Despite facing a possible loss of Federal Aviation Administration funding, Santa Clara County officials declared Monday they won’t back off from their plan to start fueling planes at its airports with unleaded gasoline this weekend.
“We will not modify our approach,” County Executive Jeff Smith said when asked about the FAA’s objections. “Lead free by Jan. 1.”
The FAA’s opposition to the fuel change from leaded gas is part of a wider investigation it has launched against the county. In a Dec. 22 letter to county officials, the FAA said the county doesn’t have the authority to order the fuel change and could violate certain agreements the airport has with the federal government if it follows through.
“It appears the County is unilaterally moving forward with its plans to ban the sale and use of (unleaded fuel) at the airports without the input, advance notice, or prior approval of the FAA,” the letter states.
The investigation is the latest flashpoint in a longstanding battle over the proposed closure of Reid-Hillview County Airport in San Jose. For years, county officials and residents near Reid-Hillview have wanted to close the airport and move its operations to the San Martin County Airport. Advocates of the move have cited noise and health concerns, as well as the need for housing in a region that desperately needs it.
But Reid-Hillview flight school owners and San Martin residents have protested against such a move, saying the health worries are overstated and the lead some people have been exposed to came from other sources. They also contend that San Martin, a smaller airport than Reid-Hillview, wouldn’t be able to properly accommodate many more planes.
In 2018, the Board of Supervisors voted to stop accepting federal grants for airport improvements and maintenance of Reid-Hillview, a procedural step that put the FAA on notice that the county intends to see the airport closed by 2031, when its financial obligations to the federal agency expire.
Last August, a county-commissioned report claimed to have found that children surrounding Reid-Hillview contained elevated levels of lead in their blood. Advocates for the airport’s closure seized on that study as more evidence to take action now.
In its Dec. 22 letter, the FAA appears to question that study’s validity, pointing out it wasn’t “peer-reviewed or independently verified, and noting that other potential sources of lead contamination weren’t examined. The county is currently conducting more lead testing at both airports to see whether the soil contains any contaminants.
The August study also recommended that the county ban leaded gas from being used at Reid-Hillview and San Martin airports. While cars and trucks have been using unleaded gas since the 1970s, leaded gas is still used in 170,000 small airplanes and helicopters and the Environmental Protection Agency has stated that leaded aviation fuel remains the largest “aggregate source of lead emissions to air” in the nation.
By refusing to halt a change to unleaded fuel, the county could lose FAA funding for the San Martin airport, as it did in 2013 over a dispute surrounding skydiving activities. The FAA has already stopped spending on Reid-Hillview.
The FAA did not respond to a request for comment.
“If (Santa Clara County is) not afraid of losing federal funds, then I suppose they can just thumb their nose,” said Barbara Lichman, an Orange County-based attorney who specializes in aviation law.
But Lichman said that the FAA “will use any leverage it has” to show that the county isn’t playing by their rules — and that in this case, the federal agency would most likely be able to prevail in a legal battle over whether the county is in violation of its prior agreements.”
In addition to protesting the county’s fuel transition, the FAA says in its Dec. 22 letter that it has received complaints involving “safety concerns” from airport users. The complaints included improper landscaping that the FAA claims blocks airfield signage, faded signs and the presence of geese droppings that are “a significant hazard to the flying public.”
Any safety complaints could also expose the county to litigation, Lichman said.
“If they are running an airport that the FAA doesn’t deem safe, the FAA can come after them for punitive damages … assuming that there are dangerous problems not being remedied,” she added.
Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell, a law firm that specializes in aviation law and represents the county, did not respond to a request for comment.
Source: www.mercurynews.com