Des Moines committee hears legal strategy, science concerns over Port of Seattle SAMP expansion

At a recent Des Moines City aviation committee meeting, community advocate and attorney Steve Edmiston reviewed a decade of regional airport planning and litigation tied to the Port of Seattle's SAMP and urged the committee to coordinate with neighboring cities on legal strategy and technical expertise.

Edmiston, who said he has followed airport and agency work since about 2016, told the committee "Everything is different," arguing that newer science and recent legal decisions give airport-neighbor communities stronger options than in the earlier third-runway fight. He singled out the "hard look" standard in administrative-law cases, saying agencies cannot simply rely on compliance metrics (for example, the 65 DNL noise contour) if scientific studies in the administrative record indicate harms.

The presentation and discussion covered three interlocking strands: the scientific evidence about ultrafine particles and non-auditory health impacts; pending litigation, including a class-action filed in federal court; and the committee's near-term choices about an interlocal agreement (ILA) with Burien and SeaTac and whether to join a NEPA appeal.

On science, Edmiston and members cited newer studies distinguishing ultrafine particles from airport sources versus roadway sources and emphasized that those studies should be in the administrative record. Edmiston said the Port of Seattle repeatedly labeled recent science as "not mature" in Appendix O of its environmental materials, which he characterized as a legal "playbook" to default to minimum regulatory compliance.

On litigation, Edmiston described a pending federal class action brought by a national plaintiffs'firm referenced in the meeting transcript (meeting transcription: "Hoggins Berman") and noted the judge denied early motions to dismiss, a decision now under appeal. (The widely known national firm that files mass tort and public-interest class actions is Hagens Berman; the transcript's spelling was inconsistent and is noted in the meeting record.) He also described a Washington state case against the Navy at Whidbey Island that used the "hard look" standard to force renewed agency review of noise and environmental impacts.

Edmiston warned that a purely technical consulting buy by community groups cannot "rebake" the administrative record and that legal strategy should be coordinated so that appeals (NEPA and SEPA) and record-building do not waive claims inadvertently. He advised that if legal counsel recommends foregoing a NEPA appeal, the committee must be confident no claims would be lost by doing so; the meeting recorded that the NEPA appeal deadline was about two weeks away.

Committee members focused on practical next steps. The committee discussed the ILA with Burien and SeaTac (with Normandy Park noted as having withdrawn), the need for pooled funding to pay legal and scientific experts, and the short timeline for preserving NEPA claims. One member asked whether the Port would hire specialized epidemiologists and toxicologists; Edmiston said his "bet" was the Port would rely on compliance positions rather than commissioning new outside science. He also urged that communities seek review of what the Port included or excluded from its environmental assessment.

On tradeoffs, Edmiston cited a City of Des Moines economic estimate discussed in the meeting that attributed about 720 local jobs to airport activity and framed the community choice: accept potential health risks from greater operations or oppose expansion to protect public health. He raised the hypothetical: is a 30% increase in flights worth an incremental local jobs gain, and how should the community weigh public-health impacts against economic benefits.

The committee agreed to circulate additional materials, consider a recommendation on the ILA before the council meeting noted for Thursday, and determine whether it will support or file a NEPA appeal. The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will distribute materials and try to clarify the ILA cost and scope; members flagged the NEPA appeal deadline as time-critical and suggested coordination with partner cities and counsel.