Colorado Ranchers Angry Over Army Site Expansion

More soldiers means a need for more space nearby to train them, a problem that extends beyond Colorado.

In a September speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) said the Army believes it has a current deficit of 2 million acres needed for training, a figure expected to grow by 2011 to 5 million acres, or 7,812 square miles -- an area about the size of New Jersey.

Allard pointed out that Colorado politicians and business leaders lobbied hard to lure the new troops and the military's spending power. He opposed an amendment, which later passed, cutting off funds to study the Piñon Canyon expansion. He said the issue was too important "to the men and women who are fighting for our freedoms around the world."

Brian A. Binn, president of the military affairs committee of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, said the benefits to the state economy and national defense are clear. If the ranchers triumph and the training site is not created, he added, other states would be all too willing to accept the troops and the business.

"We have to look sometimes at what's better for the national defense, the greater good," Binn said. "It is a national security issue. The men and women of our armed services deserve nothing less."

Bob Hill, a rancher forced to sell his land to the Army 25 years ago, said caustically, "I find the city people are really patriotic with our property."

When word surfaced about the Army's intentions, the ranchers mobilized quickly, forming a coalition called Not One More Acre! They lobbied 15 county commissions to pass resolutions opposing the Piñon Canyon expansion and won votes in the Colorado legislature and in Congress.

Assembling the maneuver site from reluctant landowners is not "the right thing to do for the future of our families or for the future of the country," said Lon Roberson, the ranchers' leader. "They can get the national defense taken care of with their own inventory of land."

Tom Warren, a civilian responsible for Fort Carson's environmental performance, oversees the early steps toward the proposed expansion. Discussing the intensity of the debate and the hard feelings, he said, "I've been here about 25 years -- going on 20,000, it feels like."

The Army needs the land and would be a good steward, Warren said, adding that the project must go through preliminary stages of planning and approval on environmental, economic, social, military and political grounds. If Congress approves studies in the 2009 budget year, it would still take years, he said.

"There's a great deal of change going on in the world, whether it be the global war on terrorism or the current deployments into Afghanistan and Iraq. There's a change going on in the Army, a transformation," Warren said. "We're not talking about this war. We're talking about whatever may come down the road in the future."

Some landowners have told Colorado politicians that they are willing to sell. But a large majority apparently want the project killed before it gains momentum.