When public outcry catapulted the flyovers into top news, New Mexico’s federal representatives weighed in.
Following the lead of Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., three members of New Mexico’s delegation requested that the Air Force extend the public comment period for LATN by approximately one month. The Sept. 24 letter signed by Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, and Rep. Ben Ray Luján emphasizes the need for the Air Force to allow citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions.
But the three also make clear their support of the training area.
“We support this mission at Cannon Air Force Base and believe it is essential to the security of our nation,” the letter states. “The outstanding training opportunities that New Mexico provides can help the 27th SOW better prepare for real life situations and save lives as a result.”
Following public reaction against LATN across northern New Mexico, Luján also stated he was “very concerned” about the potential impact of the proposal on New Mexicans and their way of life—and that it was critically important that the military provide opportunities for public comment. “New Mexicans are my primary concern,” he said in a prepared statement, “and their voices must be heard.”
That said, Cannon plays a role in Curry County’s economy—and Luján has consistently said that military personnel must be kept from harm. The implication, of course, is that airmen and women will be kept safe if provided opportunities to train within the LATN area.
In fact, if there is one topic that has always led to bipartisan consensus among New Mexico’s congressional delegation, it’s military spending in the state.
A critic of those priorities, Carol Miller wasn’t surprised by the LATN proposal.
Outgoing executive director of the National Center for Frontier Communities, an organization focused on rural communities, Miller points out that New Mexico’s skies were offered up to Cannon five years ago. In June 2005, BRAC held a meeting in Clovis to discuss possible closure of the base. BRAC had first recommended Cannon close in 2002, Miller says, but New Mexico’s congressional delegation (including former Sen. Pete Domenici) ensured that didn’t happen by encouraging Cannon to find a new mission.
She notes that support for LATN can even be traced back to Gov. Bill Richardson’s 2006 State of the State speech. At the time, he said:
Last year, we managed to keep Cannon open—at least until 2010…The key now is finding a new mission for Cannon. It’s vitally important that we move as quickly as possible…I’ve met with Air Force officials…and let them know that the state is prepared to do everything we can and provide whatever assistance is needed to secure a permanent mission for Cannon. Today, I ask the Legislature for the resources to double the size of the base—which will help increase the opportunities for new missions.
Miller points out, however, that military money is not doing much to improve the lives of most of the state’s citizens.
“There’s no economic advantage to the area around Cannon—it’s similar to Los Alamos,” Miller, also a former Green Party candidate who ran most recently for the third congressional seat in 2008, says. “You can look up to Los Alamos all the time, on your drive to work, or to Española: There’s a trillion dollars of our tax dollars up there, surrounded by a sea of poverty.”
It’s the same situation with Cannon, she says: “Cannon creates that same myth”—that military spending is what keeps communities alive.
She points out that military spending creates the fewest jobs per dollar than any other industry.
“Fields with the highest jobs per dollar are human needs jobs like clean energy, health care and education,” she says, citing a 2009 report from Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank supported by the Institute for Policy Studies. That report analyzes what would happen if $1 billion were spent on each of three domestic projects other than the military. The report’s authors show that investments in clean energy, health care and education create a “much larger” number of jobs across all pay ranges, including mid-range jobs (those that pay between $32,000 and $64,000) and high pay-jobs (paying more than $64,000).
Cannon has been open since World War II, and yet the economic indicators for the area have never truly improved. Curry County is far below the national average in terms of median household income and above the national average when it comes to poverty levels.
Rather than trying to be creative and encourage new industries—such as alternative energy—or develop new economic models, legislators simply continue supporting more and more military funding. But it simply isn’t sustainable, Miller says. And the longer New Mexicans remain addicted to a World War II-style military economy, the more they will remain ensnared within a cycle of poverty.
Again, LATN is just one small piece of the issue, but it’s the one that has caught the public’s attention.
“Nobody involves us and then, all of a sudden, we get a notice that there’s an airspace change, and they only want to give a month for public comment,” Miller says. “Our delegation, they got us an extra month, but their response has been shocking.”
Perhaps equally surprising was the turnaround from a local governmental body that bucked the opposition and, instead, decided to support the flyovers: the Santa Fe City Council.
Like other governments in the north, the Santa Fe City Council originally—and predictably—began moving toward a public resolution against the flyovers.
Initially, Santa Fe City Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger introduced a resolution opposing LATN. She eventually changed it to say that the council supports military training, while urging the military to complete the proper environmental studies. It seems, she says, that there is enough room in New Mexico to provide training while, at the same time, avoiding population centers. Leading up to the vote, she heard from probably 30 or 40 constituents—a relatively large number—who opposed LATN under any circumstances.
Then, on Nov. 10, the council voted to support the Air Force’s plans, provided it completes environmental studies.
But those studies are already underway; the military is in the beginning stages of its environmental assessment (EA), a study required under the National Environmental Policy Act, Cannon’s van der Oord says.
Once the draft EA—which will list comments submitted by the public (the comment period ended this week)—is completed, it will be made available to the public, which can again offer input. Once the final EA has been completed, it will be sent to the Air Force Special Operations Command’s headquarters in Hurlburt Field, Fla., which will make the final determination. It will either decide there are no significant impacts—and the LATN area will be open for business—or it will decide the Air Force must undertake a more stringent study, an environmental impact statement, or EIS.
For now, van der Oord expects the EA process to take nine months to one year.
Councilor Rosemary Romero would like the Air Force to undertake an EIS.
“People are most concerned about quality of life impacts,” she says, pointing out an environmental impact statement—which requires that agencies consider impacts to everything from wildlife to cultural resources—would ensure the military addresses and mitigates many concerns.
Councilor Calvert points out that the Air Force is already conducting these training flights—and will continue to do so whether or not LATN is implemented. The same type of aircraft stationed at Cannon are already flown out of Kirtland Air Force Base on the southern edge of Albuquerque. But the existing routes are short and narrow and do not include much mountainous terrain.
I am very disappointed in the SF Ciy Council with their current 'pass the buck' stance on this issue. The observation that its not our problem because the flights re not over us should not excuse us from taking a stand to support the quality of life elsewhere in NM. Moreover the validity of these training excercises looks to be very questionable; why practice flying aircraft that are likely to be pulled from the lineup because of dismal safety records and high expense? To send them to a war in Afganistan we are trying to get OUT of as soon as possible? Additionally, I think we ALL should oppose the flights simply because they add HUGE amounts of CO2 and HUGE operational expense to the war machine. At $11,000 per hour, flying an hour up and back just to GET to the training area 3x day, or about 700 missions per year per the article, would cost us an extra $15.4 MILLION dollar, plus tons of CO2 just to get to training space!
I think we need to fight this just on the environmental impact. Perhaps by making a statement that we really DON'T support this type of expendature, the Mission will change?!
Santa Fe - where are you? Organize! Did the Council really represent the majority when they issued their opinion? Start a Peaceful Skies chapter; don't let political maneuvering drown out your voices!
This article seems to be pretty one-sided and full of inaccuracies. I'm a pilot for the Air Force, and I fly C-130s. In fact I'm flying through New Mexico in a few days. Here are a few things I have issue with:
You stated that military aircraft that fly at 500 feet scatter livestock. Keep in mind it is perfectly legal to fly ANY aircraft, civil or military, at 500 feet. You can rent an airplane and fly at 500 feet and no one will bat an eye. In fact, civilian aircraft often fly at lower altitude for a variety of reasons.
You also stated that B-1 bombers performing air refueling startle people. Every air refueling track I've seen is at a high altitude, like 20,000 feet or higher. I don't see how that could "startle" people, especially since the bombers are not in after burner (when they are the loudest) while taking on fuel.
You also raised an eyebrow about C-130s practicing approaches at Taos Regional Airport. Again, Taos is a public use airport and it's perfectly legal for non-combat aircraft (ie those that do not employ weapons) to perform touch-and-go approaches at civilian airfields. We often go to civilian airfields to practice approaches because they offer types of instrument approaches we cannot fly at our home base, and they offer less congestion (which allows for more landings and thus more practice).
You say "they practice their moves repeatedly". This isn't to annoy residents. It's due to the old adage "practice makes perfect". Unless you want Air Force pilots to crash multi-million dollar aircraft on a regular basis, they need to practice how to fly the aircraft. Flying an airplane like the C-130 is not like riding your bicycle. It's a very complicated task and requires regular practice to be proficient at doing it. This isn't just a military thing, it's an aviation thing.
You stated that at Kirtland AFB, military aircraft "startle pets and young children". You made no distinction to mention that Kirtland AFB shares the same airfield with Albuquerque International Sunport. Civilian jet traffic in and out of that airfield far exceeds any military traffic. Jet airliners are just as noisy if not louder than a C-130. As far as the helicopters go, military helicopters aren't the only ones operating there...there are a variety of civilian and military operators flying out of ABQ. The departures and arrivals are controlled by the civilian air traffic control tower. The military can't just come and go from the airfield as they see fit.
And regarding Mr. Bain's comments, he's not speaking for a position of experience. He is correct, you don't need special permission to fly at 500 feet above the ground, and this can be found in not only the military rules but also in the Federal Aviation Regulations, specifically FAR Part 91 which states aircraft flying over non-congested areas (ie, rural) cannot fly below 500 feet, and in no case can they fly closer than 500 feet to any person or structure. In congested areas (ie, cities and towns) aircraft must maintain an altitude of 1,000 feet within 2,000 feet horizontally of the aircraft. Again, military rules mirror this FAA requirement.
The military has in place several low level routes, where the FAA has specifically authorized the Dept of Defense the ability to fly below the 500 foot restriction. This does not remove the restriction from flying within 500 feet of people or buildings, however. Even if you are flying on a route that has been cleared for 200 feet, you must still remain clear of buildings and people by 500 feet.
And Mr. Bain continues by stating he's seen fighters aiming at people's homes. I seriously doubt that. There is too much going on for us to purposely try and harass people on the ground. We are up there training, not going for a joyride. More than likely the aircraft was simply flying the route, and it happened to go over someone's house.
The thing people need to consider isn't whether you should support military training because you do or don't support a particular war or political entity. Regardless of whether we are in Iraq or anywhere else, we will likely have a military. Even if we were to draw back to a purely defensive military, we'd still have a military. And the pilots would still have to train.
Military aircrews are very professional. They take their jobs seriously because, if nothing else, it means the difference between having an accident and being safe.
Empirical data in my website, militaryeconomy.com, refute partially Carol Miller’s assertion that military spending has no economic impact in the state.
Conservative estimates are that military spending in New Mexico equals $7 billion in jobs annually, and Los Alamos National Laboratory pays $65 million annually in state gross receipts taxes.
These are the jobs and cash that peace and sustainable-growth advocates need to replace before we can call for their elimination.
i was glad to see that i am not the only one who has a problem with nuisance military aircraft. contact your senators and reps, let them know how you feel.
these various aircraft shake our home, give me heart palpitations and pains and scare our livestock.
i think its strange that the council is ok with this, after first opposing it. perhaps, if the manuevers were over their homes they would feel differently. no one should use the term war, especially not a councilman. we are not involved in any legal wars. councilman chris calvert and the others, do not realize they are committing treason against the people and our country by breaking their oath to uphold the constitution by supporting an illegal and unlawful invasion. obviously, we need people in office who are going to uphold their oath, not perjure it. ideally, it doesnt matter who is elected to office, all must uphold the constitution and not allow their ideas to violate their oath.
we have become like rome in the final days of their collapse. our vociferous hunger to invade, conquer and pillage various parts of the world has destroyed our economy, our intelligence, our chance for a viable future. we have sacrificed our well being to keep alive a myth that needs to be retired, all for the benefit of a few.
as in rome, we have almost completely stopped producing anything of value, and we are only creating death and destruction, foolishly thinking we are exempt? as you can see, we are not exempt from the destruction. as we destroy homes and lives in other countries, so too are we losing our homes and lives to the same ruthless predators who manufacture these invasions and use terms such as "burned out houses" to describe the plight of many people. yet these same people who are being used and thrown away, oftentimes defend the very system that is destroying them, and its perpetrators.
have we become a country of self loathing, that we no longer are capable of rational thought, and solutions? is it that hard to admit the past if over, and there are better ways of thinking, feeling and doing?
the real war is going on right under our noses. its a war that was officially declared as early as the 80's by the "elites" against the people. to direct money and commerce upwards. they have been successful, havent they? (see commondreams.org for more info)
so stop saying foolish things like thats the way it is, or what can i do? lets put our energy into turning america back into the beautiful republic it was destined to be. do you really want to prove the "elites" right and continue fighting each other over useless labels and sound bites, while they take off with what is yours? why should they care about the people, if the people do not care about themselves?
we must get past the disassociative disorder that has taken away our compassion and caring for ourselves and each other. our country is ill, and we must make some changes in order to get different results.
as the planes fly over our homes and destroy our peace and safety, we should think of the people who are actually being murdered and wounded in other places by these vehicles of destruction and strengthen our resolve to ground them all. knowing there are predator drones flying around doesnt make me feel safer.
we can begin thinking of ways to give the military members new positions that actually contribute to our future in a positive manner. there is so much good we can do for ourselves, for the world, for our grandchildren's future. wouldnt we feel so much better if we could say this is so?
do you believe in the inherent goodness of humanity? would you rather be "right" or happy? have you given up your rights- your unalienable god given rights for a lie? remember that your answers say more about who you are, then about the world.
this issue regarding aircraft is much bigger than it appears, we should take this opportunity to focus on real solutions, not just repeat the same tired words that have created the mess we are in.