October 24, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR006328: ACC Statement of Supplemental Authorities in Reply on ACC’s Motion for Reconsideration

Notes

ACC (Airport Communities Coalition) filing in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington, submitting supplemental authorities in reply to ACC’s Motion for Reconsideration and responding to Ecology’s October 22, 2001 submission. Argues AAG statements on a ‘purely legal question’ regarding water rights for the low flow plan fall outside attorney-client privilege under Paul R. Rice treatise and Epstein’s Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Doctrine. Cites Hearn v. Ray 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975), Pappas v. Holloway 114 Wn.2d 198, Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 384, and RCW 90.03.400 (unauthorized use of water). Respondents are Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle. Filed by Helsell Fetterman LLP and Rachael Paschal Osborn.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message