Three ways to make an impact in Olympia this year
Update! The City of Des Moines has adopted these three items as its official legislative agenda. Thanks!
#1. Fixed Site Air Quality Monitor In Des Moines
Establish a fixed-site monitor around Sea-Tac Airport to monitor the south end of the flight path in Des Moines.
The single biggest gap in understanding the effects of commercial aviation on public health is the lack of proper data on emissions –specifically ultrafine particles (UFPs). The gold standard for studying any type of air pollution are permanent fixed site 1air quality monitors. Best practice science leads to regulation. Regulation leads to better public health. We know how tired people are of hearing “more studies”. But the real problem in fighting pollution from 1commercial aviation has been a lack of enough definitive and ongoing work necessary to move the science from ‘suggestive’ to causal.
#2. Independent 20 Year Community Impacts Study
We need a 20 Year Community Impacts study managed by the fence line communities, utilizing the most current research, in order to accurately model the lived impacts for communities over the next twenty years. This is the only way we can move from EA to EIS and then develop proper, ongoing mitigation plans as the airport expands.
In 1996, the airport published the Third Runway EIS. Residents were as disappointed with that document as they are today with the current SAMP Draft EA. But this was to be expected. Airport environmental reviews, which are based on land, will always attempt to narrow the scope of mitigation to specific 2construction projects, not the lived impacts for communities and planners.
To accurately assess those lived impacts, in 1997, the state provided nearby cities funds to conduct their own eleven month Sea-Tac International Airport Mitigation Study known as ‘the HOK‘. The HOK study accurately described, accounted for, and predicted the 20 year outcomes of that Third Runway expansion. The HOK was particularly useful in helping Highline Schools obtain their $150M settlement in 2001. In short: we need a ‘HOK 2025’.
#3. Expand RCW 53 (Port Districts). End the quid pro quo. Remediate all aviation impacts
The legislature can build upon SB5955-2024 and further expand the list of appropriate uses of both State and local funds in 5RCW 53 to include mitigations for all the public health impacts of commercial aviation within the geographic boundary recognized by the State for sound insulation programs.
This is a bit tricky. Under State law, the Port of Seattle is allowed to provide aviation impacted communities with two kinds of relief: transaction assistance (property buyout) and sound insulation. Both are based exclusively on ‘noise’, both are based on compensating individuals, (not communities) and both require a quid pro quo, something in exchange for the relief, either the land itself, or an avigation easement. This approach has turned out to be not only less than ideal for individuals, but absolutely terrible for communities.
Agencies like the Port of Seattle will often refer to the Gift of Public Funds Doctrine as the reason for that quid pro quo–and the major impediment to doing more for aviation impacted communities beyond 3economic partnerships. If taken as gospel, it means that regardless of how much money the Port may have, or where relief funding might come from (tax levy, bonds, other Port income, etc.), they can never provide other types of aviation community relief without some form of onerous quid pro quo.
With the passage of SB5955, RCW 53.54.030 was enhanced to allow for secondary compensation for sound insulation systems. The only requirement being that the property is
…subjected to increased aircraft noise or differing aircraft noise impacts that would have afforded different levels of mitigation, even if the property owner had waived all damages and conveyed a full and unrestricted easement
No quid pro quo.
Again: the 2024 legislature determined that for certain narrow purposes, compensation for aviation-impacts requires no quid pro quo. And they have set up an audited account to collect and distribute that compensation.
Noise mitigation for airport communities is now recognized as a matter of public health and environmental justice. There are many other equally important public health impacts for aviation communities. Revise RCW53 to end the quid pro quo for all aviation-related impacts for everyone under the 6flight path.
1We note that a PSCAA monitor has also been scheduled for installation at the northern end of the airport, but has been repeatedly delayed since 2021. With two, researchers will have access to the first ongoing data on UFPs in the United States, for both north and south flow operations.
2Making the subject even more confusing is that the leaded-fuel used by piston-engine general aviation is fundamentally different from that used by jet engines–which currently make up 97% of operations at Sea-Tac Airport.
3The 2024 SAMP Draft EA ‘area of potential effect’ (blue) is only a fraction of the DNL65 prior to the Third Runway. That is the ‘explanation’ as to why there are 150,000 more annual operations today and zero new mitigations.
4SECTION 8 PORT EXPENDITURES — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT — PROMOTION. The use of public funds by port districts in such manner as may be prescribed by the legislature for industrial development or trade promotion and promotional hosting shall be deemed a public use for a public purpose, and shall not be deemed a gift within the provisions of section 7 of this Article. [AMENDMENT 45, 1965 ex.s. Senate Joint Resolution No. 25, p 2819. Approved November 8, 1966.]
5The Port of Seattle also has its own 2025 shared legislative agenda in concert with StART cities. Some of those goals are useful and should be supported. But until we see their specific proposals, we have no idea whether or not their ideas for revising RCW53 will be only to their benefit and not that of the communities. Under no circumstances should their agenda be considered a substitute for an independent agenda which meets the needs of people living under the flight path.
6Ten miles north, thirteen miles south, three miles east and west of the center line,