Sea-Tac runway fight hits high court

OLYMPIA — The long-running battle over whether to build a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport moved Tuesday to the state Supreme Court, where the Port of Seattle urged justices to overturn an environmental ruling that could further stall the long-delayed project.

The justices must grapple with a complex set of challenges to a water-quality permit the port needs to build the airstrip — the latest fight in a long campaign to prevent its construction.

The current conflict focuses on a soil test aimed at finding whether toxic chemicals would leach out of fill dirt used to build the runway and contaminate nearby water sources.

Last year, the state Pollution Control Hearings Board questioned whether the test was precise enough to ensure that toxic chemicals in the dirt wouldn’t pollute the water. That decision was a victory for airport-area communities and other opponents of the project.

"You’re trying to determine whether it’s freezing outside, and you’re using a thermometer that only goes down to 50 degrees," said Peter Eglick, an attorney arguing for the Airport Communities Coalition and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion.

The port and the state Department of Ecology, which first issued the permit in 2001, both strenuously defend the test as a standard method. The port contends the higher standard mandated by the board would drive up the cost of the project by eliminating sources of fill that naturally contain trace amounts of toxic chemicals.

"If it doesn’t leach out, it’s not a threat to water quality," said Gillis Reavis, an attorney for the port. "What the board did is misinterpret the evidence."

Reavis also cited a controversial bill passed by the Legislature this year aimed at validating the test after the fact.

The justices quizzed attorneys for the port and Department of Ecology.

"Is it the port’s position that the water quality will be as good after this third runway is in?" Chief Justice Gerry Alexander asked skeptically.

"That’s correct, your honor," Reavis responded.

The Ecology Department contends the board overstepped its bounds and ignored expert testimony.

"The board ignored that testimony and substituted its own judgment," assistant attorney general Joan Marchihoro said. "Deference should be given to Ecology’s expertise."

But runway opponents contend the board was simply doing the job the department should have done in the first place.

"It was deferring to Ecology’s experts, not, if you will, to Ecology’s political decisions," Eglick said.

If the court rules against the Port, it could delay the start of construction — now set for 2004 — for at least another year, said Linda Strout, the port’s chief counsel. Various legal challenges have already delayed the project for nearly a decade.

The 8,500-foot runway was first proposed in 1987 to reduce flight delays as airport traffic increased.

The $770 million-plus project was originally scheduled for completion in 2001, but now has a scheduled opening of 2008.