Editor’s note: This commentary is by Helen Riehle, who is chair of the South Burlington City Council. It is her opening remarks at the June 6 South Burlington City Council meeting regarding the resolution to intervene in the federal F-35 National Environmental Policy Act litigation.
Let me first dispel the notion that there will be a vote on the resolution before us tonight. There will not be a vote tonight. There are two intended goals: safety once the F-35A arrives in 2019 and noise mitigation.
While I originally and sincerely believed the issues were clear, simple, enormously important to the health and safety of our residents and emergency personnel, and that no one would disagree that these must be addressed, it became clear that greater dialogue and information sharing would be necessary to best determine the most responsible and effective path forward to accomplish the intended goals.
To achieve these goals it is imperative that we receive sufficient information from the Air Force to accurately assess the safety issues and risks, how to protect residents and emergency personnel if an accident were to occur and to understand what resources are needed and available to put such a plan in place so that we might be able to protect our citizens from deadly exposure due to a crash involving a plane with significant composite materials — the F-35A. Safety.
It is also imperative that we receive accurate and sufficient information from the Air Force to assess the impact of noise from military flights, how they can best be mitigated and most importantly — financed. For the past two years we have been discussing as a community the reorganizing of our schools that includes closing Chamberlin because of its proximity to the airport and the noise. Who should pay for that? It isn’t the commercial airlines that disrupt schools, create areas unfit for residential and educational pursuits. The Air Force has the obligation and we need to get their attention, their engagement in solving these issues.
The city and many residents have requested answers to these two issues, but to no avail. The school board has requested information. To no avail.
I believe we need to take this issue up now, because in the past three months some new and significant information has come to light.
First, a few months ago the Air Force announced that it had decided to accelerate the arrival date of the F-35 by a year. This gives us less time to plan for its impact.
Secondly, after a citizen group joined by the City of Winooski filed suit against the Air Force to obtain information to these and other questions, the Air Force in their legal filing March 7, 2016, brought South Burlington into the lawsuit by citing and then assuming the intentions behind some of South Burlington’s Planning Commission letters and actions. They also discussed and interpreted South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, and referenced past South Burlington City Council votes on the basing.
I see it as our duty and responsibility as elected officials to get as much information as possible to help our city and citizens plan accordingly.
And thirdly, on March 7, 2016, after the election, the secretary of the Air Force, in multiple statements in their memorandum before the United States District Court, responded — on the record — to the claim that the Vermont Air Guard would lose a flying mission if the F-35 did not come to Burlington. Here is what the secretary said:
• claims that the VTANG would lose a flying mission was “unfounded speculation” and that it was “hearsay” to say that there would be no military aircraft at Burlington.
• “The Air Force’s response was clear: if there is no F-35A operational bed-down at Burlington Air Guard Station, the current mission would continue.”
• “…the mission of the VTANG’s 158th Fighter Wing is to fly fighter aircraft.”
• The Air Force “expected Burlington to continue to fly military aircraft if it was not selected to host the F-35A.”
And the secretary of the Air Force offered a few possible flying missions for VTANG if the F-35s did not come here, to include:
• keeping current F-16 until they aged out and then
• retrofitting the current F-16s, or
• replacing current F-16 with newer F-16s, or
• acquiring another fighter aircraft
I assume that many people supported the basing of the F-35A because they thought that if the F-35 did not come here, the Air Guard would lose a flying mission. These recent official statements from the secretary of the Air Force completely and unequivocally dispel those fears. Therefore, there is no risk to the Air Guard in requesting more information from the Air Force on the critical issues of safety and noise mitigation.
Rather, I see it as our duty and responsibility as elected officials to get as much information as possible to help our city and citizens plan accordingly. Therefore, I deemed it important for the City Council to discuss joining the lawsuit. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are asking a judge to order the Air Force to abide by the law, and provide the information they were required to provide under the National Environmental Policy Act. Joining the lawsuit is our best chance to get the information we need to prepare ourselves as best we can for the safety and noise impacts that come with the F-35.
Isn’t it sad that in order to protect our citizens, emergency responders and provide a safe educational environment for our children we must sue the Air Force to get these data?
