F-35 opponents challenge environmental report in federal court

F-35 opponents claim the U.S. Air Force violated federal environmental law before making a decision last year to base the F-35 fighter jet in Burlington. A new legal filing from opponents marks the latest effort to block the military aircraft from Vermont.

A group of citizens who would be affected by the basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport filed a complaint in federal court Monday saying the Air Force did not follow requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act.

They say the Air Force failed to fully assess the environmental impacts of basing the jet in Burlington and how these impacts would be mitigated in its Environmental Impact Statement released last year.

Jim Dumont, a Bristol-based attorney representing the Stop the F-35 Coalition, came to City Hall during a rally oppose the basing of the F-35 fighter jet at the Burlington International Airport this summer. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger

Jim Dumont, a Bristol-based attorney representing the Stop the F-35 Coalition. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger

They also allege that the Air Force failed to evaluate how its decision conflicts with state and local planning, how it might damage historical sites, how it would deal with toxic fumes emitted if a jet were to crash, and did not account for the possibility that the current F-16 is retired.

The Air Force on Monday said it had not read the complaint. The Bristol attorney representing the plaintiffs, Jim Dumont, said the Air Force has 45 days to file a response.

The Air Force last year selected Burlington to host 18 new fighter jets to replace the Guard’s current fleet of F-16s. The planes are not due to begin arriving until 2020.

Opponents of the basing decision say the military aircraft is not suited to fly within Vermont’s most populous urban area.

F-35 opponents say the jet will harm residents’ health and the environment. The well-organized Stop the F-35 Coalition staged protests and worked with several Progressives on the Burlington City Council last year to draft a policy opposing the jets.

The Guard, elected officials, the greater Burlington business community and Vermont’s congressional delegation support bringing the jets to Vermont. F-35 proponents have said the Guard would have to downsize if the F-35 fighter jets don’t replace the aging F-16 squadron.

The Air Force has not confirmed whether the Guard’s F-16s would be retired if Burlington was not selected to host the F-35.

“Burlington is scheduled to get the F-35,” said Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman. “From an Air Force perspective, the decision has been made. We wouldn’t speculate on something that is not going happen.”

The Air Force’s environmental impact statement says more than 1,000 homes would be exposed to noise that the Federal Aviation Administration considers unsuitable for residential use.

The FAA has previously purchased homes surrounding the airport that were exposed to the noise levels. However, this home buy-back program has been discontinued, airport officials has said.

The Guard last May released the first iteration of an environmental impact mitigation plan. Critics say it will do too little, too late.

Winooski residents in May asked the Vermont Supreme Court to require the city, which owns the airport, to obtain an Act 250 permit that addresses the noise impacts of the louder F-35, among other concerns.

John Herrick

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • The U.S. Air Force is still fraudulently concealing a vital material fact.
    Many news sources are reporting that the F-35 fighter jets are dual capable to carry nuclear bombs.
    How many nuclear bombs will be stored in Vermont?

    • Isaac Parenteau

      Chris, The F-16 can also carry nuclear bombs. The F-4 also could carry nuclear bombs and yet they don’t.

  • George Cross

    “The Air Force’s environmental impact statement says more than 1,000 homes would be exposed to noise that the Federal Aviation Administration considers unsuitable for residential use.” And, Vermont’s Congressional delegation plus a host of state and local politicians just don’t seem to care! What will it take to wake them up?

  • sandra bettis

    the f35 blew up in florida a few days ago and they were all grounded so they might not be coming here after all – or anywhere which would be even better.

    • William Reed

      Sandra, It didn’t “blow up” as you state. The tail end of the plane caught fire possibly from and engine malfunction. I get your disdain for anything military, but making things up doesn’t help your cause.

  • Jamie Carter

    This will go nowhere, but hey if the opposition want to spend money on legal fees and such far be it from me to stop them.

    Have at it… But the F-35’s are coming one way or the other period.

    • Michael Matukonis

      Several months ago I googled “Problems with F-35” and read several of the articles about all the problems with this particular jet. After reading just a few of the articles on the problems plaguing this plane, how can anyone in their right mind and reason continue to pursue what is obviously a terrible decision. The only thing I can possible think as a justification to continue this albatross is a very strong military industrial complex and lobby. What a waste of $Billions.

      • rosemarie jackowski

        The purpose of the F-35 is Lockheed Martin’s bottom line. Profit before people. That was the plan all along.
        The most ingenious money laundering plan in the history of man. Take money from the working class and transfer it to the corporations.

  • sandra bettis

    here is a wonderful article about the ‘safe’ and ‘efficient’ f35’s – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-26/air-force-grounds-its-lockheed-f-35s-after-fire.html

  • sandra bettis
  • rosemarie jackowski

    The entire F-35 fleet is grounded !!! Keep ’em on the ground forever.
    Declare Independence from Lockheed Martin.


Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "F-35 opponents challenge environmental report in federal court"