go above historical levels of training at Pinon Canyon," McLaughlin said. "We have not conducted brigade level training there in the past five years. On an annual basis, you'll be seeing more battalion rotations down to Pinon Canyon."

McLaughlin is careful to describe the Fort Carson plan — called Vision 2020 — as being within the historical use of the training ground because any increase in Army activity at Pinon Canyon sends up warning flares to the ranchers and other opponents of the Army's stated long-term goal of expanding the site.

Only last September, a U.S. District Court in Denver rejected an Army's environmental impact study that was done to support a plan to significantly increase the use of Pinon Canyon. The Army's base message was, with a growing number of soldiers being stationed at Fort Carson, more troops would need to do more training at Pinon Canyon.

On one hand, Army officials were reacting to the successful four-year campaign of area ranchers and other opponents of the Army's long-term goal of expanding Pinon Canyon. Thwarted by Congress and the Legislature from adding any additional land to the training ground, the Army environmental study seemed to say that without a bigger training ground, the current Pinon Canyon would have to suffer the consequences of heavier training by more soldiers.

U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, however, ruled that by its own reports, the Army had previously done extensive environmental damage at Pinon Canyon even with infrequent use. Matsch said the Army's latest study had failed to address the broad impact of even heavier training use, so he set aside the Army's official decision to ramp up training there.

For opponents, such as the Not 1 More Acre! group which sued the Army, the court ruling meant the Army is sharply restricted in what it can do at Pinon Canyon today, never mind expansion. In an e-mail response last week, the group said Matsch's decision means the Army cannot conduct more than four months of training per year on Pinon Canyon, as spelled out in the Army's original environmental analysis dating back to the 1980s when Pinon Canyon was established.

"Historically, the Army has never used Pinon Canyon more than once or twice a year," the statement said. That was based on the Army's own records of its use of the 238,000-acre site.

Whether the Army and its opponents are headed back to court over the Visions 2020 plan will have to be seen, but Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., did ask the Army's Inspector General's office this month to investigate the new Fort Carson strategy — and whether it violates a congressional ban that Salazar sponsors that bans the use of any funds to expand the training ground.

McLaughlin, who has been garrison commander for a year, said Army lawyers have assured him the plan is not violating Matsch's ruling or the Army's approved use of Pinon Canyon.

"We're conscious of what the Army has agreed to in the past and will not violate that," McLaughlin said.

As part of Vision 2020, McLaughlin said Fort Carson officials intend to meet frequently with Trinidad officials and others from Southern Colorado.

"We hope to develop a more routine relationship where the community is used to see soldiers at Pinon Canyon," he said.

Trinidad Times on Festival and John Salazar

2010-06-24T05:32:00.006-06:00

Investigation sought on PCMS funding ban, court order

U.S. Rep John Salazar addressed the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition's (PCEOC) festival in Kim on Saturday afternoon. The festival also included regional artwork, music and a barbecue.

Randy Woock, Staff writer, TTi
• June 22, 2010

U.S. Representative John Salazar called Thursday for an investigation into allegations that the U.S. Army is in violation of a federal funding ban on expansion attempts, as well allegedly defying a federal court order calling the Army out on the insufficiency of the 2007 environmental impact statement the Army had tried to use to justify its Record of Decision (ROD) to expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS).

The PCMS is a 237,000-acre training site utilized by troops stationed at Fort Carson by Colorado Springs. It was formed in the mid-1980s through the largest use of eminent domain against American citizens in the country’s history. The Department of Defense issued a waiver on its own moratorium on major land acquistions in February 2007 to allow for a 418,577-acre acquisition at PCMS.

Salazar sent a letter Thursday communicating his concerns to the Inspector General Gordon S. Heddel at the Department of Defense. A request for comment from the Army was submitted Friday by The Times Independent, though a response was not returned by press time. Salazar, along with then-Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, originated the annual funding ban against the expansion in 2007.

The federal court order cited in his investigation request by Salazar had resulted from a 2008 lawsuit brought against the Army by expansion opposition group, Not 1 More Acre! The lawsuit accused the Army of violating the National Environmental Policy Act while attempting to justify an increase of its training levels at the site. Matsch had ruled in the case that the Environmental Impact Statement used by the Army to justify its ROD for the proposed training increase was flawed and insufficient, failing to consider the possible environmental impacts from increased training usage and training levels at the site. “The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was deficient since it failed to mention the adverse impacts of the Army’s proposed action or any means by which to mitigate those effects,” Matsch’s decision had stated.

The ROD had attempted to authorize an expansion for the purpose of instituting increased, possibly year-round training and new construction at the site.

The September 2009 court order sets the historic training levels at the site at, “on average, approximately 4 months per year.”

However, the Army announced earlier this month plans to increase training levels at the site as part of Fort Carson’s new Vision 2020 training program. Fort Carson Garrison Commander Colonel Robert McLaughlin first announced the increase in Las Animas County at a June 8 meeting with county commissioners. McLaughlin told The Times Independent that the increased training levels would likely commence in late August/early September with two battalions comprised of about “a few thousand” troops. McLaughlin had also described the Army as being “very conscientious” of the limits set by the court order, additionally asserting that the Army used to train in such numbers at the PCMS, though not for some period of time.

Dee McNutt, Garrison Public Affairs Officer for Fort Carson, responded to a Times Independent inquiry by stating that the Army did not feel like it was in violation of any Congressional or court order. “With the constant deployments of the units assigned to Fort Carson, the short turn-around times between deployments, and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan that did not require large-unit mechanized maneuver training, the Army’s training activities at the (PCMS) in recent years have been well below the levels authorized before 2007,” McNutt stated. “In 2009, a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado required the Army to do further environmental study before permitting it to train in excess of those historically authorized levels. With turn-around times increasing between deployments, and with the Army instructing units to train for all possible missions rather than just those which they may face in Iraq and Afghanistan, training at the PCMS will likely increase somewhat in the near future.”

Adding, “However, that increase will be kept within the levels historically authorized unless and until satisfactory environmental study is complete to increase those levels.”

McNutt also responded that the Army did not believe itself to be defying any court orders. “The environmental study reversed by the 2009 court decision also included substantial construction at the PCMS. None of that construction has been started, and, in fact, there are now no plans to do so,” she stated. “However, a few small projects necessary for the operation of the PCMS and for the preparation of soldiers for deployments have been built in the past year or are being considered for construction. These projects include a new site for training of soldiers in urban environments and a proposed small structure to allow limited field maintenance of vehicles in a sheltered area.”

Adding, “These projects could and would have been built whether or not training increased, and they have received or will receive proper environmental review before proceeding.”

Salazar stated in his letter that the Army’s need for “adequate land” for training its troops did not override decisions made by the courts and other branches of the U.S. government.

“Not only is the Army working against the President, Congress and a decision of a U.S. District Court, but also against a finding of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) which stated that they Army needed no additional land for troops being relocated to Ft. Carson,” Salazar stated. “The threat of expansion continues to haunt the livelihood of those living in or around (PCMS). The threat of eminent domain is driving land values to nearly nothing, and is suffocating the number one economic driver in the region: agriculture.”

Adding, “I want to make sure those constituents in Southeastern Colorado are treated fairly and with respect.”

Pueblo Chieftain on candidate statements at Festival

2010-06-22T12:33:00.003-06:00

Pols rail against expansion

Tells crowd they are ‘patriotic’ for opposing Army's plans.

CHIEFTAIN PHOTO/ANTHONY MESTAS

U.S. Rep. John Salazar speaks to landowners and citizens

at a meeting in Kim sponsored by a group that opposes the

proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

Posted: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:00 am

By ANTHONY A. MESTAS

KIM — Candidates and elected officials from across party lines stood united Saturday against the proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. Billed as the Pinon Canyon Preservation Festival, members of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition invited several politicians to speak.

All speakers agreed the threat of the proposed expansion of the 238,000-acre maneuver site east of Trinidad looms over the entire region.

"Don't ever let anyone tell you that it is un-American to stand up for your ranches and farms. Don't you ever let anyone tell you that you are un-American," U.S. Rep. John Salazar told the crowd of more than 100 people.

The Colorado Democrat said that without farms and ranches the country is dead. "As long as I am in Washington (D.C.) the Army will not expand its Pinon Canyon," Salazar said drawing applause from the crowd.

Salazar said the Army can't justify the expansion. Salazarand Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Fort Collins, helped renew the annual funding ban against spending money for expansion for fiscal year 2010.   This is the third year a ban to block funding has been in effect. The original legislation was authored by former U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and co-sponsored by Salazar.
This week, Salazar asked the Department of Defense to investigate the Army’s efforts to acquire more land at the maneuver site.   He cited violations of federal law and a federal court decision in a letter this week to Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell. "This investigation will show that the Army has defied 435 members of the United States Congress. Two presidents have signed into law a bill not allowing the Army to utilize any financial means that comes from the United States government for expansion of Pinon Canyon," Salazar said.
State Rep. Scott Tipton, who is vying for the Republican nomination to run against Salazar, told the crowd that he will fight to protect their property rights.

"We are rural Coloradoans and I don't think urban Colorado, Denver, let alone Washington, D.C., understands this," Tipton said.   Tipton said the issue is critically important.   "It's about your livelihoods," Tipton said.

Tipton's primary opponent, Bob McConnell, a combat veteran, said that if he is elected he will hold the Army's feet to the fire. "No. Not on my watch. Not without a fight, no," he said about the expansion.
McConnell said he appreciates the moratorium on funding for the expansion and that there is a push to make it permanent. McConnell said he has met with Army officials and has talked on the telephone with them on several occasions. "I have been told once again that the Army does not need any additional land at the present. (Present) is the key word right there," McConnell said.

"If they tell us that in the present we don't need to expand but next week we do, I am going to find out why and I am going to ask for alternatives. I will never surrender you or Pinon Canyon or our way of life as long as I am alive."

Former Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff spoke by telephone and said when he gets to the U.S. Senate he will help the Army find some other place to conduct its training. Romanoff is fighting incumbent, appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet for the Democratic nomination. "I really appreciate the work you are putting in. I know what it's like to fight when the odds are against you and a lot of powerful institutions are against you too. I admire your courage and your patriotism."

State Senate District 2 candidate Matt Heimerich, a Crowley County commissioner, said he realizes the issue is complex.   "It's almost like the cloud that we have had over our head in Crowley County these last four decades when we've struggled to make improvements to our farms knowing that there may be one more water sale down the road. But we persevered and we continue to do the things that are right," Heimerich said.

His opponent for that state Senate Republican nomination Kevin Grantham said the issue is far-reaching. "This issue is vital, not just to this area, but to every corner of Colorado," Grantham said."There should be no expansion period."

Gloria Stultz, the Democrat running for Senate District 2, also said she is against the expansion.   "I share your passions for your land. I live on a 125-year-old homestead in Fremont County. I understand your heritage, your devotion to it and your allegiance to it," Stultz said.

Incumbent state Rep. Wes McKinley, who has spoken against the expansion on several occasions, said the citizens in communities surrounding the base brought the issue to light.   "It's the people's government. It takes dedication. It's you the people standing up and doing your duty," McKinley said.

Lisa Kellogg, his Republican opponent for District 64, said she also is opposed to the expansion. "We are all here today because we believe in the sanctity of private property rights and because we believe that a promise made should be a promise kept," Kellogg said. Kellogg said she would take the battle over Pinon Canyon to the federal courts if necessary.

"For years the very threat of the expansion looming over us has devastated the economy. Almost as if the government had already come in and taken the land," Kellogg said.

Gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes and Markey sent representatives to the meeting.

Pinon Canyon Preservation Festival was held June 19, 2010

2010-06-22T09:22:00.000-06:00

It was a success!! Many, many supporters were there and the candidates and office holders that presented their positions were greatly appreciated. BIG thanks to all that put so much time and effort into making this event possible-from the artists and their beautiful works to the cooks and helpers in the kitchen to the band and the poet to the techical experts and the laborers and all the rest. Thanks to everyone and thanks to those that attended, brought desserts and made this event a success!!

Check out our FB page for more info and pictures

......

CCA Gubernatorial Town Hall June 15th

2010-06-16T02:30:00.001-06:00

The Colorado Cattleman's Association held a town hall for Colorado gubernatorial candidates yesterday in Pueblo and there were positions and discussions on the pinon canyon issue by all three candidates.

From Steve Wooten, CCA Board and VP for PCEOC:

We, PCEOC, Had a good day!

Dan Maes emphatically announced that he opposed any expansion of the PCMS. He received the only audience applause during several points in his presentation.

John Hickenlooper announced that he opposed the expansion of PCMS. (After having met with landowners and PCEOC on Sunday the13th he determined that the ranchers/agriculture would always have his support against the expansion.)

Scott McInnis announced that he believed that Eminent Domain should not be used by the military and that any landowner has the right to sell to anyone they so choose. He got off this topic as fast as he could while the others explained their decision to defend the ranchers and communities of SE Colorado.

Thank you all,

Steve

2010-06-14T09:56:00.002-06:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Preservation Festival Newsletter

June 2010 Newsletter

===================================

Press Release: Candidates to present views on the expansion of Pinon Canyon

2010-06-05T21:14:00.000-06:00

Pinon Canyon Preservation Festival June 19th in Kim

Public invited to listen and to view displays, eat BBQ and more!

For immediate release June 7, 2010

For more information, contact:
Lon Robertson, 719-980-5114
Steve Wooten, 719-384-5813

KIM, Colorado—The Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition will be hosting an event called the ‘Pinon Canyon Preservation Festival’ from 1pm to 8pm on June 19th, in Kim, CO. Besides information and art displays at multiple locations in the town of Kim, there will be a BBQ dinner, music, poets and a silent auction. This festival will also be an opportunity for many elected officials and candidates to present their views and proposed actions relative to ending the expansion of Pinon Canyon.

The Army still desires to expand the 238,000-acre PCMS and refuses to follow court orders to limit activity to historic use levels, made by Federal Judge Matsch. Building out of the current site continues, which is also ignoring the congressional ban on expansion as well as most other laws and regulations that were placed to provide oversight of and accountability by the military regarding efforts to expand Pinon Canyon.

“Once again, the Army pushes the envelope as if the law doesn’t apply to them.” Said Lon Robertson, rancher and President of the PCEOC. “People don’t realize that they continue to push the expansion by adding buildings, resources and other functions to the current site, a build out that was ordered stopped by Federal Judge Matsch last year. And we intend to keep this out in public view to press our candidates and elected officials for action to hold them accountable and put an end to this effort once and for all.”

The annual funding ban against spending any money for expansion was again renewed for FY 2010, through the efforts of Congressman John Salazar (D-3rd CD) and Betsey Markey (D-4th CD). This is the third year the year to year ban has been in effect that was originally authored by Marilyn Musgrave (R-4th CD) and co-sponsored by John Salazar (D-3rd CD) – blocking all funding for the expansion.

“It doesn’t seem to matter to them how far they have to go or how much they disregard the law or how many times they try to mislead us all,” said rancher and PCEOC Director Grady Grissom, “but it matters to the majority of the people of Colorado. They are using our tax dollars to attempt to illegally gain access to and control of lands they don’t need and cannot justify.”

Keeping the shadow of expansion over this southeastern Colorado region serves only to provoke more opposition. Opposition to the expansion of PCMS, opposition to the expansion of federally owned lands in the United States and opposition to any more Federal government takings of our rights and privileges that Americans everywhere are so concerned about today.

PCEOC hopes everyone will come to the event, enjoy the day by eating homemade cakes, pies and BBQ, listening to music, and viewing artists’ works from all over regarding Pinon Canyon preservation. There will also be opportunities to listen to candidates and elected officials speak on their position on Pinon Canyon expansion. Candidates planning to attend to date include Kevin Grantham, Lisa Kellogg, Bob McConnel, Mack Louden, Wes McKinley, Gloria Stultz, and Scott Tipton as well as representation from Congresswoman Betsy Markey, Congressman John Salazar, Dan Maes and others.

Besides providing entertainment and information, proceeds from this event will help PCEOC continue funding the opposition to the expansion of Pinon Canyon.

PCEOC is a broad-based coalition representing communities across Southern Colorado in their opposition to the proposed military expansion. PCEOC members include business owners, teachers, students, elected officials, ranchers, environmentalists and many others.

The coalition is united in its opposition to any expansion of PCMS. No funding, no expansion.

For more information, please see www.pinoncanyon.com.

###

June 19th 2010 Preservation Festival taking shape!

2010-06-02T10:13:00.001-06:00

The Pinon Canyon Preservation Festival is taking shape! The event slated for the afternoon of June 19th will have a lot of things for people to see, watch and listen too. With multiple venues (locations) in the town of Kim there will be many options for people to consider. From listening to a Cowboy poet to listening to individual and duet singers/guitar players or hearing what many candidates positions are relative to Pinon Canyon expansion.

Check out FB postings and/or sign up to let us know you're attending! CLICK HERE

Attendees will have also have great opportunities to look at (and even buy) artwork from artists from all over the region that have compiled a significant number of works with the subject of Pinon Canyon. Displays of family history and heritage from the region will be available in a third venue and presentations relative habitat preservation, eco-region facts and more can be found as well.

That evening - beginning at 5pm will be a BBQ sandwich meal as well as a silent auction of items donated to the Coalition for the purpose of supporting our efforts to keep the expansion from ever happening!

So we hope to see you there to spend the afternoon with us and support our efforts to permanently stop the expansion of PCMS!!!

.

.

Economics of Expansion - Segment 4 - Economic Lessons from the 1983 Creation of PCMS

2010-05-27T06:11:00.000-06:00

Economic Lessons from the 1983 Creation of PCMS

In 1981 the Army estimated the creation of PCMS would bring $1 to $5 million of salary revenue to Southeastern Colorado. The actual salaries paid at PCMS since 1983 are less than $220,000 annually. The Army estimated $68 million would be spent on construction at PCMS. A local contractor estimates that less than $1 million of this was spent in Southeastern Colorado. Today the Army estimates $9 million annual input and a one-time $140 million construction project from PCMS expansion. Will history repeat itself? In 1983 the Army promised Las Animas County “payment in lieu of property taxes” on the 250,000 acre original taking. 26 years later payment in lieu of taxes has never been fully funded. In the 1980’s the Army promised to buy materials and supplies from local communities for maneuvers at PCMS. The Army spent 2.5 million on their most recent training maneuver at PCMS. This money stayed in the Ft. Carson vicinity, none was spent in Southeastern Colorado.

“Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.”

State Assemblies held yesterday: Voters listening to Pinon Canyon opposition and other groups

2010-05-23T06:29:00.003-06:00

Link to today's story in the Pueblo Chieftain

Link to today's story in the Greeley Tribune

Link to today's story in the Denver Post

From the Greeley Tribune:

Republicans back Buck and Maes; Dems pick Romanoff

Staff and wire reports,

LOVELAND — Voters at Colorado's state assemblies from both parties were in an anti-establishment mood Saturday.

Republicans gave Weld District Attorney Ken Buck 77 percent of the vote at the assembly, giving him the top line on the August primary ballot, though Buck's two main opponents did not participate. Republicans also surprised many observers, voting to place businessman and tea party favorite Maes ahead of former congressman Scott McInnis on the primary ballot for governor. On the Democratic side, challenger Andrew Romanoff will get top billing on the ballot over incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet after winning the most votes at the state Democratic assembly.

Buck, whose campaign was once seen by many as a long shot, said he thinks voters' mood has played a key role in his success.

“This is a different election cycle,” he said by phone after the assembly. “I think Republican voters are tired of establishment candidates and I think we offer a fresh perspective.

Both gatherings were marked by the nationwide anti-incumbent and anti-political insider mood that has led to the recent primary election defeats of longtime Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Trey Grayson, who had been backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky GOP Senate primary.

Maes, who has never held elected office, received a handful of votes more than McInnis. He criticized his own party as he addressed Republican activists.

“You keep telling the machine that this is about the people, not the politicians,” Maes said to cheers after his win was announced.

One Maes fan said she decided to back the first-time candidate after growing disillusioned with Republican insiders.

“We want a real person, not a Washington politician,” said Beverly Werner, who owns an auto body shop in suburban Aurora. “He wasn't hand-picked by the GOP, and we like that.”

Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, Buck's main challenger for the GOP nomination, enjoys a large financial advantage over Buck. She didn't participate in Saturday's assembly and will petition onto the primary ballot.

Buck said the state assembly was important to the campaign.

“I think it gives us great moment,” he said. “We leave the state convention with a statewide organization of energized activists, and I am looking forward to meeting more people and building on our base of support.”

Though Bennet and McInnis earned enough support Saturday to make the Aug. 10 primary ballots, coming in second was a setback. Each holds wide fundraising advantages and has been considered the favorite in their races.

Romanoff, the former state House Speaker, got 60 percent of the Democratic delegate votes Saturday, while Bennet got 40 percent.

Romanoff, who also trumped Bennet in Democratic caucus primaries in March, told delegates he would support Bennet if he wins the nomination.

The state assemblies are just one step in a what can be a long convoluted process in Colorado to get elected. Not winning top ballot billing in the state's party assemblies doesn't necessarily signify that a candidate's campaign is doomed.

In 2004, Colorado Springs Schools Superintendent Mike Miles got top billing over Salazar in the Senate Democratic primary. But Salazar went on to win the primary and the general election.

Adding to the confusion, the two top parties have different systems for getting on the state ballot.

While Democrats can participate in the assemblies and get signatures at the same time, Republican candidates have to pick one process or the other. Either way, they need 1,500 signatures from each congressional district by May 27.

The only front-runner to cruise to victory Saturday was Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper. The Denver mayor had no opposition in the Democratic contest to replace Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who is not seeking re-election.

Buck will keep doing what has worked as he tries to close the gap on Norton before the August primary. A recent poll of Republican voters showed Norton with a 5 percentage point lead.

“The process is the same for us,” he said. “I will continue to go out and meet people and answer questions and talk about how I approach the job of United States Senator. I think we will do very well following the same formula we have so far.”

http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100523/NEWS/100529845/1008&parentprofile=1001&template=printart

Expansion Economics - Segment 3 Land-based Economics vs Bureaucratic Dependence

2010-05-20T11:13:00.000-06:00

Land-based Economics vs. Bureaucratic Dependence

Much of the productivity of the lands surrounding Piñon Canyon is invisible to the casual observer. A 100,000 acre expansion of PCMS would cost (in lost productivity) the communities of Southeastern Colorado $27 million to $76 million annually, according to economic data compiled by former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Rep. John Salazar. This includes tourism and hunting revenue, cattle and hay sales, and agricultural salaries. Wind development on a 100,000 acres would generate an additional $25 to $35 million annually. Gas fields east of I-25 could also become a reality as energy prices rise.

The Army estimates PCMS expansion will bring $5 million in salary and $4 million in maintenance costs annually to the local economy. A good trade? Pro-expansion politicians say expansion is about jobs. They are right in some ways; expansion is about the loss of private sector jobs and businesses in southeast Colorado in order to create tax payer funded jobs near Ft. Carson.
.

Expansion Economics - Segment 2 Land and Water - The Foundation

2010-05-19T09:48:00.000-06:00

Land and Water- The Foundation

The economy of Southeastern Colorado has always been land and water based. While peaks in the energy cycle have driven times of great prosperity in Walsenburg and Trinidad with coal at the turn of the century and gas more recently, agriculture has always provided the sustainable economic baseline. Both economic drivers require land.

Looking forward, land will remain central to the local economy as high energy costs drive alternative energy development. Wind and solar will provide addition jobs and economic stimulus to the region. These alternative energies are compatible with existing agricultural production. Jobs in Colorado’s clean energy economy grew more than twice as fast as overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. Witness the wind turbine factory under construction in Pueblo. People will always eat; agriculture will remain a stable economic platform as food security becomes a priority in an un-stable world. Agriculture also maintains a beautiful and healthy landscape that will draw people and industry as the northern front-range trends toward pavement and congestion.

The Piñon Canyon struggle is about Southeast Colorado land. But this struggle is a symptom of a larger problem. The money and political power of urban areas threatens to extract more rural resources. Water, like land, is a cornerstone of agriculture and the explosive growth on the frontrange has an unquenchable thirst. Western Slope water, Lower Arkansas Valley water, and Lower Platte Valley water will move to the front range in the coming years. Individually, the power of rural communities is small. However, in unison these communities have a chance to find solutions to these resource problems that will not destroy the rural agricultural economies.
.
.

Coffman endorses Tipton - does that mean Tipton will be an ally for Coffman on expansion?

2010-05-18T11:14:00.003-06:00

Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, an avid supporter of expanding the Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver site, has endorsed Republican congressional candidate Scott Tipton. Tipton, who released the endorsement on his web site on May 4, said that "I am deeply honored by Congressman Coffman's endorsement." In accepting the endorsement, Tipton refused to disavow Coffman's position on Pinon Canyon.

Coffman has been clear and open about his support for expansion at the Army's site in Southeast Colorado.

On June 17, 2009, Coffman stated in a press release "I remain convinced that the Army's plans, which do not include eminent domain, are fully justified and necessary ." In a story from the Colorado Springs Gazette on April 20, 2010, the headline read 'Congressman [Coffman] proposes condemnation ban to help Pinon Canyon Expand.' The story notes that his proposal, by allaying land-seizure fears, could also avert an all-out expansion ban that Congress has placed on the project annually as part of the Pentagon budget bill, according to a Coffman spokesman. That is, his proposal is really an effort to keep expansion alive.

In 2009, Coffman threw a tantrum when Governor Ritter signed a bill making it more difficult to condemn land at Pinon Canyon. On June 2, 2009, Coffman said that "the Governor clearly has no concept about the training and readiness needs of our combat forces. By signing H.B. 1317, a bill that blocks the Army's ability to expand training areas, the Governor has sent a very clear message that the men and women who serve our nation in uniform are not welcome here. I think he would be more sympathetic if the U.S. Army were to declare itself a terrorist organization."

With his endorsement of Tipton, has Coffman found himself an ally in his crusade to allow the Army to turn thousands of acres of ranch land, many of which has been in family hands for generations, into more training ground? If so, then would Tipton's election likely move supporters of the expansion one step closer to victory and opponents one step closer to the loss of their land?

NOTE: Tipton has been on record as voting for bills that are against PCMS expansion and we are awaiting a reply from his office as to whether his position has in fact changed or does he remain against expansion considering Coffman's endorsement. PCEOC Admin.

Congressman Mike Coffman Endorses Scott Tipton for Congress

Expansion Economics - Segment 1 Pinon Canyon History

2010-05-18T10:06:00.002-06:00

Piñon Canyon History

The history of Fort Carson expansion goes back nearly 40 years. In the late 1970’s opposition by citizens in Pueblo and El Paso Counties, who were concerned about negative economic impacts in their region, blocked a proposed expansion of Ft. Carson proper. Several years later the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) was created 150 miles southeast of Ft. Carson where those who feared negative impacts would be out of sight and out of mind.

The creation of Piñon Canyon was possible only by means of the largest condemnation action in U.S. history. The Army promised economic stimulus, but the community of Southeastern Colorado has received only financial hardship from a 235,000 acre black-hole in an economy driven by land and water resources. Meanwhile, federal dollars have flowed into the Ft. Carson vicinity, creating dependency on the federal government. History is poised to repeat itself with a proposed expansion of PCMS. However, this time the Southeastern Colorado Community has rallied in unity and built a political platform to stop expansion.

Letter to the editor - Pueblo Chieftain May 9, 2010

2010-05-10T15:23:00.002-06:00

Rep. Mike Coffman recently sponsored legislation (HR 5067) to prohibit the Army from expanding Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site through condemnation. Coffman favors expansion and wants his condemnation ban to replace the congressional funding ban that has stopped expansion for several years. He argues that his legislation protects property rights in Southeastern Colorado since it would allow "willing sellers" to offer land to the Army.

Rep. Coffman's view of property rights is incomplete in two ways. First, he assumes the federal government can participate in private "free markets." His assumption is wrong. The federal government is a buyer with unlimited resources that would impose a drastic change of land use. Their mere presence distorts the market. The threat of expansion already has driven all potential buyers except the Army and speculators out of the market.

Second, Coffman also disregards county zoning which serves to protect property rights. All the land in question is zoned agricultural. If the Army buys land without condemnation they should be held to agricultural zoning. Agricultural zoning does not include military live-fire training. I wonder if Coffman would object if his neighbors sold their house for urban warfare training. Is urban warfare training compatible with residential zoning?

Grady Grissom
Fowler

From PCEOC:
Mr. Coffman's own representatives advise the desired result is that the funding ban will be eliminated.
Here is the blurb from the Coffman spokesman:

"But the measure, by allaying land-seizure fears, could also avert an all-out expansion ban that Congress has placed on the project annually as part of the Pentagon budget bill," a Coffman spokesman said.

And here is the link to the article…
http://www.gazette.com/articles/help-97431-congressman-proposes.html
.

From 'The Westerner'

2010-04-28T10:23:00.000-06:00

Friday, April 23, 2010

Expansion foes question Coffman offer on Pinon Canyon

Opponents of an Army proposal to expand its Southeastern Colorado training base Wednesday rejected a congressman’s attempt to ban the Army’s use of eminent domain to secure additional land. "Mr. Coffman has been attempting to open a door for expansion all along. It looks to us that this bill is not something we need. We've already got eminent domain off the table," said Lon Robertson, a Kim rancher and president of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition. Robertson said Coffman's bill asks that funding be allowed and if that happens it opens the door to expansion. "The best way to keep eminent domain away is to keep the funding away from the expansion. The funding ban that is in place already takes any threat of condemnation off the table, so this is a redundant bill that Mr. Coffman is offering," Robertson said. The rancher said Coffman’s motives were puzzling. "I guess we are scratching our heads more than anything right now. We are wondering why he is offering something that is already there and why is he trying to open the door to something that is not necessary." more

Land and Water-The Foundation

2010-04-19T14:59:00.000-06:00

The economy of Southeastern Colorado has always been land and water based. While peaks in the energy cycle have driven times of great prosperity in Walsenburg and Trinidad with coal at the turn of the century and gas more recently, agriculture has always provided the sustainable economic baseline. Both economic drivers require land.
Looking forward, land will remain central to the local economy as high energy costs drive alternative energy development. Wind and solar will provide addition jobs and economic stimulus to the region. These alternative energies are compatible with existing agricultural production. Jobs in Colorado’s clean energy economy grew more than twice as fast as overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. Witness the wind turbine factory under construction in Pueblo. People will always eat; agriculture will remain a stable economic platform as food security becomes a priority in an un-stable world. Agriculture also maintains a beautiful and healthy landscape that will draw people and industry as the northern front-range trends toward pavement and congestion.

The Pinon Canyon struggle is about Southeast Colorado land but this struggle is a symptom of a larger problem. The money and political power of urban areas threatens to extract more rural resources. Water, like land, is a cornerstone of agriculture and the explosive growth on the front-range has an unquenchable thirst. Western Slope water, Lower Arkansas Valley water, and Lower Platte Valley water will move to the front range in the coming years. Individually, the power of rural communities is small. However, in unison these communities have a chance to find solutions to these resource problems that do not destroy the rural agricultural economies.

Headlines confusion..... different Walker - nothing to do with Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion

2010-04-16T10:01:00.005-06:00

While there is a 'Walker' that owns a large part of the PCMS desired expansion area the 'Walker' in the news yesterday is a totally unrelated 'Walker' and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPANSION OF PCMS.

The Army did say that they aren't interested however in purchasing any of the land that Gary Walker says is for sale. (Gazette article)

We must remember too that the Army has adequate training ranges within its existing real estate inventory. Therefore PCEOC is generally opposed to the federalization of more private property, especially productive agricultural lands, no matter where they are. We hope that Mr. Walker will find satisfaction in his desire to sell his property, as is his right and do so and in a manner that will keep it in agricultural production as he says he also desires.

So, to be certain - Gary Walker should not be confused with having anything to do with the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

.

Leave the Black Cloud around long enough....

2010-04-06T10:23:00.004-06:00

The following quote was taken from the article linked/described below:

"Today, Prospect Heights finally shows what the state and city governments want everyone to see: decay. The decay, though, isn’t the work of callous markets that left the neighborhood to perish. It’s the work of a developer wielding state power to press property owners to sell their land “voluntarily.” It’s also the result of a half-decade’s worth of government-created uncertainty, which stopped genuine private investment in its tracks.”
The following link will take you to the rest of the article, an interesting opinion piece on the misuse of eminent domain. This article centers on local governments seizing land for commercial development; so, there are obvious differences between the cases discussed in this article and the circumstances surrounding the PCMS. However, there are some real parallels. In reality, the City of Colorado Springs, and El Paso County are behaving in the same way, and have the same motivations as the local government(s) in this article – economic development. Colorado Springs may say the right thing, claiming that the most important reason for expansion is to properly train our troops, but in reality, their real motivation is the economic growth of their city. Just because a private developer isn’t trying to take S.E. Colorado, and the U.S. Army is, does not change this motivation.

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_eminent-domain-abuse.html

PCEOC March 2010 Newsletter

2010-04-04T21:50:00.005-06:00

PCEOC Newsletters

Caucuses Indicate Pinon Canyon position is a BIG issue!

2010-03-19T10:42:00.002-06:00

March 19th, 2010 - Pueblo Chieftain - Chieftain.Com

TUESDAY’S CAUCUSES showed that Colorado is in for some tough political fighting among both Democrats and Republicans leading up to the primary election.   For Democrats, the main bout for the U.S. Senate pits former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff against appointed incumbent Michael Bennet. In a straw poll, Pueblo Democrats gave the edge to Mr. Romanoff.

However, Sen. Bennet has a huge war chest, much of it money from East Coast liberals. And he’s been endorsed by President Barack Obama, although in recent by-elections that endorsement has not resulted in victories.

Pueblo Republicans gave Evergreen businessman Dan Maes the edge over former Rep. Scott McInnis in a straw poll in the governor’s race. That may have been a result of tea party supporters who are seeking more conservative candidates — a backlash to the liberals who control Congress and the Colorado Statehouse.

Pueblo was one of 13 counties in which Republicans showed more support for Mr. Maes than for Mr. McInnis. It’s clear that, if Mr. McInnis is to win the governorship, we highly recommend that he reconsiders his position on Pinon Canyon.   Mr. McInnis’ support of the Army’s proposal to buy up more ranchland around Fort Carson’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site may play well in Colorado Springs. But it turns off many Southern Coloradans who know full well that shutting down the ranches in Southeastern Colorado will directly damage the economies of Pueblo and the nearby farm communities.

In the GOP senatorial contest, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck outpolled former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, who has had a statistical lead statewide. Also-rans in the Pueblo polling were Cleve Tidwell, former State Sen. Tom Wiens and Steve Barton.

One race that’s cloudy is the Republican campaign for the 3rd Congressional District. State Rep. Scott Tipton of Cortez has been the front-runner, but Steamboat Springs lawyer Bob McConnell has received strong backing from tea party supporters.   However, Rep. Tipton has the endorsement of the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, so this one appears to be one of who can persuade the GOP faithful which of the two is the more conservative.

Stay tuned.

Gubernatorial Candidate says 'NO' to Pinon Canyon expansion

2010-03-14T18:30:00.000-06:00

Ask your CO State Representative to vote against HB1205

2010-03-11T11:21:00.004-07:00

National Ag Day March 17th - We'll celebrate in Denver at Noon at the Capital!!

2010-03-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

Many of us as individuals will be there - to help our legislators remember how important ag and property rights are to the State of Colorado and the nation!

From the Farm Bureau:

National Ag Day celebration on Mar. 17th at the Capitol in Denver. The Ag Day celebration will coincide with the Senate Judiciary committee meeting in which the committee will consider HB 1188 the ‘Right to Trespass’ bill.

This will be a great event in which to celebrate Colorado Agriculture and also to defend it against legislation like HB 1188.

When: March 17th 2010, 12:00pm
Where: Capitol Building West Steps, Denver
Why: To celebrate National Ag Day and to help kill HB 1188.

The press conference will take place on the West Steps as 12:00 and will finish at 12:30. Legislators will be provided a sack lunch immediately afterwards and this will be an opportune time to connect with your legislator and talk about HB 1188.

The Judiciary Committee will convene at 1:30 in the Old Supreme Court room and we need as many cowboy hats and farm caps in the audience as possible!

Buses
Some County Farm Bureau’s are organizing bus trips to take members to and from the Capitol on the 17th. Buses will be leaving from around the state so members will have to drive as little as possible to meet the bus. Please contact your regional manager for additional details and to find out which bus departure will be closest to you.

Richard Connell- (970) 216-2041
Tony Hass- (719) 680-0619
Ron Brink- (303) 386- 6849
Jayde VanCleave- (719) 648-7947
Dana Thompson- (970) 227- 1783

2010-03-05T09:36:00.003-07:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition Mark your calendar and come show your support for 'NO EXPANSION OF PINON CANYON' !!

Support Rural Colorado Event

Are you on FB? Check out our Fan numbers.....Rising!

2010-02-28T20:17:00.000-07:00

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Nature in Southeast Colorado

From the La Junta Tribune: "Romanoff well received in La Junta"

2010-02-23T15:08:00.001-07:00

Full story at LaJuntaTribuneDemocrat.com
Posted Feb 22, 2010 @ 02:28 PM

La Junta, Colo. —

Andrew Romanoff has been one of Colorado’s most popular politicians since he rose to prominence as Speaker of the House and on a cold, blustery Saturday night in La Junta, he proved it once again, drawing more than 50 people from both sides of the political aisle to the Koshare Kiva to hear him speak about his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

Romanoff faces a major challenge trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, the former Denver Public Schools superintendent. Bennet was appointed last year by Gov. Bill Ritter to replace former Sen. Ken Salazar, who was tapped by President Barack Obama as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

Then, last week, Obama appeared in Colorado to campaign for Bennet, a move that left many Democrats crying foul over the fact that Obama “was throwing his weight around” even before Romanoff and Bennet could square off in an Aug. 10 primary election. Both candidates will face the challenge of earning a place on the ballot when Democrats meet for their state assembly this summer. Each needs to earn at least 30 percent of delegate votes to qualify for a place on the primary ballot.

Romanoff acknowledged he’s a “burr under the state’s saddle” currently, challenging an incumbent in a state that turned blue (indicating Democratic Party dominance) during the last General Election. But with a solid record of service at the Statehouse, in-depth knowledge of the state and solid name recognition, he believes
he is ready for the challenge of taking on Bennet, then the status quo in Washington, D.C.

About Congress he said adamantly that it is “so broken and so dysfunctional that something has to be done” to straighten it out. He also said he believes people in Colorado think this is a time of “so much peril and discord” they’ve lost their trust, even as they’ve lost their homes, jobs and even their lives” fighting in wars halfway around the globe.

On the home front, Romanoff said he’s the “only guy in this race who’s standing up to the big guys to block health care reform” as it has been presented in Congress. “Others have lost touch with those who sent them to Washington.”

Romanoff said the support he received from former Gov. Bill Owens in getting Referendum C approved by Colorado voters, which gave the state legislature a five-year time out from the constraints of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, showed he can take heat and win a tough fight.

“We need the same kind of leadership in Washington,” he said. Unfortunately such leadership has been absent in holding Wall Street bankers responsible for the greed that drove America into its worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Instead of holding the bankers and brokerage houses responsible and making them pay for the damage they created, most have been rewarded.

“The word bribery comes to mind,” he said, “and both parties are responsible. There have been no jobs bills, no real protection against home foreclosures and no firm accountability to the people who elected the members
of Congress.”

Unlike Colorado, where state law requires each amendment to a piece of legislation be directly related to the issues contain in proposed bill, in Washington, D.C., it’s anything goes. Legislation gets loaded down with spending measures unrelated to the original legislation.

As a result, Romanoff said there are legions of examples of Congress “putting democracy up for sale.” His motto, though, is the “reduce the power of money and increase the power of the people.” “I you agree with that, I hope you will join us,” he said, “because we know we’ll be outspent 10 to 1 and my opponent had an eight-month head start.”

But some recent polls have shown Romanoff is leading Bennet, a fact he said proves that “people aren’t entitled
to serve in Congress. They have to earn a place in the Senate.” Locally, one of the issues that has rankled both Democrats and Republicans alike is the refusal of either U.S. senator (Bennet and Mark Udall) to attempt to take expansion of Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site off the table permanently for the U.S. Army.

Romanoff said he would support such a ban because he believes there are much better ways for the federal
government to spend its money, just as there are better places for the Army to consider expansion of training
sites if that’s what it really needs.

He credited State Rep. Wes McKinley (D-Walsh) with leading the fight at the Statehouse to keep the Army’s
plans at bay. McKinley and State Sen. Ken Kester succeeded in the last legislation session to establish a ban
on either leasing or selling state school lands to the Army. In Congress, the Colorado delegation accomplished
getting a moratorium on spending money for PCMS expansion for another year.

Referring to Bennet and Udall refusing to ban expansion permanently, Romanoff said it reminded him of an old family saying: If you spend all your time on the fence, you’re bound to get splinters.”

In the same vein, he said the federal government does not know better than the individual states on how to spend money on such issues.” While many people look at military service as one solution to counteracting the growing ranks of unemployment, Romanoff said he disagrees wholeheartedly. “Our best jobs program by far is K-12 education, not just preparing kids to graduate from high school, but helping them make post-secondary education work for them, too.”

Romanoff also explained some of his strong feelings about national defense. Acknowledging there are people in the world who mean to harm Americans through terrorism, Romanoff said emphatically that such people need to be hunted down and punished with the advanced resources at the government’s disposal.

But when it comes to transforming Afghanistan into a modern democracy, he expressed his doubts, calling the possibilities for that “limited,” mostly because of cultural and geographic obstacles faced. There are several things that can be done by the U.S. to help Afghanistan progress, including helping to get a new government firmly established, educating Afghanis to the possibilities for prosperity in the future, continuing to lift up women in their fight for freedom, including education and service in a new government, and, perhaps most importantly, helping other countries in the region follow the examples we’ve set, not in terms of military power alone,” but more in terms of what can be accomplished through peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation.”

In the end, Romanoff said he believes the youngest Americans have figured out what the nation faces if Congress doesn’t change the way it does business. “Kids have it figured out. They know if we in our generation do things we aren’t willing to pay for, they will have to – and they don’t like that,” he said. Health care reform is a perfect example of this. Today’s younger generation knows America spends twice as much on health care as any other nation and twice as much as we did 10 years ago.”

McKinley stood up near the end of the session to assure people his colleague wasn’t touring Eastern Colorado to buy votes. “He works for your votes, and we can elect him – if we work together,” he said.

Grazing necessary for sustainable ecosystems...

2010-02-17T12:42:00.001-07:00

Here are the facts:

Shortgrass prairie makes up approximately one third of Colorado, and only about 40 percent of this prairie remains. Much of what's left is degraded because of development, highways, and water projects. And in this instance the biggest threat in this region is from the Army.

Grazing by large ruminants is a keystone process of the grassland ecosystem. A keystone process is one that has significant impact on the entire ecosystem. Grazing begins with the plant-grazer interaction but the effects of grazing are critical to species at all levels of the system.

Perhaps there were once concerns about over grazing however the many benefits of the sustainable generational ranching practices have proven invaluable to eliminating that concern. In addition there has been continual long term (generations) efforts to properly care for and improve the overall health of the grasslands through careful management of our sacred natural resources.

Grazing is absolutely necessary for healthy grasslands. In a world without buffalo and with fences and roads the management of grazing determines it’s positive and negative affects.

1. A grassland ecosystem responds the same to cattle grazing as it does to bison grazing

2. Sustainable generational ranching families depend on the ecosystem they manage for their livelihood. They maximize economic production by maximizing ecosystem health.

3. Those sustainable generational ranchers in Southeastern Colorado have a wealth of cultural/historical knowledge that guides them in grazing management. These decades and centuries old knowledge based ranchers interact with the land daily and gather monitoring information on their livestock and grasslands that guide their management decisions.

4. Results from the preliminary independent study being performed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) show that southeast Colorado rangelands under private management are in extremely good health and harbor a multitude of rare plant and animal species

Plants: plants developed defenses against grazing, for instance thorns on cactus or the production of poisons. However, other plants developed symbiotic relationships to grazing animals. For example many species rely on grazing to spread seeds in manure, to insert seeds into the soil through trampling, or to stimulate root activity by grazing the plant.

Soil: Plants extract nutrients from the soil and through photosynthesis produce cellulose and lignin. Cellulose and lignin are very stable organic molecules that decompose very slowly. Grazing animals play a critical role in the nutrient cycle by breaking down plant matter and returning nutrients to micro-organisms in the soil.

Habitat Structure: Grasslands, like forests, have successional sequences of plants and associated organisms in the soil. Grazing is a necessary and minimal disturbance that locally rewinds the successional sequence. Local disturbance and “out of sequence successional regimes” lead to greater plant and animal diversity. For example these local structural variations are critical to many bird species that might nest in open areas with high visibility but require thicker taller grasses or shrubs for feeding habitat.
.

'Heartening'

2010-02-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

Today's story in the Pueblo Chieftain about Andrew Romanoff's position on a permanent ban against expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site is, indeed 'heartening'......

Feb 15th Editorial - Pueblo Chieftain

.

Are you part of your Party's Caucus process? It's started....

2010-02-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

You could help effect a platform change/endorsement for your party if enough of us present language for a resolution such as:

"The ______________ Party opposes the U.S. Army's attempted land grab of additional lands surrounding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Southeastern Colorado and supports the enactment of a permanent and binding congressional ban on expansion of the Site"

.

Opposition Groups Honored by LaJunta Chamber

2010-02-11T16:33:00.000-07:00

From the LaJunta Tribune

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition and Not 1 More Acre! received the award together, with Lon Robertson and Steve Wooten accepting for PCEOC and Jim Herrell acccepting the award on behalf of Not 1 More Acre!

Newspaper publisher Candi Hill, who presented the award with Adela Licano and Chamber President Chandra Ochoa, said the two groups "have made significant contributions to protecting Southeastern Colorado's lifestyle and heritage. Through their efforts, ranchland in Pinon Canyon has been protected against expansion by the U.S. Army. Both organizations understand and appreciate the value of agriculture to this community. They are committed to protecting a way of life that impacts every person here. There will be future battles to protect our heritage and we hope both organizations know that they have the support of the communities they are helping to protect."

Hill said the groups should be congratulated "for being the voice of not only the agricultural community but for all people of Southeastern Colorado." Robertson said four years ago when PCEOC was started, people warned him the group couldn't win against the Army in its haste to expand it 238,000-acre training site southwest of La Junta.

"As a community we are here because we don't give up," Robertson said.

Herrell said even though the groups have succeeded in getting a congressional funding ban on expansion of Pinon Canyon and a moratorium on leasing or selling state land to the military, "it's like hitting a home run in the fifth inning. It's nice but there's still a lot of work left to do."

Herrell said the Army's plans to expand the site by 418,000 acres still stand. Congress needs to take the plans off the table, he said. Herrell called the people of Southeast Colorado "among the most patriotic you will find in America," adding that the example set by the two groups in opposing expansion of Pinon Canyon means parents here "can still look their children in the eyes and tell them to stand up for what they believe in."

The two groups received a standing ovation from the crowd before they left the banquet stage.

.

A reprint from Doug's Pilgrimage Blog.......

2010-02-11T14:54:00.000-07:00

The two major political parties are subverting the democratic process in our state. They are, perhaps unwittingly pushing people like me toward the "Independent" column. First it was the Republican elite who got together behind closed doors to anoint Scott McInnis as their candidate for governor, long before the primary process had a chance to work. They even drafted a platform, a document which has traditionally been part of the party caucus process.

Now it's the Democrats who are subverting the primary process. President Obama is on his way to Denver to give his blessing to, and raise mega-bucks for Senate candidate, Michael Bennet. Such an endorsement would be fine if the primary process had been allowed to play itself out and Bennet had emerged as the party's choice. But that's not the case. There's another strong, viable Democratic candidate in the race; former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff.

Read the rest of Doug's blog here: http://purgatorypilgrim.blogspot.com/

Romanoff opposes Pinon Canyon - Pueblo Chieftain

2010-02-05T14:16:00.001-07:00

Friday, February 05, 2010

Romanoff opposes Pinon Canyon expansion Calls for ‘total ban’ on the enlargement debate.

Andrew Romanoff

Calls for ‘total ban’ on the enlargement debate.

By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

February 05, 2010 12:06 am

Andrew Romanoff says the four-year fight between the Army and Southern Colorado ranchers over the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site has gone on too long and — if elected to the U.S. Senate — he would permanently block any future expansion of the 238,000-acre training area near Trinidad.

   "We need a total ban on (the Army) expanding Pinon Canyon," the former Democratic speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives said in an interview Thursday. "The ranchers down there deserve to have this fight come to an end once and for all."

   Romanoff is challenging U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., for the party's nomination and he spoke to the Jac-X-Press Democratic Club in Pueblo on Thursday.

   Publicly, the Army has wanted to expand Pinon Canyon since 2006, saying it needs more training land to support troops at Fort Carson. Ranchers and other opponents have blocked that effort with federal and state legislation, forcing the Army to whittle its land acquisition effort from 418,000 acres in 2008 to 100,000 acres last year.

   Foes have been wanting a Colorado senator to take a hard line and rule out any future expansion — a step that would likely prevent the Senate from considering any expansion under its rules. While Sens. Mark Udall and Bennet, both Democrats, have voted for annual funding bans blocking any expansion, neither senator has gone so far as Romanoff, ruling out any future consideration.

   Romanoff is running for the Senate as an outsider of sorts. While he has an established reputation with Colorado Democrats after serving in the Legislature, it is Bennet — who was appointed to the Senate seat a year ago by Gov. Bill Ritter — who has the backing of the national Democratic Party and President Barack Obama. In fact, Obama is coming to Denver later this month to appear at three Bennet fundraisers.

   Several Democrats at the luncheon said Obama's endorsement of Bennet may not carry much weight with rank-and-file Democrats, who have seen the Democratic majority in Congress seem to be in disarray over health care and other issues.

   "I don't think it hurts Andrew at all to be considered an outsider right now," said Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor, one of about 70 Democrats at the luncheon.

   Romanoff had the backing of more than 60 county Democratic chairmen when Ritter was deliberating over who to appoint to the Senate seat vacated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in January 2009.

Ritter chose Bennet, the superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and a virtual unknown to Democrats outside the Denver area — a pick that startled and angered numerous Pueblo Democrats.

   "My opponent has money, but we have people," Romanoff said, referring to Bennet's impressive war chest of nearly $5 million in campaign contributions.

   By comparison, Romanoff has raised about $600,000 — "But nearly all of my contributions have come from Colorado residents," he said.

   Romanoff has announced that he will not take contributions from political action committees and other special-interest groups. He is trying to draw comparisons to Bennet, who has received sizable contributions from Wall Street banks and financial interests by virtue of serving on the Senate Banking Committee.

   "I think too many lawmakers get enthralled with the need to raise money and turn to those special interests to get it," he said.

   Romanoff never mentioned Bennet by name in his luncheon speech, but said Democrats had squandered their opportunity for real health care reform by going along with special deals made to win the support of Democratic senators. Those deals angered the public, Romanoff said, and Democratic senators should have stopped them — not protested afterward.

"We made the biggest mistake in offering a compromise bill (to Republicans) who never intended to compromise in the first place," he said.

   Romanoff supports a public option — giving people a government-backed insurance program as one alternative — and said Congress must provide that if lawmakers are going to require everyone to purchase health insurance.

proper@chieftain.com

Romanoff opposes Pinon Canyon expansion; Calls for a total ban on the Pinon Canyon debate - Topix

2010-02-05T13:55:00.002-07:00

Romanoff opposes Pinon Canyon expansion; Calls for a total ban on the maneuver site enlargement debate - Topix

Poll update from Rasmussen on Colo Senate race: Bennet, Romanoff trail Norton

2010-02-05T10:19:00.002-07:00

News forwarded from

Poll: Bennet, Romanoff trail Norton

By: Jessica Taylor
February 5, 2010 10:21 AM EST

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet is trailing in his reelection bid by double digits, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey that shows him losing by 14 percentage points to Republican Jane Norton.

Norton, the state's former lieutenant governor, is up over Bennet by a margin of 51 percent to 37 percent, with 7 percent undecided. Norton's edge has grown slightly since last month, when she held a 12-point lead.

The poll also shows Bennet losing to two other Republican contenders, former state Sen. Tom Wiens and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck.

Former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who's challenging Bennet in the Democratic primary, runs closer to Norton in the poll, losing by only 7 points.

Bennet's reelection hopes will get a boost later this month, when President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Denver to raise money for him. Obama plans to speak at two fundraisers on Feb. 17.

We need more common sense......

2010-02-04T12:49:00.000-07:00

From our Facebook discussion page: "It is always good to see politicians standing up on principle instead of towing party lines. And as you suggest they should all be recognized and supported when they stand for principle. We need more common sense on these issues. All Colorado representatives in my opinion from both sides of the isle should be standing for our fellow citizens." Rich Hand

Western Slope water and Southeastern/Eastern Plains - all on McInnis' chopping block?

2010-02-02T13:34:00.000-07:00

More terrifying threats from McInnis as reflected in the Montrose Daily Press:

"McInnis vows his first trip after he’s elected governor will be to the Pentagon to tell its leadership that Colorado is back in play and wants to expand on its established military environment, which includes a number of installations besides the obvious ones most know in Colorado Springs."

Besides condemning all of us in the southeast, and the thousands of jobs we support, McInnis will undoubtedly also be going after Western Slope water and agriculture as well. Urban areas that McInnis wants to see grow on the Front Range are pushing just that already.

From the Pueblo Chieftain article 'Gunnison: Should state study drying up cities?':
Front range group "has urged the state to look at drying up Western Slope agriculture as a strategy [for water supply] along with Eastern Plains reduction in farmland"
and
"Gunnison turned that around, saying the state is hardly looking at the real problem: Increased urban demand" .

Along with the attitude that the Southeast corner of the state is apparently completely unimportant, if McInnis is elected we now know we also run the risk of losing all of our state's agriculture. East and West.

Got Food?

.

Colorado Springs HAS NOT lost military jobs like some would want you to believe

2010-02-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

Claims made by gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis during a campaign event in Windsor on January 27^th are more than just misleading. McInnis reportedly told attendees in Windsor that military basing decisions during the past year have cost thousands of jobs in Colorado, and that a bi-partisan bill blocking the sale of state-owned lands to the Army is to blame. [http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100128007 ]

McInnis was referring to Department of Defense, Army, and Air Force decisions during the past year, which have affected Colorado Springs and other military locations nationwide. For example, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates canceled the planned creation of three additional brigades, which would have been part of the Future Combat Systems. [ http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061009cdam2.htm ].

One of those brigades had supposedly been slated for Fort Carson yet last April the Army decided to relocate Division West headquarters to Fort Hood in Texas, which resulted in the relocation of about 300 hundred people, [http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2009/04/03/19239-force-structure-actions-at-fort-hood-and-other-installations/ ] and in May the Air Force decided to locate its Cyber Command in San Antonio, Texas, rather than in Colorado Springs. [http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/05/11/daily38.html ]

McInnis tried to imply that those decisions were prompted by a bill enacted last summer with broad bi-partisan support but his implications don’t hold water. He was referring to HB1317, which blocks the state from selling land to the Army for the expansion of Pinon Canyon. But McInnis is wrong on two important points:

HB 1317 was signed into law in June, after the basing and troop-strength decisions had been made, so it is unlikely that it had any influence upon those decisions. And
the basing decisions did not cause a loss of jobs in Colorado. In fact, the military population has grown in the state. For example, during the past four years Fort Carson has experienced its largest population growth since it was founded in 1942 [http://search.carson.army.mil/pao-news/press-releases/]

Published reports in fact indicate that Fort Carson has actually grown by several thousand troops, and that the Army has received millions of dollars to fund new construction. For instance, the base added 6,500 soldiers of the 4th Infantry Division headquarters and its 3,800-soldier 1st Brigade Combat Team [http://www.fortcarsonblog.com/2009/04/30/fort-carson-will-gain-a-division-headquarters-unit-this-summer-and-it-will-lose-one-too-post-officials-announced-friday/]

According to Fred Crowley, senior economist at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, these additional troops created about 5,000 new jobs in Colorado Springs. [http://csbj.com/2009/07/02/military-spending-vital-to-springs-economy/]

So, McInnis’ claims are completely wrong and in fact Colorado has become ever more dependent upon the military and federal dollars. However, the majority of true conservative Republicans as well as the majority of Democrats and Independents all over the country understand that throwing tax payer dollars at local economies does not resolve the economic downturn. Instead it robs dollars from people and businesses that create stable productive private sector jobs.

McInnis continues to spout non-truths and misconceptions, and if allowed he would nationalize land and steal jobs from the southeast Colorado economy. His "job math" does not include the jobs he would destroy in southeast Colorado by expanding Pinon Canyon and tying those federal subsidized dollars to the military does not make them effective or necessary. Our military should not be an economic tool for politicians and southeast Colorado shouldn’t be allowed to be sacrificed let alone because of some make believe scheme by Mr. McInnis.

Army says 'no expansion this year' (surprise)........

2010-01-19T13:44:00.002-07:00

Fort Carson suggests that they are 'working on mending fences' and won't expand right now. Yet, they also say that the Army may still need to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site someday.

While it may sound admirable at first, we need only consider that the Army CAN'T EXPAND THIS YEAR anyway because of the temporary spending ban renewal last month (December).

This statement does nothing to offset the cloud of expansion that continues to hang over our heads though and for them to say 'we won't expand right now' seems to try to suggest it was somehow their idea.

If the spending ban hadn't gone through last month we expect that Fort Carson would be talking about how fast they are going forward with expansion.

The Army says for now commanders are looking at how to best use the land they have [at PCMS] and we commend them for that. However, it doesn't address the real need to evaluate the excess and underutilized testing and training ranges already owned by the DoD nationwide.

We believe if an honest appraisal is done that these existing resources are more than adequate to achieve the Army's training goals and objectives relative to the troop strength and basing decisions at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. Without ANY expansion of Pinon Canyon - this year or ever.

Another Blog: Doug's Pilgrimage

AP Story links:

Houston Chron.com

Dallas Morning News

KRDO TV
Army Times
Denver Post
KOAA TV
Springs Gazette
NewsOK

Scott McInnis' agendas

2010-01-14T10:13:00.004-07:00

Stories showing Scott McInnis' true colors and agenda -

News5 :

"He also gave his support to an expansion of the Army's proposed Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site saying that his first official visit in office would be to the Pentagon to tell military planners that they have a friend in office in Colorado."

and he supports Douglas Bruce:
NewsChannel13
Fox21
DenverPost.com

.

Scott McInnis tries a new guise - or should we say disguise......

2010-01-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

Scott McInnis' disguises may fool some but not most that are looking/listening - wonder what he'll do/say next?

See rest of the story associated with the picture at ColoradoPols.com

Denver Direct on Pinon Canyon

2010-01-02T22:23:00.002-07:00

Good blog entry/section on Pinon Canyon at Denver Direct . com

.

Season's greetings and best wishes for the New Year!!

2009-12-22T11:20:00.000-07:00

To all of those who have been so steadfast in their support of PCEOC and the efforts to keep our rights and our homes protected from needless destruction:

There is no time
more fitting to say
~ Thank You ~

and to wish you
a Happy Holiday Season
and a New Year of health,
happiness and prosperity.

Special Interests infect McInnis' agenda.....

2009-12-14T10:08:00.001-07:00

Who does Scott McInnis work for?

We already know that he works for Hogan & Hartson, Washington D.C.'s largest law/lobbying firm, http://www.hhlaw.com/smcinnis/, Whose clients include Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors. http://www.hhlaw.com/aerospace/

But on top of that he is one of six consultants working for Armor Designs Inc., a company that "is developing next generation armor for today's combat missions and for Future Combat System programs." http://www.armordesigns-ir.co.uk/content/about/advisory.asp

Not surprising that McInnis' agenda isn't concerned with what is in the best interests for the State of Colorado but instead is running for office solely for the purpose of more personal gain. And he doesn't care who he uses as treads in the stair climb to his 'platform for prosperity'.

.

Temporay Funding Ban still in place (at least for one more year)

2009-12-11T10:36:00.000-07:00

The temporary ban to keep funds from being used to expand the Pinon Canyon maneuver site has been extended for one more year.....

Thanks again to our 'hero' Rep John Salazar for getting the ban attached to the House version of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY10 and for the support of Rep Markey, Senators Udall and Bennet to get it secured in Conference committee. The Omnibus Appropriations Act will be voted on by the House and the Senate before years end.

We trust those that have supported us so well will continue to push the permanent ban that is so desperately needed and for John Salazar to receive the colleague support necessary to put that in place (that was missing earlier this year).

.

McInnis says 'do no harm' principle 'key' yet his actions say otherwise

2009-12-07T15:11:00.002-07:00

Well, it seems hypocrisy is one of the key components for Mr. McInnis to run for office.

He recently stated "There are some general criteria or general principles I think you have to have in your vision. Number one; do no harm... Don't do harm to industry that's so important to Colorado; for example, the natural gas industry."

He apparently doesn't consider agriculture as an 'industry' deserving of his 'do no harm' principle.

He criticizes Gov Ritter for doing harm to the energy and military sectors while he proposes doing harm to Colorado's second largest economic contributor, agriculture. That's right - second largest economic contributor. And the 6.9 million acre area targeted for expansion by the Army (that's more than 10,000 square miles) produces food for almost a million people.

Does this sound like he is 'sticking to his principles' when he advocates for the Pinon Canyon expansion that will result in the loss of a quarter of the states second largest industry; along with more than 17,000 people; along with food production for a million people? That's 'doing no harm'?

Can't say we agree with McInnis' obvious idea that our part of the Colorado economy is expendable - along with all of us.

A Senate candidate that will stand up with our US Reps for a permanent ban?

2009-12-04T15:21:00.001-07:00

Apparently so! Former Representative and Colorado Speaker of the House, Andrew Romanoff has the gumption to do what is right and has taken the strongest position against the expansion of Pinon Canyon of anyone in Colorado running for US Senate, or anyone currently acting as US Senator for that matter.

Our US Representative John Salazar, joined by US Rep Betsy Markey have been steadfast in their position against expansion, yet a recent attempt by Congressman John Salazar to get a permanent ban in place failed apparently largely because it was not supported by our Senators Udall and Bennet.

Considering that we are constantly working to get people in office that represent their constituents, and are willing to say that up front we believe that everyone should consider that alone is deserving of our support in the form of votes.

No matter what the affiliation if a candidate is against expansion and willing to put a permanent ban in place then he/she should get our no expansion votes. Conversely if any candidate is working to push the expansion agenda we believe we should work to keep him/her out of office to protect our rights.

Here's today's Chieftain article on Mr. Romanoff:

Lawmakers seek to extend Pinon Canyon ban

2009-12-02T14:52:00.000-07:00

McInnis: Pseudo-conservative?

2009-11-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

According to the Colorado Office of Economic Development agriculture is Colorado’s second leading industry, and Southeastern Colorado alone feeds nearly a million people.

Keeping business and protecting property rights along with protecting our food supplies should be a conservative principle - don't you think?

Not so for Scott McInnis’s position on the Pinon Canyon expansion and his 'contract with Colorado' (but now he's calling it the Republican 'Platform for Prosperity'). With the failure of the Republican Platform to reverse the view that the elimination of 10,000 square miles of private property is somehow 'OK', how can anyone support him or for that matter the Republican party?

Scott McInnis' 'Platform for Prosperity' denies the opportunity for any kind of survival let alone prosperity for for all of southeast Colorado - supporting the expansion denies southeastern Colorado residents the constitutional right of private property ownership and burdens the entire state with the resultant job losses that will occur when the production of food for almost a million people is eliminated along with the elimination of more than 17,000 people (the Army's own figures).

Conservative? Nothing could be further from the truth.

.

Bennet: Pinon Canyon moratorium extension likely

2009-11-17T09:10:00.001-07:00

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Michael Bennet

Neither Bennet nor Sen. Mark Udall included the funding ban in the Senate bill, however.

By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

November 14, 2009 01:03 am

Congress will extend the annual funding ban on the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site through 2010, Sen. Michael Bennet predicted Friday.

Neither Bennet nor Sen. Mark Udall, both Colorado Democrats, are attempting to add that language to the Senate version of the 2010 military construction appropriations bill, but Bennet said he's been assured by Senate leadership that the funding ban will be in the final bill that will be put together by both House and Senate lawmakers.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., put the funding prohibition in the House spending bill earlier this year, marking the third year it has been approved by the House.

But neither Bennet nor Udall has followed suit in the Senate.

That means when Senate and House lawmakers meet in conference to work out a final military construction spending bill, the Pinon Canyon ban only will be in the House version and not guaranteed to be accepted by Senate conferees.

Bennet said that's not a concern.

"The reason we didn't bring the funding ban to the Senate is a floor battle over amendments could have unintended consequences," he said following a talk to the Latino Chamber of Commerce luncheon Friday. "We have been assured - and I am confident - the funding ban will be in the final conference report."

Salazar and then-Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., first authored the funding prohibition in 2007, which barred the Army from spending any money from its military construction funds on expanding the 238,000-acre training range northeast of Trinidad. In September of that year, then-Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., pushed the amendment through the Senate on a hard-fought, narrow vote.

Last year, John Salazar and Musgrave repeated the amendment and it was adopted in the 2009 military construction bill.

Earlier this year, John Salazar, now a member of the House Appropriations Committee, added the ban to the House version of the 2010 spending bill.

As for the Senate taking up its comprehensive health care bill as early as next week, Bennet said he believed the Senate will draft a better bill than the House version in terms of controlling costs. "What I want to see is a range of options, including a (government-created) public option," he said.

There are several senators, however, who have declared they will filibuster and block any legislation that includes a government-backed health insurance program, often called a public option.

"The Senate will complete a health care bill, but when is the question no one can answer right now," Bennet said.

proper@chieftain.com

Denver News Blog

2009-11-11T13:56:00.001-07:00

Wake-Up Call: Army maneuvers appeal of Pinon Canyon ruling

.

It's more than just......

2009-11-11T10:46:00.001-07:00

While the “Pinon Canyon controversy” is often characterized as fight between ranchers and the Army, in reality opposition to the Pinon Canyon expansion comes from individuals and groups representing the entire political spectrum. Opponents include conservatives and liberals, property-rights organizations, and environmental groups. They include groups representing peace and justice advocates and veterans. Opposition to expansion has been stated in the local and/or state platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and has been expressed by candidates from both parties. Expansion has been opposed by all levels of government, from county commissions and cities to regional councils and our state legislature, and both house of the U.S. Congress. Historical preservation groups and agricultural organizations have weighed in on the issue.

Obviously these diverse groups object to the expansion on the basis of differing interests. That is why the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, PCEOC, calls itself a coalition. We believe that the fact that expansion is opposed from so many different is perspectives is why Colorado has been so successful in standing against this threat. Ever since our organization began, almost four years ago we have endeavored to be inclusive and non-partisan, focusing on just one issue; stopping the Army’s plan to turn the Southeastern corner of Colorado into a huge, 6.9 million-acre, live-fire range.

It doesn't make sense...Federalize more private property for less diversity??

2009-10-28T10:38:00.001-06:00

The Colorado Springs economy is the best test-case for what happens when an economy becomes overly dependent upon the federal dollars as it's base. Colorado Springs is going through tough times during a period of military expansion. Their difficulties began prior to the national downturn.
According to Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, the military currently accounts for 40% of the economy in the Pikes Peaks Region.

http://www.coloradospringschamber.org/military/

Milken Institute’s report on the best performing cities shows that Colorado Springs fell from 96th in 2007, to 111th in 2008. At the same time other cities in Colorado with more diverse economies climbed up on the list. Denver, Fort Collins, Grand Junction and Pueblo all advanced. Greeley topped them all, ranking 20th in the nation, not because of a military presence, but because their diverse economy which includes agriculture, manufacturing and alternative energy.

(http://bestcities.milkeninstitute.org/bestcities2008.taf?rankyear=2008&type=state&state=CO)

KVOR Blog points out McInnis is on WRONG side of Pinon Canyon issue

2009-10-28T10:37:00.000-06:00

Many in the conservative circles are scratching their heads concerning Scott McInnis' - from being on the wrong side of the Pinon Canyon issue to refusing to debate with fellow candidates to continually getting his facts wrong. Here is one example of people absolutely understanding that the Pinon Canyon expansion is wrong: CLICK HERE

Penry: one of the 'other' GOP candidates has differing views from McInnis' 'expand' position

2009-10-26T14:20:00.003-06:00

Saturday, October 24, 2009
Penry wins kudos on base expansion

By PABLO CARLOS MORA
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

October 24, 2009 12:06 am

TRINIDAD - Josh Penry found a receptive audience Friday among Southern Coloradans opposed to the Army’s proposed expansion of its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
       “The Army needs to come clean with folks out here,” Penry said in meetings at Trinidad State Junior College and later in Walsenburg.
       “Until the Army takes eminent domain and condemnation off the table,” the Republican candidate for governor said he will oppose expansion.
       Penry, a state senator from Grand Junction, contrasted his stand on Pinon Canyon expansion with that of Scott McInnis, the former 3rd Congressional District representative who also is seeking to unseat Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter. Republican Dan Maes also is in the race.
       “McInnis said it was not about private property rights and people who oppose the expansion are anti-military. That is irresponsible and reckless,” Penry said. “Fort Carson is important. So are private property rights.”

CHIEFTAIN PHOTOS/PABLO CARLOS MORA -- Penry visited Walsenburg and Trinidad on Friday in his bid to become Colorado’s governor.

       The Army contends that Colorado Springs-based Fort Carson must be allowed to expand its Pinon Canyon site from its current 238,000 acres by at least 100,000 acres and perhaps much more to accommodate more troops being stationed there.
       The Army proposal has taken fire from farmers and ranchers in the proposed expansion area.

Gary Baldwin asks Penry a question Friday during a meeting in Walsenburg.

      Penry is not opposed to any expansion of the training site but rather to the use of eminent domain or condemnation to take private property for the expansion, according to Andrew Cole, his press secretary.
      “If (the Army) took eminent domain off the table and there are willing sellers, then that is their choice,” Cole said Friday. “Until that is taken off the table, then he is against the move. Willing sellers can do as they please with their land.”
       Penry fielded numerous questions in both towns:

On health care reform, Penry said, “The health care proposal is a terrible idea. We can’t afford it. Government-run, socialized medicine does not work. It leads to rationing.”
When a Huerfano County resident said the energy industry “has destroyed 80 percent of the groundwater in the county,” Penry said state law provides safeguards for water and other natural resources.

“We need to keep the lights on,” Penry said. “Companies should be held accountable when they make mistakes. We need to strike a balance between regulation and the environment that incentivizes companies to use the right technology.”

On illegal immigration, Penry said, “First, we need to secure the border. Then we ask, ‘Who do we need here?’ on the employment side.”

Penry backs the controversial “e-verify” system in which employers check a federal database before hiring anyone to determine if they are eligible to work in this country. Critics say the system is rife with errors that unfairly deny jobs to Hispanics and others.
“And sanctuary cities shouldn’t get state aid,” he said, referring to cities such as Denver that allegedly follow certain practices to protect illegal immigrants.

pmora@chieftain.com

.

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition against McInnis

2009-10-15T08:11:00.003-06:00

PCEOC

Press Release Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition vehemently against candidate McInnis

Defending against the Pinon Canyon expansion requires we use our voices and power of vote to keep him out of office.
For immediate release
Contact: Lon Robertson 719-980-5114
Steve Wooten 719-384-5813

KIM, Colorado (October 12, 2009)-

Representatives of PCEOC again met with Scott McInnis in Walsenburg last week, in an effort to explain directly to Mr. McInnis that he was misleading the public with statements such as 'it's not the majority of residents down there that are against expansion' and other remarks that belittle all of our opposition efforts. Then to find today that he has placed a false statement on his website stating, "It was great to again meet with local ranchers who were justifiably upset by the Governor's needless legislation attacking military jobs." This statement is entirely fictitious as no ranchers were there that weren't against the expansion of PCMS and all of them present actually support the Governor's legislation to protect landowners in southeast CO.

Thus the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition (PCEOC) will oppose the candidacy of Scott McInnis for governor. McInnis has spoken in favor of Pinon Canyon expansion because "Expansion will create jobs in El Paso County and the I-70 corridor". PCEOC president Lon Robertson pointed out that "McInnis has chosen the military industrial complex over the property rights, agricultural economy, and future of Southeast Colorado. We are a non-partisan organization. We are not endorsing any candidate, but we do feel compelled to counter the position of this candidate. The federalization of Colorado's land and the militarization of the state's economy are not the answer to our financial problems."

Robertson added: "We are defending our region of Colorado against a direct assault. McInnis believes that it's okay to sacrifice our part of the state for the benefit of defense contractors in Aurora and Colorado Springs. A gubernatorial aspirant should be thinking about the interests of the state as whole; not destroying one region to benefit another."

McInnis has given up the pretext that Pinon Canyon expansion is about National Defense. He says "Ft Carson [Pinon Canyon] expansion is about jobs, jobs, jobs". Grady Grissom, a PCEOC board member, observed that McInnis' position is ironic for a conservative. "Ultimately all wealth is created in the private sector. McInnis is proposing the destruction of private businesses and the federalization of private lands in order to subsidize local economies with federal tax dollars. I don't see that as a conservative position."

PCEOC members include significant numbers of veterans and residents with sons and daughters that are actively serving in the military. Robertson pointed out that, "Our patriotic membership resents McInnis' attempt to use our military as an economic development tool. We support our troops. We fully expect our military to properly train our men and women in uniform, and we believe the mission of our troops is to defend this country, not to prop up local economies."

Robertson says that PCEOC plans to mobilize its extensive statewide network in opposition to McInnis' candidacy. "We are fighting for the future of our community and our country and we are asking everyone that opposes the expansion to also oppose Mr. McInnis in his bid for office."

Army planning documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show a multi-phased Pinon Canyon acquisition strategy which would ultimately displace over 17,000 people within 6.9 million acres of Southeastern Colorado. PCEOC is intent on protecting our land, our homes and our way of life.

The Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition is a broad-based coalition representing communities across Southern Colorado in their opposition to the proposed expansion of PCMS. Bi-partisan PCEOC members include business owners, teachers, students, elected officials, ranchers, environmentalists and many others.

The coalition is united in its opposition to any expansion of PCMS. No funding, no expansion.

For more information, please see www.pinoncanyon.com.

###

Blog with PCEOC

Follow PCEOC on Twitter

PCEOC

www.pinoncanyon.com

PCEOC

www.pinoncanyon.com

Email Marketing by

Pro-expansion candidates and Army continues to try back door approaches

2009-09-25T09:43:00.004-06:00

Recent statements by persons running for Governor and for the 3rd CD show the need to push and push hard for a permanent ban. Here is a story on a pro-expansion candidate that just announced Trinidad Times Independent - Friday September 25th.

Not 1 More Acre opposition group blocked a recent effort by the Army to do an 'end around' by annexing the Pinon Canyon maneuver site into Fort Carson (and by doing so changing the name and intending to side step legislation against expansion specific to Pinon Canyon). Read Notice by PCEOC here

.

Judge rules Army 'Arbitrary and Capricious'

2009-09-15T10:30:00.004-06:00

From the September 10th Pueblo Chieftain:

IT'S TIME for the Army to go back to square one now that a federal judge has blocked plans to increase its use of the existing Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch this week set aside the Army's decision authorizing new facilities and year-round training at the 238,000-acre site northeast of Trinidad. The judge concluded the Army's impact statement "does not adequately assess the impact on the environment of the increase in intensity and duration of training operations" at the site.

"The Army's conclusion that there would be no significant environmental impacts is counterintuitive," Judge Matsch wrote.

We share the judge's recognition that there would be massive environmental damage from heavy military trucks and tanks grinding down the fragile ranchland that exemplifies Pinon Canyon. And to expose the land to a constant beating year-round would be unacceptable.

The Army has taken the judge's ruling under advisement, but has not indicated what its next course of action might be.

The best thing for Southeastern Colorado would be for the Army to abandon its ill-conceived plans to not just increase use of the existing site but to expand it by at least another 100,000 acres.

Expansion opponents have banded together as Not One More Acre! - a very apt description of our attitude toward Pinon Canyon expansion, a truly bad plan.

The Army has run roughshod over the ranchers and townspeople in the area since the original Pinon Canyon acquisition in the 1980s. Army officials reneged on promises that the maneuver site would lead to more local jobs and economic development. It simply hasn't happened.

How do the folks at Fort Carson think their neighbors in eastern El Paso County would react to that kind of treatment? We suspect the response there would be "not in my backyard." Residents of Southeastern Colorado deserve far better treatment than they've gotten from the Army.

The Army should get the message and drop plans for expanding the use and size of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

.

Penry continues to gain on McInnis - makes a heck of a lot more sense than McInnis

2009-09-08T09:59:00.002-06:00

Penry showing stronger leadership capabilities than McInnis from the GOP point of view.

From the Pueblo Chieftain:

Friday, September 04, 2009

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

COLORADO SPRINGS: Gubernatorial candidate defends Pinon Canyon vote

September 04, 2009 08:29 am

DEAN TODA
THE GAZETTE

It was billed as one young professional talking to a bunch of people like him about what it’s like to quickly climb the ladder of success.

Josh Penry has lived that story. At age 33, he’s the Republican leader in the state Senate.

But what the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce Rising Professionals group got with their lunch Thursday was a stump speech by Penry, who wants to succeed Gov. Bill Ritter.

Penry, who’s from Grand Junction, spent much of his 40 minutes at the microphone at the Crowne Plaza Hotel accusing Ritter of hurting the state’s economy by driving away oil and gas exploration and “unionizing state government.” “His policies, his priorities, have made a bad situation worse,” Penry said.

Penry’s prescription is classic Reaganomics: tax cuts, which he said would not only energize the economy, but increase tax revenues enough to pay for what he called “reforming” the public education system, making college more affordable and investing more in the state’s transportation system.

Penry also defended his vote this year to deny the use of state lands for the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, a Fort Carson training ground south of La Junta. He argued that his vote protected private property owners who have seen their former neighbors dispossessed by the Army through eminent domain confiscations.

The more common view in the Springs, however, is to see the Pinon Canyon law as the first toppling domino.

According to a variety of local Republican officeholders at the state and county level, if a Pinon Canyon expansion is less practicable, then Fort Carson becomes less desirable as a place to transfer new Army units or keep the ones already there.

There’s no evidence that the Pentagon is planning to pull the plug on Fort Carson. But the Pinon Canyon issue has become something of a litmus test for local Republicans.

Penry also faces a name recognition hurdle. He’s not as well known in the Springs as Scott McInnis, who served six terms in Congress and is also seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

County Commissioner Sallie Clark is chairwoman of McInnis’s campaign in El Paso County, and came to hear Penry on Thursday. Did she hear anything to change her mind? “Absolutely not,” she said, citing McInnis’ record and experience.

County Commissioner Amy Lathen was also on hand, but has endorsed neither candidate. Was she impressed by Penry? “That would be a resounding yes,” she said.

Army continues to try to distort GAO and other reports

2009-08-27T09:22:00.004-06:00

Recently, in a response to a question by Senator Udall and during his confirmation hearing, Army Secretary Nominee John McHugh reintroduced the possibility that eminent domain might ultimately be used to expand Pinon Canyon. His response to Mr. Udall's question about his commitment to work only with willing sellers was that he wouldn't make such a promise since he wasn't sure he could keep it, but that working with willing sellers should be the preferred "first path." (Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, July 30, 2009)

On July 24^th we participated in a forum hosted by Action-22 at the Colorado State University campus in Pueblo. Also participating, representing the Army was Operations Officer, Mr. James Rice, (Col. Retired.) At that forum Mr. Rice misrepresented the GAO reports, stating that the reports “validated the Army’s expansion plan.” As you know, both reports very clearly state that they do no such thing. GAO-09-171, states that the report "focused on the extent to which the Army addressed the report provisions required by the section 2831 of the National Defense Authorization Act" and "not the extent to which we do or do not concur with the Army's plan." (GAO-09-171, page 20.) GAO-09-32 reviews the Army's approach to land acquisition; not whether their proposed Pinon Canyon expansion is a good idea. The report clearly states, "We did not assess the soundness or validity of the Army's proposed or completed land acquisition.” (GAO-09-32, page 36 )

We are concerned that Army is attempting to distort the GAO’s conclusions.

The GAO reports point out that the Army failed to answer several important questions that they were required to respond to by Congress and that the process by which they pursued their expansion proposal was flawed. We find in these reports ample support for our contention that Fort Carson's application for a waiver from the Department of Defense moratorium on major land acquisitions was flawed and actions taken by the Army subsequent to the approval of that waiver have deviated from its expressed purpose in significant ways and that the waiver should therefore be terminated. The Army should have that approval withdrawn and revert to its prior status under the conditions of the DoD moratorium on major land acquisitions.

GAO-09-171 indicates that the Army failed to respond to six of the Congressional mandates and that they failed to provide any rationale for selecting the 100,000 acres for the proposed expansion. This is a significant deviation from the original application for waiver and another factor that should nullify it.

GAO-09-171 also indicates that the per acre cost of the land in the Army's revised initiative to acquire 100,000 acres, has been doubled from the per acre cost indicated in the original proposal. These new factors invalidate the Department of Defense decision to approve the Army's waiver application.

GAO-09-32 recommends that the army develop and implement a process to update its plan for training ranges to reflect current needs. It points out that the Army's application for a waiver was done on the basis of an outdated Army Ranges and Training Lands Strategy. Again, this fact should invalidate the Army's waiver.

GAO-09-32 indicates that the Department of Defense and the Army failed in communicating with citizenry in their attempts at securing this major land acquisition. It makes the point that such public engagement should have occurred prior to their submission of an application for a waiver from the Department of Defense moratorium on major land acquisitions. The Army’s application for waiver, U.S. Department of the Army Major Land Acquisition Proposal, Section 7 - Public and Political Sensitivity, included the misleading statement that, "the military enjoys a positive relationship in the Colorado Springs area and southern Colorado." This statement failed to accurately represent to the Department of Defense the actual level of opposition that was present in the region at the time the application was submitted and that has intensified since. A more realistic approach would have been to include an accurate description of the depth of opposition expressed by political jurisdictions and community groups.

GAO-09-32 indicates that, in contrast with acquisitions in Hawaii and California, there was no pre-application communication process engaging stakeholders and local elected official in the Pinon Canyon region. Numerous resolutions had been passed in opposition to the Army's expansion proposal prior to the time that the application for waiver was submitted, but the application failed to indicate this fact to the Department of Defense. A more accurate analysis of "public and political sensitivity" would have enabled the Department of Defense to make a more informed decision. The absence of this important information in the original application should invalidate it.

It is also very important to note that it would not be appropriate for the Army to be allowed to address the unanswered questions identified by the GAO in the context of the NEPA process. The Army should not be rewarded for its failures by being given a green light to move forward with a Pinon Canyon Expansion EIS.

What should be done:

A comprehensive, top-down Department of Defense inventory of all Department of Defense testing and training ranges should be completed in compliance with Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act, 2003 which required that the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain an inventory that identifies all available operational training ranges, all training range capacities. The Army’s methodology is based upon a base-by-base determination of training land shortfalls and fails to take into account surplus lands within the DoD real estate inventory. This methodology encourages competition between bases and communities for the federal money goes with the expansion of a base. In the case of PCMS the money goes to one community while the nationalization of private land and businesses falls on a different community. Troop positioning should be driven by available training land; not by the distribution of federal funds to local economies.

Another important point is implicitly made within the GAO reports; that the 100,000 acres identified as “Area A” is only the first phase of a larger acquisition plan.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations and Environment, Mr. Keith Eastin belittled our concern about a larger, 17-year, multi-phased acquisition plan, characterizing it as a baseless rumor that we have “created in our minds.” But the GAO, having reviewed the same Army documents which gave rise to our concerns, recognizes that Area A is just the beginning. GAO-09-171 says, “the Army stated that from the outset it has placed a priority on the acquisition of area A, the 100,000 acres proposed in the initial expansion. While we are aware that the Army preferred the 100,000 acres initially our recommendation was focused on the usability and sustainability of the 100,000-acre parcel and not why the Army chose to start with the 100,000 acres.”(GAO-09-171, page 22.)

The Analysis of Alternatives, May 6, 2004, and The Pinon Vision (part one), OPLAN05-18, 2006 are two of the documents which prompted the GAO and PCEOC to conclude that “Area A” is only the “initial” “first” phase of the Army’s acquisition plan. These and other documents are also accessible on our website .