Port Package Update Bill now goes to Governor’s desk!
Olympia, WA SB5955 passed today without amendment and now goes to the Governor’s desk for signature. Speaking in support were bill sponsor Tina Orwall 33rd (D), Keith Goehner 12th (R), J.T. Wilcox 2nd (R) Yelm, and Sharon Tomiko Santos 37th (D) who said she was voting ‘reluctantly’ because it does not go far enough.
Action Items
Today? Take the day off and celebrate! But tomorrow?
Analysis
The lopsided vote, including the lack of amendments was encouraging. We were particularly pleased by the comments from two Republicans. In the last hearing at Capital Budget, the vote shifted to a 13-10 partisan divide. There was the usual talk of “You knew there was an airport there…” But both GOP members today highlighted fairness, the fact that homeowners with bad Port Packages did not get what they were promised. Rep. Wilcox went so far as to imply that one reason it’s tough to site a second airport is because people see how tough it is to live next to a major airport. These are both welcome notes.
Friends should be able to speak candidly to friends. So we hope that Rep. Tomiko Santos was speaking somewhat rhetorically in being ‘reluctant’ in her support. She has every right to be disappointed, since the bill which will pass is very different from the original proposal. The opposition stripped away everything except Port Packages so there is nothing tangible in it for her constituents.
And she has every right to be angry about the noise over Beacon Hill. That area never received Port Packages because it was outside the DNL65 in 1996, when the original boundary was set. It was (and remains) unfair that they are often outside many of the discussion of impacts–and it must be particularly galling that at least two recent Port Commissions live in Beacon Hill!
However, her arguments raise an important aspect of airport law that’s worth talking about.
Blame the right people…
The DNL65, ie. the boundary establishing who gets a Port Package, was never set by the State of Washington or the Port of Seattle. It was created by the United States Congress and the FAA.
And the DNL65 is not a ‘law’ per se. It is, in fact, a grant requirement. The Port of Seattle can only obtain money for Port Packages inside that boundary. Any airport operator is completely free to develop their own, more aggressive noise reduction program–just not with Federal dollars.
As it stands today, if people in Beacon Hill (or anywhere outside the DNL65) want Port Packages, either the Port or the State of Washington or King County or the City of Seattle would have to pay for them. And frankly, no one has expressed that will.
Why this matters for Port Package Updates…
And, here’s the really crummy part. If any of those governments were to embark on a more aggressive program, they have zero guarantee that the Feds would ever reimburse them or take over such a program. That is why it is so essential to make sure that any new program we develop here (like SB5955!) is done in a way that seems compatible with what might be coming down the road from the FAA. Our goal is to create programs that Congress will be happy to take over, because they do have the money.
It’s all about the money…
We are completely sympathetic to the interests of people outside the DNL65–especially Beacon Hill. The 1996 boundary was, even then, too small. But to extend it out to where it really should have been was simply impossible. Even then.
As we say all the time, the DNL65 was about money. Part of its determination was based on what was thought financially possible, not ‘science’. In 2024 dollars the Port has already spent over $400,000,000 of Federal money on sound insulation. To extend the boundary to where it should be, using current understandings of healthy noise levels would cost another billion dollars just at Sea-Tac Airport.
How to eat an elephant…
The reason we urge everyone to be full-throated in their support of small steps like SB5955 is because it is like ‘eating an elephant’. If you look at the magnitude of the problem, you won’t even start–and that has actually been one of the main talking points of opponents to doing anything. In fact, that was the Port’s original opposition to SB5955 was exactly that. The Port said in the original bill’s Fiscal Note that the cost of an update program would be $1,000,000,000!
We encourage everyone to rejoice in these small steps, but trust that we do have the elephant in mind.
Congratulations to Rep. Orwall and Sen. Keiser for being willing to take the first few bites.