A House committee voted 7-4 Tuesday to side with southeast Colorado ranchers who oppose Fort Carson's planned Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion, even though the representatives acknowledged the state cannot halt the federal government's taking of the vast acreage through eminent domain.

"We got in there the part we wanted," said State Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, the bill's sponsor, taking a half-a-loaf-is-better-than-no-loaf approach to the vote after almost four hours of testimony. He said language to guarantee that ranchers are paid fair prices for the land, which in some cases has been in families for generations, will be added to his bill as it advances.

Lon Robertson, a Branson rancher who is president of the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, said the hearing "got attention for the issue." He said the vote "makes a statement."

An unusual coalition of patriotic ranching families, who cited the veterans in their families, and anti-war activists, who bashed the Army, joined ranks to support the bill.

Bethani Rodriguez, a member of the Future Farmers of America at the Hoehne School, told legislators the rural way of the life would be lost if the Army displaces ranchers and farmers to almost triple the training area to accommodate its force, which is to grow from 16,000 troops to 25,000 troops by 2009.

"The lifestyle would be lost, and you could never compensate people in any way for the loss of their livelihood," the student.

Anti-war, anti-violence activists cautioned that the Army is pushing the nation toward World War III.

"I am concerned that the state of Colorado is going to become even more a war zone than it already is," said Mag Seaman, of Denver. "We know war and preparations for war are the single most devastating activity on the planet."

Although the bill originally intended to block the federal government from acquiring land for military training through eminent domain proceedings, the lawyer who drafted the bill and others on the committee said the long-established legal principle is that a state does not have the authority to stop the federal government from using eminent domain as the method for obtaining land for national purposes.

Committee members agreed to pursue the concept of the state sharing jurisdiction, presuming the federal government acquires the land through eminent domain, on such issues as environmental rules dealing with water and minerals.