A May 11 Rocky Mountain News article reported criticism of U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) for a measure that would impose “strict limits on the Army's planned expansion of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site,” but did not note any response from Udall. In contrast, The Denver Post quoted Udall and his chief of staff, Alan Salazar, in its reporting on local residents' reaction to Udall's proposed amendment to a larger bill.

The News article (“Residents rip Udall's limits on Army's Piñon Canyon plans”) by reporter Dick Foster noted, “U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., called Thursday for strict limits on the Army's planned expansion of its Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site, but was assailed later in the day by residents who face losing their land to the expansion.” It further reported:

The Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs introduced legislation Thursday that would require the Army to meet several conditions before it could invoke eminent domain to force southeastern Colorado ranchers and farmers from their land.

Udall also called for congressional hearings on the expansion.

But Udall's actions were attacked as betraying the Coloradans he was elected to represent and opening the way for the Army to proceed with condemnation plans.

Instead of halting or impeding the expansion, Udall's measure was attached to a bill that actually provides funding for the Army's plan, said an angry Lon Robertson, president of a rancher and farmer group called the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition.

“He should be helping to ensure there is no funding and no expansion, now or in the future,” Robertson said.

“This is a guy who wants to represent the people of Colorado as a senator but he won't come down to meet the families or see the places his bill will help destroy,” said Robertson.

Robertson said Udall ignored the will of the people. Fourteen county commissions have opposed the expansion, and the legislature passed a bill withdrawing state consent for the Army's use of eminent domain.

Conditions Udall attached to the bill include completing an environmental impact statement, a procedure that is already required under federal law; exploring options short of purchasing land, such as leasing or easements; providing landowners the right to third-party mediation; securing permission from government agencies before federal or state land could be used; guaranteed access for livestock grazing within the site; guaranteed public access to historical sites.

Despite its extensive quoting of Robertson's criticisms, the News did not provide a response from Udall or his staff. The Post, in contrast, reported Udall's reasons for supporting limits on, rather than “halting,” the Army's proposed expansion.

The Post article did note that, according to Robertson, “Udall's stance is at odds with 14 southern Colorado county commissions that voted against the expansion, and a bill passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Bill Ritter.” But it also noted, “The House Armed Services Committee wouldn't consider banning eminent domain, Udall said.” The Post further reported:

That meant Udall was “faced with the choice of doing nothing at all and letting the Pentagon fumble along ... or putting some markers down with public expectations about the process, including forcing the Army to answer the fundamental question: Why do you need this expansion?” said his chief of staff, Alan Salazar.

In addition to quoting Salazar, the Post reported Udall's statement that the amendment “urges the Army to do everything but use eminent domain”:

The legislation tells the Army, “Here are the expectations Congress has of you as you move forward,” Udall said.

[...]

The criteria Udall put in the bill that the Army would have to meet before forcibly buying property include: analyzing other alternatives and the effect on the environment, evaluating leases over purchases of land, paying costs for landowners who want to seek third-party arbitration, giving the Colorado governor a voice in the conditions under which state lands could be used for military purposes, and providing a guarantee of public access to cultural and historic sites on the land.