OPINION | Port of Seattle Must Not Only Compensate Near-Airport Residents for Showering Poisons on Them

The Port must also refrain from making the problem vastly worse with its "Sustainable" Airport Master Plan.

by Sandy Hunt, Seattle; Nancy Kick, Burien; Stephen Lamphear, Burien; Noemie Maxwell Vassilkakis, Burien; and Michael Stein-Ross, Burien on behalf of Defenders of North SeaTac Park

"Businesses and government agencies should not shower harmful pollutants on people's homes with impunity." So begins the Class Action Complaint of Codoni v. Port of Seattle (Codoni) filed against the Port of Seattle and two airlines on behalf of all residents living in the "contamination zone" within 5 miles of Sea-Tac Airport.

Codoni cites scientific findings linking pollution from Sea-Tac Airport to premature and underweight births, learning problems in children, reduced lifespans, higher rates of asthma, cancer, heart disease, stroke, reproductive and fertility problems, and more.

As residents of this contamination zone, and as members of the Defenders of North SeaTac Park, we have been calling on the Port of Seattle to refrain from actions that would greatly worsen our exposure to this deadly airport pollution. Our petition, the Community Forest Consensus, has been signed by over 3,200 community members and calls for a moratorium on proposals in the Port's Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP) and Real Estate Strategic Plan (RESP) that would expand the airport's footprint onto an estimated 100+ acres of land that is now covered in trees, including 31 acres inside North SeaTac Park.

If the Port carries out these proposals on top of our park and forest land, it would substantially expand airport operations and therefore the amount of deadly pollution raining down on us. At the same time, the loss of these trees would severely reduce our protection from this pollution.

Trees, it turns out, offer important protection from industrial pollution, capturing much of it before it can enter our lungs, bloodstreams, and homes. A 2020 report by Public Health — Seattle & King County, cited both in the Defenders' consensus and in Codoni, recommends increasing "green spaces, specifically coniferous tree coverage" near the airport to "capture particulate matter, thereby reducing people's exposure."

Trees also are a key defense against the urban heat impacts of climate change, significantly reducing temperatures in their vicinity. Recent news that global temperatures will likely set new records in the next five years, rising at least temporarily more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, forebodes a harsh reality for people living near the airport, which already has one of the sparsest tree canopy percentages in the county.

The harm that the Port is now causing — and proposes to intensify by expanding the airport — falls disproportionately on those from racially and economically diverse backgrounds. Most live in neighborhoods that rank at the top of Washington State Department of Health's scale of Environmental Health Disparities. It is an unfortunate irony that those who live near the airport because they cannot afford housing costs elsewhere are also less often likely to afford traveling by plane.

The Port has taken some steps in addressing public calls to refrain from developing inside North SeaTac Park, meeting with City of SeaTac Councilmembers on the matter (though it has not publicly responded to the City of SeaTac's request that it consider transferring ownership of the park to the City under terms that would permanently protect it as a park).

These first steps by the Port are welcomed and necessary, as this park is inestimably important for our community. The land was initially set aside as a park "to compensate area residents" for cumulative airport impacts. And the Port's recommended development plan, as it exists, would not only erase beloved recreational space used by the entire community, it would also destroy an extensive network of forested mountain biking trails, remove the area's only dedicated rugby field, and endanger Tub Lake, a rare sphagnum moss peat bog.

But the Port has not done nearly enough.

Currently it is unknown whether this agency will take the necessary steps of supporting a change in the park's zoning from "aviation commercial" to "park" and securing permanent legal protection for this resource in its entirety — or if it will simply offer more nonbinding reassurances that it has no current plans for development.

Moreover, the Port has not responded to or even acknowledged calls in the Community Forest Consensus that it also refrain from stripping protective forest from 70 to 80 additional acres of land outside the park, but within 2 miles of the airport. This forest serves as a critical pollution buffer for our community, a buffer that has already been substantially eroded by Port deforestation south and northwest of the airport (for example, more than 70 acres lost in 2017 to Des Moines Creek Business Park, a complex of warehouses as well as the FAA's new headquarters).

Our research has not uncovered any response by the Port to statements made by Alaska Airlines, one of the defendants in Codoni, that the airport "is not on land big enough to sustain the expansion" that the Port proposes, and that the Port's proposals pose "a substantial risk of overbuilding."

The Port has never acknowledged that its airport expansion proposals conflict with it own commitments to "reduce sprawl" and protect and restore forests.

As for the 2020 report by Public Health — Seattle & King County that is cited in Codoni and that establishes the grave impacts of airport operations on public health, the only Port responses we have uncovered are a letter in which the Port criticizes the health agency's findings and a consultant's report it commissioned on the study at taxpayer expense and then withheld from the public until nearly 50 residents, in a coordinated action, requested an unredacted version of it.

The Codoni lawsuit is one important step toward holding the Port accountable. But compensation for past harms isn't enough. The Port must listen to the evidence on airport pollution and climate change and refrain from causing even greater harm in the future. A first step would be their commitment to halting all deforestation near the airport until there is a comprehensive plan in place to ensure permanent protection of North SeaTac Park and adequate and healthful levels of tree canopy near the airport.

We urge readers to consider signing the Defenders of North SeaTac Park Community Forest Consensus, and for everyone who uses Sea-Tac International Airport to contact elected Port Commissioners and demand they use their authority to make this right.

The South Seattle Emerald is committed to holding space for a variety of viewpoints within our community, with the understanding that differing perspectives do not negate mutual respect amongst community members.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the contributors on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of the Emerald or official policies of the Emerald.

Featured Image: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, SeaTac, Washington, as seen from the air. Photo is attributed to Joe Mabel (under a Creative Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 license).