Letter to John McHugh, Secretary of the Army

Letter

Today, Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet sent a letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh asking for his reassurance in writing that the Army is not planning to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. The Senators have heard from numerous ranchers and elected officials in southern Colorado that the uncertainty about the Army's plans is hurting their ability to make long-term decisions about use of their land. Likewise, the increasingly heated debate has diverted the attention of Fort Carson leaders away from their mission of training soldiers for combat.

Udall and Bennet are seeking a formal response from the Army because, while they have received verbal commitments from the Army regarding expansion, a written commitment will provide all parties with a common understanding of the Army's plans and the process the Army must follow before seeking expansion. The process for any major land purchases by the Army would require a thorough environmental analysis and public comment period, approval by the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), congressional authorization, and final appropriation and approval by Congress.

The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Secretary McHugh:

We write to ask for your assistance in clarifying the Army's intent regarding the potential expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) in southern Colorado. As you are well aware, the topic of expansion is a source of tremendous ongoing concern in the communities surrounding the training area. The land bordering PCMS is home to many working ranches that serve as the economic base for the surrounding region. The ranches have been owned by Colorado families for generations, and their collective history of hard work, self-reliance and perseverance is a source of tremendous pride for the entire state.

Southern Coloradans support our military and the soldiers who rely on the training they receive at PCMS to prepare for combat operations around the world. They have also raised a number of legitimate concerns about the effect that expansion could have on their way of life. The foremost of these concerns is the potential use of eminent domain to expand PCMS. We have heard from numerous ranchers and other residents in the region that they have put off making necessary improvements to their land and planning for the future because they fear that their land will be condemned - if not in the next year, then in the years to come. Fundamentally, this region needs enough certainty so lenders and landowners can make prudent land-use and financial decisions.

We know that the Army has a continuing need for the existing training area and that your ability to train at PCMS has been instrumental in preparing our soldiers for the rigors of combat. Our men and women in uniform must be able to use PCMS to conduct the tough, realistic training necessary to complete their real-world missions. At the same time, the residents of southern Colorado need to be able to live their lives with the assurance that their land is not at risk of seizure. Such an assurance would allow ranchers to develop and make improvements to their property knowing that PCMS expansion does not threaten their ability to achieve a positive return on their investments.

As elected representatives of the people of Colorado, our goal is to protect the needs of southern Colorado landowners and communities in ways that honor and improve Colorado's longstanding relationship with the Army. Property owners should have a basic ability to use the land they own, as unencumbered as possible. Of course, our military must also be able to maintain its training capabilities. There is no reason we cannot achieve both.

Many residents of southern Colorado have expressed concern about an existing Department of Defense (DOD) land acquisition waiver used to begin - but not authorize - the first steps of any potential land acquisition process. While we understand the potential complications that a revocation of this waiver could cause for DOD acquisitions at other locations around the country, southern Coloradans still need the ability to plan for their futures. As such, we believe that a formal clarification of the Army's intent would be beneficial to all parties.

We understand that the Army's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) prohibits you from addressing the Army's training and expansion needs beyond a five-year window. However, we ask for your assurances in writing that the Army is not planning to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

Regardless of whether the Army's doctrinal training requirements call for more acreage than is currently available, we appreciate the commitment that we have both received indicating the Army is not interested in pursuing land acquisition in an area where the residents and landowners are almost universally opposed to that acquisition. At the same time, we understand that any assurances made in good faith not to expand Pinon Canyon do not bar the Army from ever considering expansion. Former Army Secretary Geren testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May 2009, stating, "We have committed that we only want to work with willing sellers. We will not use eminent domain." We value and depend on your continued commitment to that policy as indicated in your December 2009 letter to Rep. Doug Lamborn, in which you wrote, "The Army will only move forward with land acquisition at PCMS if approached by willing sellers."

It is our sincere hope that assurances from you about Pinon Canyon expansion will allow both the Army and the residents of southern Colorado to move forward together with renewed trust and understanding. At a time of two wars and economic uncertainty, it is vital for our soldiers to train and for our ranchers to have the ability to work their land to the fullest extent possible. By clarifying the Army's intent with regard to Pinon Canyon, all parties can begin to turn the page on the current debate and focus on the future. We look forward to your response, and we thank you for your dedicated service to our nation.

Sincerely,

Mark Udall Michael F. Bennet

Source