Rosen and Coffman and the Post

Hostility over Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site

Representative Mike Coffman’s guest column in the Denver Post recently asserted that Colorado’s “Hostility has made our own Army feel unwelcome”. More recently, Mike Rosen devoted his June 19 column to the defense of Rep. Coffman’s remarks and argued in favor of Pinon Canyon expansion. Rosen and Rep. Coffman distort the politics of Pinon Canyon expansion. They begin with the premise that expansion is a military necessity and argue that the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition (PCEOC) is “anti-military” and driven by “NIMBYism“ along with “assorted peaceniks, enviros and animal rights activists”. Pinon Canyon expansion is not a military necessity. It is about the federal dollars that accompany additional troops at Ft. Carson. The Opposition Coalition is the voice of the entire Southeast Colorado community fighting for their rights, their land, their businesses, and their lives. The coalition spans the political spectrum and includes veterans of from WW II to Desert Storm and families with sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Coalition fully expects our military to properly train our men and women in uniform. However, we reject that private lands must be nationalized to train troops when the Department of Defense already owns 25 million acres that are not fully and efficiently utilized. A 2005 BRACC document assigned an additional brigade to Ft Carson and stated explicitly that this assignment did not require the expansion of Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. The BRACC document shows that Ft. Carson will remain a necessary and viable Army Base. Rep. Coffman’s and Mr. Rosen’s assertions that Ft. Carson will be closed without Pinon Canyon expansion are fear mongering.

Since 2005, the Army proposed two additional brigades be stationed at Ft. Carson. We oppose additional brigade assignments only if they build the need for Pinon Canyon Expansion. Our opposition is based on the availability of other land already owned by the Department of Defense to train troops. For example, in a Feb. 2009 House Committee Hearing Rep. Bishop, (R) Utah, indicated that the “Army has been blind to potential training ground the Army already owns”. He asked why the Army has not looked seriously at the “under-utilized” 1.68 million acre Dugway Training Range as a solution to the Army’s need for training lands. Similarly, recent comments from Senator Hutchison, (R) Texas, indicate that existing Army lands (Ft. Bliss and Ft. Hood) are not fully utilized. Rep. Coffman cites the Ft. Carson Commander in asserting that Pinon Canyon Expansion is necessary. However, this is a single base perspective. The disruption of a private sector economy and the taking of private land warrants a nation-wide evaluation of Dept. of Defense land use. Despite multiple opportunities and requests, the Army has failed to provide this documentation.

Rep. Coffman, and Mr. Rosen attempt to make Pinon Canyon expansion a partisan issue. Since 2006 the state politics opposing Pinon Canyon expansion have been strongly bi-partisan with overwhelming votes on legislation (HB 1069, and HB 1317) in both houses of the Colorado legislature. The issue has been regional rather than partisan with dissenting votes coming predominantly from El Paso County and vicinity. I understand that Rep. Coffman and Mr. Rosen do not care about the history, environment, and culture of Southeast Colorado that drives opposition to expansion from the left. But they should care about the un-necessary nationalization of private land. They should also care about the disruption of the private sector Southeast Colorado economy in order to create more dependence on federal dollars in the El Paso County. The Army’s mission is to defend this country, not to support local economies.