• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By David Hughes, Colorado Springs

In its June 16 coverage of the Piñon Canyon congressional debate (“House pulls dollars for Army’s Piñon plan”), the Rocky Mountain News reported, “[U.S. Rep. Marilyn] Musgrave responded that her son-in-law served in Afghanistan. She also noted that in the 1970s, the Army wanted to put its training land in El Paso County, near Colorado Springs, and landowners there successfully fought the proposal.

“You oppose it in your yard, but it’s OK somewhere else,” Musgrave said. “You might as well cross southeastern Colorado off the map if this expansion goes forward.”

She totally missed the facts and spun the most important points. I ought to know, because I was the plans officer (G-3) and chief of staff at Fort Carson in 1970-’71 when, after the Army stationed the entire 4th Mechanized Infantry Division there, it needed the training room and the ability to fire tank guns without the rounds going off the post. It also needed the space to train the Colorado National Guard.

The Army tried to expand down to the north side of the Pueblo Reservoir from Carson’s southern border across very marginal land. It did so because its armored personnel carriers were amphibious and Carson desperately needed a body of water to conduct cross-water operations in case its forces were called to serve in Europe, a major readiness mission then and now.

But guess who opposed it? The Pueblo County Commissioners, not El Paso County. Those Pueblo politicians wanted the new federal Pueblo Reservoir as their private lake for developers and they, far more than any of the willing ranchers, blocked it. That is why the Army was forced to buy Piñon Canyon in the first place. Musgrave should get her spinning facts straight.
In the end, Carson didn’t expand the post, and I had to conduct second-class training for my mechanized troops.

And now Musgrave wants the Army and Colorado National Guard soldiers and units to pay the price by not being trained adequately for future wars on the cramped and crowded space they have. If her son-in-law is among those who pay that price, then we shall see how “pro-military” she is.

David Hughes is a West Point graduate and retired U.S. Army colonel who served in both Korea and Vietnam. He is a third-generation Colorado native and is a resident of Colorado Springs.

READER COMMENTS

Well, from the VERY harsh attacks on (1) 'the' Army (2) Fort Carson that have been thrown out at every meeting between ranchers and public officials that the press has duly reported and quoted, one could hardly be blamed from seeing that as 'anti-military.'

Unlike earlier (1970s) public discussions about expansion, the recent meetings have been so vitriolic that no real discussion - trying to find a solution, has taken place.

And above all, there have been NO suggested - from Southern Colorado - solutions offered the Army OR Fort Carson except 'stay the hell out of Southern Colorado.

And my bottom line, is the Army has to find training areas, even after it has spent huge sums to try ONE HUNDRED MILES from Carson to do it.

As far as I can see the door is just slammed shut already. And I think there will be NO expansion, there will be NO adequate training, and therefore I am willing to lobby Congress to yank the entire payroll of Carson out of Colorado. To hell with it. Much as a Coloradoan I hateTexas, I am willing to see the entire 4th Mech Infantry Division and its 18,000 soldiers go there, and let Carson collapse.

Oh and Dave, I am all for doing away w/ an all volunteer army. I believe every man and woman should have to put in at least 2 years of some type of civil service after high school graduation to obtain certain rights. I really don't know where you get that we are all a bunch of army hating individuals out here. I would say over 70% of the ranchers out here have military service in their backgrounds. And OK, maybe the Army didn't try to perform an 'expansion' in El Paso county. They did try to get land as you pointed out but El Paso county fought that off. Where was the outrage against the people of El Paso county at that time? Why didn't these thieving developers get the same scrutiny as the people of SE Colorado? Oh, because El Paso county was concerned about making more bucks than doing what the army believed to be right. Are these citizens also anti-army or just the wicked people out in this way?

Steve, I get the feeling that you like the big city and that's great! but to state that EVERY kid hates small town life is absurd. Didn't anybody ever teach you not to use qualifiers like every, all, etc? I do challenge that assertion as being false. There are several kids that have gone away for job opportunities only to return at least 2 - 3 times a month to help w/ chores on the weekends. And what makes you think people around here have not explored alternative opportunities? Do you have a pipeline into the thinking down here or are you just making stuff up in your head about us 'societal dropouts' and presenting them as facts? I guess everybody down here could sell out, move our operations to another part of the state and then make disparaging remarks about the people who stayed but that doesn't sound like a plan I favor. How about you? Wait, we already know the answer to that one...

Dave, I respect your service and dedication to our country but to try to pin the people of SE Colorado as being anti-army is just ridiculous. Most people around here have children who are in the services. It's not about being anti-army it's about being treated w/ respect. The army has been vague about what they want from the beginning and has never fully communicated their desires. Early on the army had a detailed map leaked (that was supposed to be secret) that showed they wanted to acquire up to 2.5 million acres all the way over to the Kansas border. The army first denied this map but then relented and said it was an out of date map. When pressed for more info on the expansion they then show a little more detail area but still vague enough that the people in the affected area were not sure if they were inside the expansion plan area or outside. If we could just get a straight answer from the army instead of all this double talk I believe this could get done w/o all the hostility. Like I said, I am not against the expansion IF IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY. However, there are official army reports that have said they do not need this land. And if they do indeed need it they have to make it a win-win for the army and the counties affected. Like I said before, the army made many promises to the area after the last land grab and broke every one of them. Would you make another deal w/ somebody who has already gone back on their word?

Since everyone defending the poor ranchers of southern Colorado - their long time 'family' ranches, and all the emotional appeal that is supposed to invoke to block the nasty, coldhearted, Army and Rep Musgrave invoked the fact that her 'son' served in Afghanistan, then let me share a personal view myself.

First of all I am hardly a stranger to Colorado 'ranching' culture and history. As you see by the short biography posted by the RMN in my original Speaking Out letter, I am a 'third generation' Coloradoan. Yep, my grandparents homesteaded the Commanche Ranch northeast of Kiowa Colorado in 1898. My father was born in a soddy whose sunken shape and lonely cottonwoods are still there. And I rode in the National Stock Show and Rodeo as a high school kid in 1945 before I went to West Point and pursued a 27 year two war career.

So how do you think I feel when the State Law permits a PRIVATE Toll Road (not even a government one) that will slice right across that land and my father's birthplace if its built? Sure I don't like it I might even protest because it is a PRIVATE enterprise, NOT government for 'public necessity').

But now even more personal, the NIMBY culture which has grown up since the 60s has made me rethink MY miltiary commitment to this nation. While I am largely past my war fighting days, nevertheless, in the 1950s *Korean War" and 60's "Vietnam War' where I risked my life and that of thousand of my soldiers (my company lost 67 Americans killed, 247 Wounded and 1 captured in Korea alone) I trained my soldiers as best the Army and Congress AND the American people made it possible, and sent them to their deaths, unhesitatingly.

But over the past 30 years since the Anti-Government, Anti-Military, Volunteer Army Only (no draft permitted which has further alienated civilians from those in uniform), culture has grown I have asked myself "Why the hell should I or soldiers risk my life for ungrateful Americans if the opportunity presents itself again?

Should I tell my grandchildren (who are already military age) NOT to join the US Military, for they will be expected to die for what? A bunch of ranchers and politicians who will give nothing, but expect everything from THEIR Army and its soldiers?

So there is more than one side to this 'emotional' land issue. The anger and bitterness are not all from those affected on the land. It also affects those whose lives are at issue.

Get your facts and time lines straight.

You say "I understand and believe that the army wanted to expand down towards the Pueblo reservoir during the first land grab but BEFORE that they had tried to get land in El Paso county and guess who opposed? That's right, El Paso county! So they couldn't get it done there so they move south to Pueblo"

I beg to differ, for I was there, right in front of the three County Commissioners. The 'try to get land in El Paso County' was hardly an 'expansion.' It was a wise attemt by the Army to buy a SOUND BUFFER in a narrow triangular slice of useless - no water or grazing - land on the east edge of Fort Carson and its ammunition IMPACT AREA - where artillery and other live fire landed - between I-25 and the impact area. Its only purpose was to put the buffer there so that, in the future, anyone crazy enough to buy or build there using NIMBY would not start complaining to the Army about the 'noise' and try to get the Army to move its impact area.

(1) A fly by night land developer called 'Rancho Colorado' lobbied one El Paso County Commissioner to block the purchase so he could 'develop' the property.
His was the deciding vote against the Army's request. (the Army could have and should have used eminent domain to get it)

(2) For that flakey land developer proclaiming the Constitution, Property Rights, and the American Way, got his way over the Army's perfectly sound arguements why a buffer was needed. But that one Political Commissioner who lasted one term and pandered to those who contrubuted to his election coffers screwed the Army, which in the end would be far more important to the future of El Paso County than such land development.

(3) As I judged when I looked into the developer - he was so fly by night he made very bad judgement over that no-water piece of desert, bought some (not all) of it, tried to develop and failed, utterly - going bankrupt. (I note there are some such in Southern Colorado too)

(4) 15 years later ANOTHER developer, who lost his shirt developed some of it, TRUCKING in water and built some homes.

(5) And EXACTLTY as the Army predicted, they started COMPLAINING about the noise of bombs, rockets, and artillery landing in the Impact Area for TRAINING OF TROOPS! And the Army had to 'adjust' training (it could NOT move the Impact Area) NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY. Except Fort Carson was there first when there were NO houses, then some bad judgement people move in - as they do close to airports and THEN complain in the modern fashion. ( or when, and I observed up close when Puerto RIcans drove the US Navy off an off shore island (Vieques) which it had used for live naval, air strike fire and Marine landings for SIXTY YEARS, so they could train. But 'developers' wanted another resort. NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY.

(6) Getting the point? So only LAST YEAR at big (your taxes cost) the now developer who couldn't make an honest buck sold that Rancho Colorado land at hugely inflated cost per acre, so only NOW, 35 years later than when the Army tried to do the right thing, is the SOUND BUFFER acquired.

(7) The effort THEN to expand to the Pueblo Reservoir was made, and it had NOTHING to do with 'first trying to get land inside El Paso County for a Buffer. So MikeS, just like Rep Musgrave, you have taken a few facts and spun them into a false picture of El Paso County refusing to expand the MANEUVER room inside El Paso County. Except Rep Musgrave broadcast her falsehoods all over the Congressional House of Representatives to get HER way - which is 'Screw the Army I will vote with Rep Salazar and take the heat off him because MY district is NOT AFFECTED. And I will get Brownie Points in Northern Colorado for standing up for the Constitution, Property Rights, Poor Rancher, and the American Way.'

Its about time to put some hard facts on the table. From the written history of Fort Carson.

The problems of training a mechanized division triggered the need for more land. In 1965, Fort Carson acquired 24,577 acres of state land (leased since 1942) by trading it for federal land located at the Lowry Bombing Range east of Denver. In 1965 and 1966, a total of 78,741 acres of land were acquired south of the original reservation at a cost of approximately $3.5 million. This consisted of 45,236 acres purchased from private individuals, 22,694 acres of state land traded for more land at the Lowry Bombing Range, and 7 ,668 acres purchased from the Colorado School of Mines. An additional 2,871 acres were acquired without cost from the Department of the Interior in trade for Camp Hale. These additions brought Fort Carson to its current size of 138,523 acres.

During 1974 the need for additional land for training began to receive considerable emphasis. The plan was to acquire the needed land in yearly increments. The total, approximately 74,000 acres, was located on the east and southwest border of Fort Carson. The citizens of the Pueblo area voiced consider- able opposition to the expansion, particularly the proposed use of the Pueblo Reservoir for amphibious training.
Carson's efforts to obtain more training land involved considerable interaction with the local civilian communities. Following public hearings, Colorado Governor Richard Lamm appointed a 12- member committee to submit a report in the spring of 1976.
Due to additional Department of the Army requirements that all land expansion proposals be supported by analytical study, a comprehensive study to analyze the division's needs was completed in 1978. The study determined that a 129,000
acre shortfall existed.
Additional offers were considered by the Army. Pinon Canyon, consisting of 245,000 acres and located some 100 air miles southeast of the fort, was selected. The land purchase was completed on September 17, 1983. The cost was approximately $26 million. An additional $2 million was used for relocation of 11 landowners and for school bond relief.

Mike S. you basically make my argument for me. Of course the kids leave for the metro area, there aren’t any jobs and everyone of them will tell you they hate the small town life. I know, because I left for the same reasons. It took me twenty-five years to return. What I here most from everyone down there are emotional arguments. The Army needs the land to train and the Government has access to much better land all over the state of Colorado. I know the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management they conduct land swaps. What eludes me is why anyone hasn't suggested the swap. You have the advantage in this situation.
I know, I can hear the arguments about how the land has been in the family for many generations, but tell me....when you sell a piece of property how much does the buyer pay for sentimental value?? That’s right nothing. I am not saying everyone should just give up and take the Army's offer, but come on...you have an opportunity, use it to your advantage....I guarantee the Government will. You can fight the Army and possibly win, but why not explore the possibilities??

Sorry if I came off a bit rude there Dave Hughes and I shouldn't have called you out for blatant lies. The way I see it however, you are only telling part of the story (the part that will support what you believe). I understand and believe that the army wanted to expand down towards the Pueblo reservoir during the first land grab but BEFORE that they had tried to get land in El Paso county and guess who opposed? That's right, El Paso county! So they couldn't get it done there so they move south to Pueblo. Couldn't get it there so move a little more south and grab the land there. As a concession to the people in the area, the army made some promises to the area: First, there would not be live fire exercises. Second, they would use local contractors/suppliers for what they need. Third, they would NEVER be back for more land. They have gone back on all these promises. Add in the fact that the government doesn't even pay the PILT they owe for the land and what benefit is it for the local populace. I have family/friends who are in the military and want nothing more for them to be the well trained butt kicking force they should be but why do some people pay all the costs while some counties (El Paso in this instance) reap all the rewards? I'm not saying they shouldn't expand but they have to make it beneficial to this already depressed area of the state before they remove any more of our economy. And even if the army promises something are the people they have already lied to supposed to believe them now?

OK Flemming. You want an educated debate? Let's do it. You say you grew up in La Junta well then you should know about the situation down here. You may think everybody down here to be societal dropouts and thus undeserving of property rights (I wonder how many other rights we don’t deserve) but I have a different view than you. Yes, the economies down here are struggling. There are several factors for this. The decline of the agriculture economy has been the main factor but also the neglect the state has shown this part of the state has been a contributing factor as well. The local economies have also not changed fast enough to keep up w/ the times and thus a depressed economy. This leads to any of our kids who could contribute to move to the metro area for a good job which leads to a population and knowledge drain which leads to even more economical depression. So as you see it we are all a bunch of poor worthless individuals but as I see it we are all fighting and scratching for our way of life. I'm sorry you are such a bitter person but don't you think you should have some pride for where you are from? Instead of throwing dirt on all of us how about being constructive and figuring a way to help out? Wait, it's much easier to just dismiss and denigrate people instead of lifting up. My bad...

Salazar's weird idea is that a 'brigade' (4,000 soldiers) could be PERMANENTLY stationed in far southern Colorado. And do that with housing and all the infrastructure needs for their entire families? Over 50% of ALL volunteer soldiers in today's Army are married with children.

This is NOT your World War II or even Korean or Vietnam War draft Army when only a fraction of the young soldiers were married. They could and would for a two year enlistment live in a barracks with other soldiers.

But schools, hospitals, commissaries, access to nearby local colleges for continued education - all are now ESSENTIAL support facilities needed on today's US Army posts to even HOPE to attract 'volunteer' soldiers for the US Army. And retain them long enough that they, as NCO's (and junior officers) can master - by repeated full sized field training exercises the complex and sophisticated equipment, weapons, tactics, that our SMALLER Army has to fight and win with.

The last time the US Army was stuck out in such an out of the way Southern Colorado place that Salazar points to was in 1862 when the 1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry Regiment marched and camped 400 miles on their way south from Denver and Colorado City (todays Colorado Springs) on into New Mexico to whip the Texas Confederates at Glorieta Pass during the Civil War!

Even Spanish soldiers died in Southern Colorado in the 1600s. Which is why it was called " El rio de las animas perdidas en purgatorio"

Some of us really know Colorado and Southern Colorado pretty well
Hardly a place to put up a Recruiting Office

MikeS - be careful about hurling around charges of 'blatant lies' in what I said. The fact is that the Army, in the 70s needed Army Posts where the main tank guns could be fired and full mechanized divisions could train. Eastern posts had been so encroached upon - NIMBY -that could NOT be done. Carson's firing range could handle on its main post, but when it tried to expand south to the Pueblo Reservoir for the Maneouver training, it was blocked, as I pointed out, by the Pueblo Commissioners.

That forced the Army to accept 3d best - Pinon Canyon 'maneuver room' - with as you say no live firing. Until THIS round of attempted expansion, which would include live firing. The PROBLEM REMAINS. IT HASN"T GONE AWAY. THE TROOPS CAN'T TRAIN OR FIRE AS THEY MUST.

Mike S., I see you demonstrate your level of education by hurling insults instead of actually debating the subject. I do know something about that area as I have trained at Pinon Canyon. You have the advantage of deceiving the public, because most Coloradans have never ventured to that part of the state.
I grew up in La Junta and I am very familiar with the area. While I will concede there are a handful of legitimate ranchers the vast majority of the populace are societal dropouts. I stand by my assertion that it is a vast wasteland.
You can fool most of the people that live outside the area, but I know better and that's the very reason I invited anyone interested to drive on down and see for themselves. If Pinon Canon is the rich cattle land you all believe it to be, then take me up on my offer. Get with the Army and hold an open house, invite the public down to see this marvelous piece of real estate. In fact, the Colorado State Fair is coming up, this is your opportunity. Lets just see if the rest of the state sees it the way you do.

Mr. Flemming, please stick to something you know a little more about. Obviously ranching/farming is not your forte - maybe you'd know more about flipping burgers by your obvious lack of education? Not only do my cows survive on what I grow/what grows in my pasture land but I have enough to sell to those that are short. I challenge you to defend your assertion when SE Colorado is the second biggest producer of livestock. Oh and to Mr. Hughes who wrote this article. Way to misinterpret what is going on. By saying in the 70's the army "needed the training room and the ability to fire tank guns without the rounds going off the post" is a blatant lie. When PCMS was created it was promised that it would NOT use live rounds and that they would never be back for more land. Guess a man's word and a handshake don't mean much to most people anymore but where we are from that is all you've got - your word.

If Steve Flemming is really from La Junta, then he's woefully ignorant of how cattle ranching works. "All cattle feed must be trucked in," he says. Uh, no. Cattle graze throughout the summer and fall on pastures. If kept during the winter, they are fed from crops that "trucked in" from farms just to the north in the Arkansas Valley. However, without the summer pasture, the cattle wouldn't be around to provide a market for the hay raised nearby. Remove the cattle, and everyone -- ranchers, farmers, local merchants -- suffer. Just because Mr. Flemming thinks Pinon Canyon is "the middle of nowhere" doesn't mean that it makes no contribution to the state and local economy.

So let me get this straight - they do NOT want the Army there... except when those Army trucks tacks and helicopters rescued their butts from the blizzards out there in the wilderness, and fed their starving livestock...

Yeah. I got it now.

The NIMBYS just want to poke a finger in someone's eye,and Musgrave and the other politicians are playing games with the ability fo our troops to train to fight and win.

Support the troops? Then give them room to train.

Mr. Hughes, you make a very good point. The problem with Pinon Canyon is that most people don't realize what a desolate wasteland it is. The few people that live down there would have the rest of the state believe Pinon Canyon is a vast rich ranchland. It doesn't have water or the ability to farm anything. All cattle feed must be trucked in. I challenge anyone that wants to see for themselves to take drive down there. Be sure to take some food and water as there is nothing there....this place is in the middle of nowhere....don't buy the hype without seeing for yourself.

POST A COMMENT

• Why so much turnover in mayor's office?
• Hearing on the Ruby Hill towers
• Let freedom ring
• Promoting socialized medicine
• Immigration Laws or Lack Thereof
• Atheist Diversionary Tactics
• The "Melting Pot" is unique to America
• Many mighty hearts covering the world