Base Realignment and Closure

Base Realignment and Closure
Name	Base Realignment and Closure
Established	1988
Jurisdiction	United States Department of Defense

Contents

Base Realignment and Closure is a United States federal process for reorganizing United States Department of Defense installation structure to increase efficiency and reduce expenditures, initiated under federal laws like the Defense Authorization Act and shaped by commissions appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Congress. The process affected numerous installations such as Fort Bragg, Naval Air Station Oceana, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and Mather Air Force Base, and intersected with policy debates involving figures like William Cohen, Les Aspin, Donald Rumsfeld, and institutions including the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and the General Accounting Office. BRAC influenced strategic concepts articulated by the Goldwater–Nichols Act, operations involving the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, and United States Marine Corps, and planning by organizations such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office.

Background and Purpose

The initiative traces roots to post‑Cold War restructuring debates involving leaders like George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan, and policy instruments from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, aiming to reconcile force posture changes debated in forums such as the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Congressional Budget Office. Proponents cited fiscal pressures highlighted in reports by the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces and strategic reviews influenced by the QDR and planners at United States Strategic Command and United States Northern Command. Opponents invoked base dependency case studies like Tinker Air Force Base and community responses exemplified by Fort Ord and BRAC 2005 protests involving local representatives and advocacy groups.

BRAC rounds relied on statutory criteria codified after recommendations from the Secretary of Defense and reviewed by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, using metrics covering installation readiness, force projection, cost savings, and joint use, echoing analytic frameworks produced by the Rand Corporation, Brookings Institution, and Congressional Research Service. The process entailed data collection by services such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Civil Engineer Center, peer review by entities like the Office of the Secretary of Defense and adjudication in hearings before the United States Supreme Court in cases invoking Due Process Clause principles. Specific criteria referenced impacts on military value, capacity consolidation, environmental liabilities addressed under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and community reuse potential tied to Economic Development Administration programs.

Notable rounds include BRAC 1988, BRAC 1991, BRAC 1993, BRAC 1995, and BRAC 2005, each producing lists that closed or realigned installations such as Lowry Air Force Base, Naval Station Norfolk adjustments, and the transformation of Charleston Air Force Base, with statewide effects in places like California, Virginia, Texas, and Ohio. Outcomes reshaped force structure influencing units like the 101st Airborne Division, Carrier Strike Group 2, and airlift assets at Elmendorf Air Force Base and McChord Air Force Base, while triggering redevelopment projects such as mixed‑use conversions at former bases modeled on examples from Presidio of San Francisco and Naval Air Station Alameda. Congressional delegations from affected states, including delegations led by figures like John McCain and Barbara Boxer, frequently contested recommendations leading to negotiated mitigations and legislative interventions.

Closures and realignments produced localized economic dislocation illustrated by job losses in communities around Fort Monmouth, Plattsburgh Air Force Base, and Keesler Air Force Base, while catalyzing redevelopment financed through programs administered by the Economic Development Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and state redevelopment agencies like the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Communities pursued reuse strategies involving institutions such as University of California, State University of New York, and private developers exemplified by projects at Fort Ord and Mather Field, engaging stakeholders from AFL–CIO unions to chambers of commerce and leveraging tax instruments like Tax Increment Financing and brownfield grants. Analysts from Harvard Kennedy School, Syracuse University Maxwell School, and Duke University produced case studies assessing long‑term employment trends, real estate conversion, and fiscal impacts on municipal budgets.

BRAC generated litigation and political controversy involving constitutional questions litigated in filings referencing statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act and adjudicated by courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. Political actors such as members of the House of Representatives, United States Senate, governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and William Weld, and advocacy groups including local development corporations mobilized to influence outcomes, invoking precedents from Goldwater v. Carter‑era debates and leveraging appropriations riders and amendment maneuvers in the Congressional Record. Critics pointed to transparency concerns and alleged regional bias examined in reports by the Government Accountability Office and contested by defense scholars at institutions like the Heritage Foundation and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Post‑decision implementation required coordination among the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the Office of Economic Adjustment, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior to manage property conveyance, historic preservation under the National Historic Preservation Act, and remediation obligations under CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Cleanup efforts at sites such as Hill Air Force Base adjunct parcels, former Naval Air Station Brunswick, and the McClellan Air Force Base complex involved contractors certified by the Environmental Protection Agency and monitoring by state agencies like the California Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, while reuse plans integrated conservation lessons from the National Park Service and urban planning guidance from the American Planning Association.

Category:United States military installations