Port Asks Superior Court To Overrule
Pollution Control Hearings Board Order

On 6 September, the Port of Seattle filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, seeking removal of important environmental protections imposed on the third runway project by the State Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB).

The hearing date for the appeal has been set for Monday, 7 April 2003, before Superior Court Judge Bruce Hilyer.

The Port's action follows the PCHB's decision (issued on 12 August) that the Port's third-runway project could proceed - but only if the Port complied with stringent conditions imposed by the Board to protect water quality. When the Board's 139 page decision was first issued, the Port declared victory: "We got our permit, the stay was lifted" said Sea-Tac spokesperson Bob Parker at the time.

However, since then the Port has said that it cannot complete the runway project under the Board's constraints.

First, the Port filed a motion with the Board, asking that the Board reconsider its decision on one key environmental control (preventing importation of contaminated fill for the runway project). The motion claimed that the clean-fill requirements would make construction of the third runway "impossible".

Next, the Port then withdrew its reconsideration request, clearing the way for the appeal to the courts, filed on 6 September.

Peter Eglick, lead attorney for Airport Communities Coalition, was quoted in the Daily Journal of Commerce on 9 September as saying, "I'm sorry that they don't believe they can comply with the board's requirements for protection of the environment and still build the project. We're really enjoying this," he added. "Every time they have environmental conditions put in, they say they can't build the project." Details of the Port's claimed difficulties are contained in the motion for reconsideration .

The appeal questions the scientific validity of some of the pollution controls put in place by the Board and even challenges the legal authority of the Board to act. The Port wants the Superior Court to remove eight of the 16 environmental protections imposed by the PCHB. A summary of the points under appeal has been prepared by Rick Poulin, attorney for Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion.

The Airport Communities Coalition said that it has predicted many times that the third-runway project could not proceed if the Port was required to comply with environmental protection laws, particularly those guarding against water pollution. The ACC was pleased with the aspects of the PCHB decision that required the Port to comply with anti-pollution laws. The Port's latest attack confirms again that the Port cannot build the third runway and comply with environmental protection laws.

The appeal marks the third time the Port has turned to the legal system to weaken or set aside important environmental protections for the third-runway project.