President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 11, 2007 04:14 PM UTC
32 Comments
The bill put new conditions on the Army’s ability to eminent domain. It didn’t authorize this practice — such power already exists. At least, that’s the way some of Udall’s people are trying to sell it, I think.
those opposed to the expansion want eminent domain off the table completely, and Udall’s bill allows it to go forward, albiet at a slower, more regulated pace.
He may have been trying for a compromise on the matter, but there is real vehement opposition to the expansion plan as it exists, even among those who have been strong supporters of the military in the past. He needed to make some sort of statement or take some action in regard to the issue, it’s getting a lot of press right now, but this isn’t going to make him any friends among the expansions opposition.
that one went through the Colorado House and Senate and was signed by Governor Ritter, but it probably isn’t binding to a Federal organization like the Army.
But I was wondering about federal legislation. See also my post below to the Pueblo Chieftain article. Apparently, Rep. Salazar and Sen. Allard support Udall’s amendment (and by Allard’s implication, so does Sen. Salazar).
Come on, no one can stop this freight train at Pinon Canyon any more than Congress can unilaterally stop the President’s failed war. Udall should be praised by the residents of the area for trying to limit the damage. Ingrates.
to call the residents of the area ingrates.
Your contempt for these people about to get thrown off their land is deplorable, and I hope for my party’s sake very few agree with you.
Udall could stop the freight train, he shouldn’t be ON it. It was wrong and politically stupid at the same time.
It doesn’t matter if Udall wants to be seen as a leader brokering a compromise, this is a bad idea.
Congressional hearings should be held only to shine light on the Army’s plans (which are still unknown regarding size, scope…).
Udall needs to pull/ kill/ withdraw his amendment as soon as possible.
He should have let his opponent take this road and be labeled as unsympathetic to the ranchers.
Stupid.
Udall’s and his staff’s ignorance on this situation is appalling. Obiviously he has not bothered as Musgrave, John Salazar, Bill Ritter and others, to come to the area and meet with a very diverse opposition coalition. This is not just ranchers and not just Las Animas County. Compromise is out of the question. Grazing rights being allowed, protecting cultural, paleontological, and natural resources that have been named to Colorado’s Most Endangered Places is a joke with 8,000 troops doing live fire maneuvers. Looking at the recent extremely flawed Environmental Impact Study on increasing training on the current Maneuver Site will show the damage that will occur.
Do we in Colorado want another Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Rocky Flats, or Pueblo Chemical Depot to clean up? This “study” by the way was under the Corp of Engineers who contracted with CH2M Hill, whose major contracts are with the military.
The economic impact will be devastating. If you figure about 28,000 cattle at $1,000 per head taken out there will be a loss of $28,000,000 to the economy.
This is not just a southeast colorado problem it is a state and nation problem as well.
For more information visit the website:
http://www.pinoncany…
I forgot to mention, Pinon Canyon is where the current Maneuver Site is. So there are no residents there other than the Army. The broadbased Coalition is made up of people from all over the state and nation.
The people who will be displaced live in Las Animas, Otero and Baca Counties. But this will so impact the Agricultural based economy, we will see major losses in other southern colorado counties.
Many of the people living in the Southeast region shop, dine, and go to the theater in Pueblo or Colorado Springs, and so it goes, dominoes falling.
Isn’t this Lamborn’s district ? What is his position ?
Nothing on his web site, nothing in news reports, he’s completely AWOL on this matter.
. . . but not the Pinon Canyon impact area — that’s shared by John Salazar and Musgrave. There’s a lot of support in El Paso County for the expansion so my guess is that Lamborn’s in favor of it – but I don’t know.
Because it will help El Paso county and help Fort Carson.
Udall puts limits on Army plans for Pinon Canyon
By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., jumped into the controversy over the Army’s plan to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site by attaching a ban on the use of eminent domain, plus a list of restrictive requirements on any future expansion, to the Pentagon’s 2008 budget authorization bill Wednesday night.
. . .
“As the lone Coloradan on the Armed Services Committee, I have a responsibility to insist that the Army’s plans for the expansion of Fort Carson’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site be examined through the lens of what is in Colorado’s best interest and whether the 418,000 additional acres is truly necessary from a national security perspective,” Udall said in a statement afterward.
. . .
Saying the full committee is not prepared to block the expansion at this time, Udall said his amendment sends the Army a warning that Congress expects any expansion to protect the regional economy and environment.
“It will also give the Army the opportunity to do what it has so far failed to do – make a compelling case for why the proposed expansion is necessary to meet the training needs of our soldiers in the 21st century,” he said.
The amendment, however, was criticized by the coalition of ranchers and others opposed to the expansion because it authorizes the Army’s planning to go forward, even with restrictions.
. . .
Specifically, the Udall amendment bans the use of eminent domain to acquire land for any expansion and also would require:
A full environmental impact and economic analysis of the expansion – which the Army has said it will do.
That livestock grazing continue on the expansion lands and that the public have access to any cultural and historic sites within it.
Prior consultation with the governor on the potential impact on the region’s economy, as well as requiring the Army to obtain state permits to use any state land for training.
Provide property owners with the right to seek third-party arbitration in any land acquisition, with the Army bearing the cost of that arbitration.
The Army to explore all other options to land acquisition, including easements and leasing options.
. . .
While the ranching coalition criticized the Udall amendment, Rep. Salazar said he was pleased it would give critics a hearing before the full House Armed Services Committee to explain their opposition.
“In an area that is already economically starving, this community knows that the Army’s plans for expansion would devastate Las Animas County,” Salazar said in a statement.
Allard said he also welcomed Udall’s amendment, noting that he attached some of the same restrictions to last year’s Defense Department authorization bill.
“I am pleased to see that Congressman Udall has joined with Sen. Salazar and myself and other members of the Colorado congressional delegation in advocating for due diligence by the Army as they examine an expansion of Pinon Canyon,” he said in a statement. “It will be very helpful to have House-side support on this issue.”
“This amendment seems consistent with what Sen. Salazar has called for – which is not supporting the expansion unless there is a win-win solution for both the Army and the regional economy,” said a spokesman.
http://www.chieftain…
“While the ranching coalition criticized the Udall amendment”
I would like to re-iterate this is not just the ranching coalition and it is not just Las Animas County either. It is bi-partisan and going to the Pinon Canyon website you can see how diverse it is.
“A full environmental impact and economic analysis of the expansion – which the Army has said it will do.”
We have already learned how the military conducts their analysis. It will be done by them and say what they want.
This just from the recent rounds of the EIS for the current PCMS.
“That livestock grazing continue on the expansion lands and that the public have access to any cultural and historic sites within it.” Hmmm, and that is when, in between live fire and maneuvers that tear up and pollute the land? The current PCMS is preparing to train 8,000 troups. I am sure you could really enjoy North America’s longest mapped dinosaur tracks adjacent to the action. The Comanche National Grassland with Picketwire Canyon is at the epicenter of the expansion.
Udall has lost support from most Dems in the area, because he is not fully informed and his reasoning sounds like he was doing the opposition a favor. He has not visited the area to see what is at stake. Or should I say “what is at steak”? Taking out the cattle industry will move us closer to depending on foreign food and higher costs for beef. Because this will remove one of the largest cattle producing areas in the state.
This is the same people, same cattle and same land hit by the blizzard in December.
…as does Ken Salazar, it would seem.
Which “Dems in the area” oppose it?
thats a stretch there. Although I understand your point about it wiping out the industry there, which it will, it is a drop in the bucket in terms of overall US beef production and pricing.
The delegation is making this harder than it should be.
They are thinking that by equivocating and trying to find a middle ground, such as Salazar’s grazing idea, they will continue to have support from the Dems and the R’s.
Here’s the thing though, the bill that withdrew the State’s consent for the Dept of Defense to use eminent domain passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Hell, even Schultheis voted for the bill (bless his little red heart). Coloradans don’t want the federal government coming into our state and grabbing a huge swatch of land to the detriment of rural communities.
The delegation needs to get off the fence, stop parsing the issue and come out strongly against this expansion. They will get more support if they do this than if they continue to introduce these other solutions.
….the Colorado representatives might be dismissed as nuthin’ but NIMBYs who don’t want to find a “reasonable middle ground”?
I don’t know much about this issue, so I’m not taking a position either way. But I am curious about it.
Their constituents are NIMBYs on this issue and don’t want the middle ground. There is no middle ground.
The Army is going to use eminent domain if it wants to. Our delegation needs to let them know that ALL of Colorado (except El Paso County) does not want this expansion. There is no reason for it.
I hear Nevada has oodles of desert and wide open spaces. Last I checked, Nevada looks a lot more like Iraq than SE Colorado. Go expand Area 51. Give the tinfoil hat crowd some more things to talk about.
I also don’t buy the argument that coming out against the expansion will hurt Colorado’s chances when the Army’s BRAC report comes out. Fort Carson, NORAD, the AFA and all the military in Colorado Springs are essential to the national defense of this country and I’m proud they’re there. Expanding PiГ±on Canyon is not essential and will not influence the expansion of Fort Carson in the future.
In your view, there is no damage control option in Congress. It’s either win outright or lose outright. Is that a fair characterization?
Compromise is good, but on this issue, Coloradans have made it clear they don’t want the expansion. Our delegation should echo that sentiment in their rhetoric and bills.
From Saturday’s Chieftain:
For the record
A story about Colorado Rep. Mark Udall’s amendment to a Defense Department bill mistakenly said the measure banned the use of eminent domain in expanding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. While Udall is opposed to the Army using eminent domain to expand Pinon Canyon, the legislation does not prohibit it. The reporter made the mistake.
I feel lightheaded….does anyone have a paper bag? I think I’m hyperventilating. If not for the two snarky Schaffer stories I might lose my equilibrium:)
At only a couple of dollars per acre, that’s a million smackers out of the tax rolls.
…can’t count letters today.
When the government buys property through an exercise of eminent domain, no capital gains taxes are due. When the government buys a property via a negotiated price, then capital gains taxes are due.
If I owned a property in Pinon Canyon, I’d be lighting a candle every night praying for condemnation.
Think about it … the ranchers protesting the Pinon Canyon condemnation are probably folks that inherited the land via homestead (i.e., the government gave them the land), they have probably been receiving government ag subsidies for not planting/growing some crop, and now they complain about the government “taking” their property? Mondo bizzaro.
The legislators who voted to block condemnation in Pinon Canyon probably hurt the ranchers they thought whose private property rights they thought they were protecting.
These are Cattle Ranches,587 in Las Animas County, but more in Otero and Baca counties. They need a lot of land for grazing, one of the reasons the ranches are so big.
The Comanche National Grassland formed after the dust storms, better know as the Dust Bowl,and is managed by the USDA Forest Service who leases areas for grazing as an effective management tool. Without the grassland and the grazing there would be more of the terrible storms. The Grassland is public land. It has been designated as one of Colorado’s Most Endangered Places. It holds the longest mapped dinosaur tracks in North America and maybe the world,1300 to be exact. It holds one of the richest diversity of birds,450, maybe more, of migratory birds. Birders travel from different parts of the world to see them. There are amazing archaeological sites including Rock Art,early Mexica Placitas and the Rourke Ranch. Their are trails for hiking, bicycles, and horseback riding. All there, open to the public and the scientific world.
It is farmers who grow the crops that receive subsidies, not the ranchers. They will not sell their land. Their youth will not leave and they are the future. They gave the most compelling testimony at the hearings for HB1069.
It is worth a trip to the area to truly understand what is at risk.
Mark Udall’s statement on the issue on his web site:
http://markudall.hou…
The opposition, The Pinyon County Expansion Opposition Coalition:
http://www.pinoncany…