Commissioner to Urge Point Mugu Be Kept : Base closures: Benjamin Montoya says it makes little sense to move weapons-testing programs to the Navy base at China Lake.

A base-closing commissioner who took the lead in scrutinizing Point Mugu said Tuesday that he now sees no reason to shut down the Navy base and will recommend to his fellow commissioners that they leave the facility intact.

Benjamin F. Montoya, a former Navy admiral who now runs a utility company in New Mexico, said it makes little military or economic sense to move Point Mugu’s weapons-testing programs to its sister Navy base at China Lake in the upper Mojave Desert.

“I think the military value of Point Mugu and China Lake as now combined speaks for itself,” Montoya said. “It has become an even greater asset to the U.S. military since I left the Navy. I think it ought to be left intact.”

Montoya’s comments were greeted Tuesday by one member of the Ventura County task force campaigning to keep the base open as a “very important” development.

“I’m very pleased that he supports Point Mugu,” said task force member Bob Conroy. ‘I hope the rest of the commissioners agree with him.”

Montoya was careful not to speculate on the views of the seven other commissioners who will join him in deciding the fate of Point Mugu and 180 other bases at public meetings in Washington, D.C., beginning Thursday.

But other commissioners are expected to give considerable weight to his views, in part because he is the only naval expert on the panel. Montoya was the commissioner who made the motion to add Point Mugu to the Pentagon’s closure list so it could be closely evaluated for shutdown.

He also led the commission’s delegation on a tour of Point Mugu and China Lake last month and chaired last month’s public hearing for supporters of California military bases. At the hearing, Point Mugu officers and community representatives explained why they believe it would be too costly to transfer most of Point Mugu’s programs and 9,000 workers to China Lake and other bases.

Commission staff have spent weeks poring over numbers on two proposed scenarios to shrink Point Mugu as a way to cut the Pentagon’s overhead costs.

Under the first scenario, the commission wanted to know how much money could be saved if most of Point Mugu’s missile-testing programs were moved to China Lake. This plan would leave alone the buildings, radar and communications equipment that run Point Mugu’s missile-testing range that stretches across 36,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean.

The Navy strongly objected to this proposal, saying it could cost $805 million to move the facilities to China Lake and would take 63 years to recoup these costs.

So the commission staff came up with a second scenario that would leave the expensive weapons-testing facilities at Point Mugu, but relocate its missile-testing range operations to China Lake.

In effect, the plan would have China Lake operating Point Mugu’s sea test range by remote control from 160 miles away.

The Navy has also strongly protested such a consolidation, pointing out that one-time moving costs would amount to $750 million and it would take more than 100 years to recoup those costs.

“While we are providing the data requested for this scenario, we believe this proposed realignment action is not in the best interest of the Department of the Navy,” wrote Assistant Navy Secretary Charles P. Nemfakos in a June 15 letter to the commission.

*

Adm. Dana B. McKinney, commanding officer of both Point Mugu and China Lake bases, said he is “pretty confident” that the base will be spared by the commission.

He said he was struck by the lack of follow-up questions from commission staff after Point Mugu officials forwarded their latest estimates of moving costs.

“We usually get a series of questions, ‘What did you mean by this? What did you mean by that?’ ” McKinney said. “When we submitted this latest data, the silence was deafening. It’s an indication to me that they looked at it and said, ‘It’s not going to work.’ ”

Montoya said he has not seen the latest analysis by commission staff, but he is satisfied with the Navy’s accounting of the costs. “I’m accepting the Navy’s numbers,” he said. “I haven’t seen any reason to question them.”

At Thursday’s hearing, commission staff will make a presentation about each base before the commissioners vote. Sources close to the commission said the staff is expected to recommend against closing either all or part of Point Mugu.

*

Supervisor John K. Flynn, who is flying back to Washington to attend the commission’s Thursday session, said he has heard encouraging tidbits of news from the lobbyist for Point Mugu boosters.

“I’m more optimistic now,” Flynn said.

Since Point Mugu was added to the closure list April 10, an array of top Navy and Defense Department officials have rushed to its defense.

Montoya, who retired from the Navy in 1989, said the commission must give great deference to the Defense Department’s decision to spare Point Mugu from its hit list during this round of base closures.

“We have to find substantial reason to put a base on the list,” Montoya said. “I have not found one.”

The commission must forward its recommended list of closures to President Clinton by July 1.