|
The
overrun estimate included $55 million itemized as caused
by “delay” of the project. This supposedly
includes $20 million attributable to inflation (not otherwise
described). What items were delayed? Unknown. For how long
were they delayed? Unstated. How much were those items
supposed to cost originally, & what will they cost—or
have they already been purchased? Unknown. The “delay” item, according
to Mr. David Soike, Director of Capital Improvement Program,
also included additional environmental & legal
work, details unstated. It would be more accurate to say
that staff simply underestimated the requirements in these
areas. This is not a delay matter but a lack of foresight.
It was unwise to suppose that this project would not be
challenged, would not be subjected to very careful review. The
other $151 million blamed on the neighbors by the Port
was for "additional environmental
permit requirements." The basic source of this overrun
was a decision to ignore real environmental impacts
in their planning or to budget realistically for them.
The biggest and most costly example was the staff's decision
to ignore their own consultant's advice that there could
be 100 acres of wetlands on the runway site and to plan,
instead, for 10 acres and to estimate
their costs
accordingly. The
simple fact is that despite the risk of losing lawsuits
or not obtaining
permits, the Port
has pursued the runway project full bore, with no delays
from the courts, ever since planning for the runway began
in the late 1980s. There has never been a court order stopping
planning, designing, or construction, until the temporary
injunction entered in December 2002 by the local U.S. District
Court—and the Port agreed to that order being
issued! Runway Work Proceeded Throughout
the 1990s Opponents of
Sea−Tac expansion
were arguing in the 1990s that planning approval should
not be granted, & when it was granted, they challenged
those actions in court. While the courts were considering
such issues as whether the environmental impact statements
were adequate, and whether the requirements of the Growth
Management Act were met, the Port went forward with
in-house design work, & then awarded engineering contracts
to outside consultants. The Port obtained authority from
the City of SeaTac to issue city building permits to itself
for the project. The Port decided what properties it needed
to obtain for the runway, & went forward with negotiations & condemnation
actions, till all the land was acquired. The suits against
the runway did not affect any part of this work. When enough
land had been acquired, the Port began contracting with
construction outfits for
delivery of fill for the runway embankment. The Port also
began to remove fill for the purpose from other parts of
the Airport. This process went on for five years without
challenge in the courts, & only stopped when the Port
ran out of space. About five million cubic yards were laid
down—about a quarter of the total fill needed (19.84
million cubic yards). Wetlands
Permits—An afterthought? Well into this
fill-hauling work, the Port got around to seeking permission
to fill wetlands,
alter watercourses, & do other runway-construction
work needing the OK of the State Department of Ecology
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the provisions
of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 and companion legislation
at the State level. These laws require that the applicants
(Port) take appropriate measures to mitigate the environmental
harm of their projects.
The
Engineers and Ecology were made aware of the ongoing
fill work,
and Colonel Mike Rigsby, in charge
of the local office of the Engineers, publicly warned the
Port at a hearing on 3 November 1999 that they were “proceeding
at their own risk” in
moving large quantities of fill without any assurance that
a permit would be granted. The Port went ahead anyway. Bad Plans, No Permit The Port staff & consultants presented
seriously inadequate plans to Ecology & the Engineers.
The plans short-changed mitigation & were full of factual
errors. Runway opponents, in the form of the Airport Communities
Coalition, critiqued the Port plans in great detail, providing
expert advice & comment to the Engineers and Ecology,
and thus, indirectly to the Port. The two agencies met
time without number with Port staff & consultants,
trying to bring the plans into legal compliance. The first application was granted by
Ecology, appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board,
and then the approval was withdrawn. A second application
followed, again with public hearings, lots of comments
from the public & from
ACC experts & others. Again, the Port could not put
together a suitable plan, & in mid-1999 was told by
Ecology that if they did not pull the application & start
again, it would be publicly denied. The Port withdrew & re-submitted.
They expected to finish their work & to receive their
permits by December 1999, if not sooner. The Port continued
with construction of the runway embankment as planned—with
no environmental permits in hand. Third Time’s
the Charm On their third
try, the Port & its
consultants radically revised their plans, adding very
expensive new features, & after prolonged discussion,
Ecology issued its approval, with strong conditions, in
August 2001. An appeal followed, & a three-week trial
then took place before the state’s Pollution Control
Hearings Board in March 2002―the first public review
of the environmental plans. In August 2002, the Board upheld
the certificate, with 16 more conditions added to ensure
that the project did not violate state water law. The Port
has since appealed eight of those conditions to the courts. In December
2002, after further study, the Engineers gave their approval, & that
is now under review in the U.S. District Court. The Port
agreed to an
order in the federal court that they would not do work
in the wetlands pending the final result of the court case
(though they have the right to withdraw from that order
if they wish). Port Set Schedule from the Start The Port was
in complete control of the timing of its work from the
very beginning. The Port
decided when to seek the necessary concurrence of the metropolitan
planning organization (Puget Sound Regional Council). The
Port decided when to ask the FAA for its planning concurrence.
The Port decided when to ask FAA for a construction-money
grant. The Port alone decided when to borrow construction
money on Wall Street, when to ask approval to use passenger
landing fees for runway work, when to start working on
a new lease arrangement with the tenant airlines, when
to impose a tax increase for runway money, & most important
of all, the Port and the Port alone decided when to start
hauling fill & when to ask the environmental authorities
for the right to fill wetlands. Legal Delays Began in 2001 The
Port proceeded in fits and starts, depending on how much
money it had available and how far along it was in the
planning process until the year 2001. They hit a legal
roadblock then. That’s
when they needed to put new fill into wetlands but did
not
have their
permit—because of their own failure to do
their environmental work as the law requires. They tried
to cut corners, & it did not work. Now they are in
a mess. Port staff & Commissioners are claiming that
it was a bad thing for outsiders to call attention to the
Port’s serious errors & omissions. But the simple
truth is, if the Port had done its work correctly, its
wetland permits would have been received years ago. No
court, no lawsuit, created the problems with the environmental
permits―the Port created these problems itself. What About Changing Laws? There has been
loose talk from the Commissioners & from
the Port’s spinmeisters that the Port was sandbagged
by ever-changing environmental laws. At the meeting on
the 24th, particular complaint was made about
the Endangered Species Act (a new theme in the Port’s
litany of woe, by the way). This is all nonsense. The applicable
statute as to water quality (wetlands) is the federal
Clean Water Act of 1972. The Endangered Species Act has
been on the books since 1973. Does the Port claim that
it started planning the runway way earlier than 1972? That
was before the second runway opened for business. The
law is unchanged. The standards are unchanged. It’s
up to project proponents like the Port to present plans
that meet the legal requirements. People who don’t
want to comply with the law, people who present shabby
plans, people who propose stupid projects in stupid places,
make trouble for themselves. The
staff told the Commission that the project has had
big delays because of community opposition
through lawsuits. Actually, the project has proceeded
as planned until quite recently, when the Port failed to submit adequate plans
for control of water pollution & mitigation of damage to wetlands, something
that they could have avoided had they taken the wetlands problem seriously in
the first place.
|
