January 4, 2002August 2, 2026

PCHB Doc 01-160: Proposed Order Granting ACC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Absence of a Water Right

Notes

Proposed order from the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160) granting Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) motion for summary judgment on Issue No. 9(a) — whether a water right is required for implementation of the Port of Seattle’s low flow mitigation plan for the Third Runway Project. The Board found no reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality standards where no water right demonstrates legal means to permanently mitigate low flow impacts; accordingly, the § 401 Certification is vacated and certification of the Third Runway Project is denied. Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) joined the motion. Presented by Helsell Fetterman LLP attorneys Peter J. Eglick, Kevin L. Stock, and Rachael Paschal Osborn. Administrative Record number AR 005740–005742.

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