The Army’s estimated cost of buying land to expand Fort Carson’s Piñon Canyon training area in southeast Colorado is skyrocketing, a report by the Government Accountability Office found.

An additional 100,000 acres in Las Animas County could cost the Army $52 million or more, nearly double the initial estimate of $280 an acre, the report by the investigative arm of Congress said. It’s the first time the amount the Army expects to pay has been revealed to the public.

The cost is going up because the Army has pledged to buy land only from people willing to sell, which means property owners can expect to be paid more, the GAO said.

Opponents say it shows the Army’s desire to buy off opposition.

"They think if they throw more money at it, (the opposition) will go away," said Lon Robertson, president of the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition.

The report didn’t contradict the Army’s assertion that it needs more land to train soldiers for evolving battlefields, but said the Army was overly vague in answering congressional questions last year.

A second report said the Army bungled its public outreach efforts on expansion plans, turning ranchers whose land it needs into enemies.

Last year, the Army backed off its original request for 418,577 acres of ranchland and is now looking for 100,000 acres to add to the 23,5000-acre training area east of Trinidad.

Further sweetening the deal, the Army is trying to woo lawmakers in southeast Colorado with the promise of 100 civilian jobs at the training site and $140 million in construction projects if the Army gets approval to buy the land.

The service says it needs the land because of growth at Fort Carson, which is slated to house 24,600 soldiers by year’s end, up from 18,100 in 2008. More elbow room will also allow for more realistic training, better preparing soldiers for far-flung battlefields, the Army says.

But the Army has encountered a brick wall of opposition from ranchers in the region and has had funding for the expansion blocked by Congress for the past two years.

The two reports stem from questions raised last year Colorado’s former senator, Wayne Allard, who retired from office this month, and Sen. Ken Salazar, who has been named Interior secretary. They demanded the reports in the same legislation that blocked spending on expansion.

Salazar released a statement Tuesday that didn’t express an opinion on the reports, only saying he would review them carefully.

The Army responded to the reports by saying the Accountability Office spent too much time lingering on negatives rather than praising the service, even asking that the investigators retitle the report, now called "Additional Information is Needed to Better Explain the Proposed 100,000-acre Expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site."

"We propose the new title to be: "Additional Land Requirement at Piñon Canon Maneuver Site is Valid, But Additional Information Could Help Better Explain Contemplated Expansion," the Army wrote in comments on the report.

The Army official in charge of the proposal was more conciliatory Tuesday.

"I am extremely pleased that among the specific issues Congress asked the Army to address in our July 2008 report, GAO agreed with the Army’s core needs.," said a statement released Tuesday by Keith Eastin, the assistant secretary of the Army for installations and the environment. "The Army will address the remainder of GAO’s concerns and recommendations in additional environmental studies, or through communication with stakeholders."

The Accountability Office shrugged off Army requests for it to ignore the increase in Army price estimates to acquire the ranchland it seeks. The Army has refused to talk price because officials fear driving up values.

The investigators want the Army to better explain why the cost is going up.

"According to an Army official, the increased cost estimate partly reflects the idea that buying only from willing sellers and refraining from using eminent domain could increase the per acre cost average," the report said.

The Accountability Office also wants the Army to explain why it was able to drop the amount of land it’s seeking to 100,000 acres. The report also said the Army hasn’t explained how much of the 100-care tract would be used for actual training, or what the long-term maintenance costs of the acquisition would be.

On the public relations front, the second report gave the Defense Department a failing grade.

The report said the Army’s regulation-driven silence early in the process to acquire land drove opposition.

"Without adequate explanations, key stakeholders at times relied on rumors and leaked documents," the report said.

The report called for changes in how the Army talks to the public about its future land desires.

Robertson, a rancher from the small town of Kim on the southern edge of the training area, said opponents to the expansion are hoping the reports don’t matter at all. They’re counting on the absence of Allard, an expansion supporter, to help them kill the Army’s plans in the Senate.

Allard was replaced this month by freshman Democratic Sen. Mark Udall who voted for an expansion funding ban last year while in the House.

"We hope it will be a little harder for them to keep it alive," Robertson said.

Udall issued a statement Tuesday that said the Army still hasn’t shown it needs the additional 100,000 acres.

"While I appreciate that the Army answered many of the questions that it was required to provide to the GAO, I’ve made clear that the Army must first prove why it needs this additional land at Piñon Canyon," Udall said. "Until it can do so, no funds for expansion should be appropriated."