U.S. District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford heard arguments in a lawsuit accusing the Air Force of failing to conduct a proper environmental review before deciding to assign 18 of the F-35s to the Vermont Air National Guard. The planes are scheduled to arrive in 2019.
Opponents of the F-35s, which are louder than the F-16s currently based at the airport, are trying to get that decision set aside and to have a new review, known as an environmental impact statement, conducted. Residents of South Burlington and Winooski, along with the Stop the F-35 Coalition and the city of Winooski, filed the suit.
James Dumont, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the Air Force left several vital considerations out of its required environmental review. Dumont said the Air Force ignored South Burlington and Winooski land-use regulations, and failed to examine the risk of a serious accident. He said the Air Force didn’t examine either the idea of soundproofing homes in the areas that will be most affected by noise, or buying and demolishing them, which has previously been done in South Burlington.
“There was no informed public in this review,” Dumont said. “The [environmental impact statement] was a sham. It did not present the minimum information … that should be part of the evaluation.”
The government contends that the review was fair, and that the plaintiffs are seizing on picayune issues that do not justify overturning the basing decision.
“While the agency is required to consider environmental impact, it is not required to make its decision based on those impacts,” said David Gehlert, an attorney from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “It’s always possible to do more environmental reviews [but] the [environmental impact statement] is a means to an end. It is not the end-all.”
Several of the plaintiffs sat in the gallery in federal court in Rutland, along with Adjutant General Steven Cray and other members of the Vermont Air National Guard.
Currently, nearly 2,000 homes with more than 4,600 people — mostly in Winooski and South Burlington — are in zones with high levels of noise from the F-16s. The louder F-35s will increase the noise zones to affect nearly 3,000 homes with more than 6,600 people, attorneys said.
While evaluating the impact of the F-35s, the Air Force compared the noise they generate to that of the F-16s. But that was disingenuous, Dumont argued. Dumont said that records indicate the Air Force will remove the F-16s from Vermont by 2018 whether or not they are replaced by the F-35s.
Therefore, Dumont argued, the Air Force should have compared the impact of F-35s to not having any fighter jets at the airport.
Gehlert said such talk was “speculation.”
Crawford warned the attorneys that he would not be drawn into a broader philosophical debate about the basing decision.
“This is not a one-man referendum on where to base the aircraft,” Crawford said. “I’m not here to make my own investigation into noise levels or the likelihood of a catastrophic crash. My assignment is to review the process of the Air Force, and determine if it fits in the discretionary judgment allowed these agencies.”
Crawford is expected to issue a written decision in the coming weeks.
In May, the guard announced it would spend $25 million to improve the taxiway and apron it uses at the airport. The guard leases land for its base from the airport, which is owned by the city of Burlington but located in South Burlington.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The judge recognizes the “throw everything at the wall to see what sticks” complaints that are the case’s noise and crash objections, and understands that “the one-person referendum” is the plaintiffs’ goal to slow or overturn basing. So it will be about the process and discretion of the AF. SB council’s recent action is a timely anti-example of the kind of process and discretion that would hold up in court.
It would be a welcome change if Vermont led the way for other states to let go of military jobs that exist solely for the purpose of electing congressman. The happy fact is we don’t need these planes, the military doesn’t want or need these planes, and every branch of the military is forced to accept and store megatons of useless equipment that keeps being built because it creates jobs in politically expedient districts.
Everyone talks about poor people taking government assistance, but that amount pales in comparison to the taxpayer money being wasted building unnecessary military equipment. Because the military has no use for it, there are thousands of acres of fenced-in areas throughout the west where this equipment sits until it becomes obsolete. This is a much bigger issue than basing these particular pointless and useless F-35s. Vermont doesn’t need these military jobs and we along with other states can learn to substitute other types of jobs that actually have a positive purpose. I realize this is an unpopular opinion but that will not deter me towards working and hoping some day for a more enlightened society. Now go for it people, down vote away!
From having been associated with numerous court cases, it has been my observation that “throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks” is common to most law cases. That is the usual process.
If everything were so black and white that such were not true, we would need neither lawyers nor judges.
As to whether or not the counts hold up in court, well, we will see soon enough.
“Opponents of the F-35s, which are louder than the F-16s currently based at the airport…”
Yes. Yes they are.
#grammarwin
Love to know where Mr Davis discovered that “the F-35s,… are louder than the F-16s” You should separate your editorial position from your report .
Read the following for a less biased report ” F-35, F-16 Noise Difference Small, Netherlands Study Shows May 31, 2016 /Tony Osborne | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report”
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-f-16-…
This article is extremely bias. As far as I’m concerned the noise created by the F-35 (even the F-16) is the sound of freedom. Who would be the first to holler if the military wasn’t there to protect them. All I can determine from the author of this article (it’s diffenetly not an unbiased report) is another “what can I get for me” rather than what is best for my country. One of the most famous democrats, John Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” 1961 inaugural speech seem to be lost on modern day liberals.
Really again we are upset that we try to defend our country with the best tools possible and we get cries of too much noise. man I wish i could afford to live near this airport as i would enjoy watching the air show.
We could base biplanes there but when an emergency occurs they will be useless as will this airport without planes. if you dont like it move.