Georgia transportation committee weighs statewide airspace protections as airports report hundreds of obstruction projects

The House Transportation Committee on Tuesday heard presentations from Georgia Department of Transportation aviation staff and airport advocates calling for uniform state policy to protect airport approach surfaces from trees, towers and other obstructions. GDOT and consultants said many of the state’s small and general‑aviation airports are spending capital on obstruction removal and mitigation instead of revenue‑generating improvements such as hangars.

GDOT aviation division representative Clement Solomon told the committee Georgia’s airport system includes about 105 public‑use airports, nearly 8,500 registered aircraft and more than 17,000 registered pilots. He described the state and federal funding arrangements that support airport capital work, including a 75/25 state/local split for state programs and Georgia’s participation in the FAA state block grant program for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) projects, which GDOT said follows roughly a 90% federal / 5% state / 5% local breakdown for federally‑funded projects.

Mead & Hunt consultant Stephanie Ward, who carried out a study for the Georgia Airports Association, told the committee that airport capital‑improvement program (CIP) submissions documented approximately 111 projects over the next five years to address approach obstructions, and those combined projects appeared in the study to total about $37 million. Ward emphasized that the $37 million figure represents aggregated requests in local CIPs, not a single legislative funding request: "this was purely documenting the amount of requests that are in current capital improvement requests for individual airports across the state right now to address obstruction issues," she said.

Ward framed the issue as safety, economic development and federal compliance: airports that accept federal funds are bound by FAA grant assurances (including Grant Assurance 20 and Grant Assurance 21) and must manage compatible land use and hazard mitigation. She described FAR/FAA Part 77 imaginary approach surfaces that can extend for miles beyond airport property and explained that recent use of LIDAR and drone data has made many previously unseen penetrations visible, creating a steady stream of future mitigation needs as trees grow and new precision approaches extend protected surfaces.

Local airport managers gave concrete examples. Andrew Riersman of Dalton Municipal Airport showed LIDAR images in which trees penetrate the Part 77 surface and said those conditions have created recurring projects and easement needs near his runway. Matt Smith, Gwinnett County Airport director, described a municipal zoning decision that allowed a building 20 feet higher than the airport requested and warned that local disagreements can quickly undercut informal protections: "the city can actually shut down my airport today," he said, describing how a single tower or incompatible zoning action could force a shortened runway or other operational limits.

Jim Marquardt, Perry Airport manager, described LIDAR‑identified trees that have prompted the FAA to consider raising his airport’s minimum descent altitude. "The FAA wants to do now is increase my minimum descent altitude… by 80 feet," he said, explaining that higher minimums reduce the airport’s utility in bad weather and could harm local businesses that rely on reliable air service.

Speakers and committee members discussed policy options used in other states, including extraterritorial overlay zoning (Wisconsin’s three‑mile model, Florida’s permitting and enforcement approach), Part 77‑based surface definitions to create consistency, a smaller practical radius (two to three miles) for most airports, and GIS permit tools that flag problematic proposals. Ward and other presenters recommended tying any new authority to a clear appeals process, defined penalties for permanent noncompliance in some states, and procedural mechanisms that preserve property‑rights protections and require compensation where land rights are affected.

Committee members pressed for clarity about funding and next steps. Ward and GDOT staff agreed to provide the CIP project list behind the $37 million figure and to make technical resources available to committee staff. The presenters repeatedly framed their request as a policy framework rather than an immediate request for a specific new statewide appropriation: as Ward put it, "this is not a money ask. We’re asking for a state‑level policy that can be enforced across the state so all airports are protected similarly."

What’s next: committee staff will receive the full study and CIP documentation; the chairman assigned new policy staff to follow up and asked GDOT and the associations to continue developing a collaborative, locally sensitive draft approach for the legislature to consider.