Recently, there has been a new development in the city of Boulder’s lawsuit to clarify Boulder’s right to close the Boulder Municipal Airport (BDU). On Nov. 1, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) filed a motion to dismiss Boulder’s lawsuit. The FAA seeks to compel the city to operate the airport “in perpetuity.”

Many people have asked me what I think of this motion to dismiss, as one of the organizers of the Airport Neighborhood Campaign (ANC). We at the ANC are pleased to see the FAA put its arguments on the table. The motion to dismiss is an expected step that moves the case forward.

As I discussed in a previous Daily Camera opinion piece, the ANC applauds the city of Boulder for pursuing this litigation and refusing FAA funding while the litigation is in progress. We advocate for repurposing the 179-acre airport site to build beautiful, complete neighborhoods with a high percentage of affordable housing, parks, and many more local businesses than the airport supports. This would be a much more equitable and beneficial land use. Furthermore, it would end the airport’s chronic negative impacts to vulnerable populations, including low income families and children — impacts that Boulder is powerless to regulate, according to the FAA.

The ANC looks forward to seeing a vigorous response to the FAA’s motion from the city of Boulder. The city never signed a contract agreeing to operate an airport in perpetuity, despite the FAA’s attempts to retroactively reinterpret their contracts with Boulder.

Boulder has hired the legal team used by the city of Santa Monica to file a similar type of lawsuit (a “quiet title action”) against the FAA in 2013. Although the FAA had argued that Santa Monica was obligated to operate their airport (SMO) in perpetuity, the FAA settled that lawsuit in 2017 and agreed to SMO closure.

The news of the Santa Monica settlement arrived in the middle of the SoCal Metroplex project, an effort sponsored by the FAA to realign air traffic among 10 airports in the Los Angeles region, including SMO. According to a pro-aviation media source, the announcement “took airport backers by surprise.” That same source reported the FAA’s motivation for agreeing to SMO closure was to avoid “a negative court ruling (that) could set a legal precedent leading to more airport closures in the future.” This was a complete reversal of “the FAA’s long-standing position, echoed by aviation interests, that SMO is vital to the Los Angeles region and to preserving the aviation capacity of the Los Angeles Basin.”

Although BDU is far smaller and less useful than SMO, Boulder’s case has similar high stakes for the FAA. A ruling in Boulder’s favor would undermine the FAA’s overly broad interpretation of when an airport sponsor becomes “obligated in perpetuity.” This could have repercussions for the FAA’s contracts with other reluctant airport sponsors. We expect that the FAA may be therefore motivated to settle. The last thing the FAA wants is a court ruling that formally, legally eviscerates their flawed arguments.

One thing is certain: Airport impacts will not be improved by the re-election of a U.S. president whose first term administration rolled back over 100 environmental rules. The EPA calculates that almost all of the lead contained in leaded aviation fuel is emitted into the environment upon burning. Studies show that children living and going to school near general aviation airports like BDU have higher concentrations of lead in their blood due to chronic exposure. No level of lead in blood is considered “safe.” Tragically, the FAA has consistently avoided banning leaded aviation fuel. The EPA’s 2023 endangerment finding for leaded aviation fuel could have laid the groundwork for a complete ban, but our president-elect openly plans to undermine the EPA. Unleaded aviation fuel may become more widely available, but we cannot count on pilots to voluntarily purchase the more-expensive unleaded option. As the federal regulatory climate worsens, aviation proponents’ promises that leaded fuel “will go away” are increasingly unreliable. The FAA’s command that Boulder must sell leaded fuel at BDU is unacceptable.

Now more than ever, Boulder must legally assert that the airport site is our land, our choice.