Findings of fact v. Metropolitan Airports Commission

Page 1

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Airports Commission Defendant, and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor.

No. 27-CV-05-5474.

District Court of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District.

January 25, 2007.

Corey M. Conover, Esq., John E. Putnam, Esq., Lori Potter, Esq., among others, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs. ("Cities").

Thaddeus R. Lightfoot, Esq., and Thomas W. Anderson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Metropolitan Airport Commission ("MAC").

Thomas Tinkham, Esq., and Andrew Brown, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant-Intervenor Northwest Airlines, Inc. ("NWA").

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

STEPHEN C. ALDRICH Judge.

State of Minnesota by the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, City of Eagan, and City of Richfield; City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, City of Eagan, and City of Richfield,

The above-entitled matter came duly on for hearing before the Honorable Stephen C. Aldrich, Judge of District Court, on December 20, 2006 on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

On April 20, 2005 the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield, and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, the Cities, sued in the name of the State of Minnesota under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act ("MERA"), Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.01, et seq. (2005), and the state mandamus statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 586.01, et seq. (2005), seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against the MAC to require MAC to provide the noise insulation first identified in the 1996 Noise Mitigation Program for homes in the DNL¹ 60 to 64 dB noise contours of Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport ("MSP"). NWA was granted Defendant-Intervenor status on June 22, 2005.

Plaintiffs' MERA claims assert that residents in their communities experience every day the disproportionate effects of noise from MSP, that the loud flights "destroy the quietude of otherwise quiet neighborhoods," that "quietude" is identified as a "natural resource" deserving of protection under MERA, and that the MAC is obligated to provide the previously agreed upon sound insulation measures under Minnesota law. Plaintiffs seek:

a) Count I — Declaration that the MAC has caused and is likely to cause pollution, impairment or destruction of a natural resource in violation of MERA and for associated equitable relief;

b) Count II — Declaratory judgment that the MAC violated environmental quality standards, limitations, rules, orders, licenses, stipulation agreements or permits as defined by Minn. Laws 116B.03(1) and for associated equitable relief; and/or, in the alternative,

c) Count III — A writ of mandamus to require the MAC to exercise its duties required by law.

In September 2006, Defendant MAC moved for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint. The MAC asserts:

a) Plaintiffs' MERA claims fail because they seek to compel a specific remedy and urge judicial interference with the MAC's legislative authority. Specifically, the claims involve breach of contract rather than the protection of natural resources.

b) The MAC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count I because Plaintiffs contend the actionable conduct for their MERA claim is MAC's operation and control of MSP—which is preempted by federal law. Thus, the only actionable conduct is the MAC's proposed air-condition program which will not pollute, impair, or destroy the environment.

c) The MAC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count II because the alleged "environmental quality standard" is not substantive—it was not promulgated by the MAC through the procedures delineated in their enabling statute.

d) Even if the MAC established an environmental quality standard with regards to Count II it had discretion to change the standard and utilized that discretion.

e) The Plaintiffs cannot establish the MAC has an unequivocal duty to implement a specific noise mitigation package with regards to Count III.

In November 2006, Defendant NWA moved for summary judgment on all counts. In addition to the arguments identified by the MAC above, NWA asserts:

a) Plaintiffs' MERA claims fail because the indoor quietude of properties located in the 60-64 DNL contour is not a protected resource under MERA.

In November 2006, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment regarding Count II of their complaint. Plaintiffs assert:

a) The MAC unambiguously committed to provide mitigation to the 60-64 DNL contours in the form of the same five decibel reduction package provided in the DNL 65 and greater contours.

b) The MAC's commitment to provide sound insulation is enforceable as an environmental standard or limitation pursuant to MERA.

Based upon the evidence adduced, the argument of counsel, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, this Court makes the following,

FINDINGS OF FACT

THE MAC AND ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY

1. In 1975 the Minnesota Legislature passed Minn. Stat. §§ 473.601 et seq. (2005) recreating the MAC and endowing it with broad powers to oversee all aspects of running MSP.

2. The MAC has specific authority, inter alia, to adopt and enforce rules, regulations, and ordinances, prosecute violators, exercise the right of eminent domain, acquire property, build new runways, enter into contracts, issue bonds to fund airport related interests (including noise abatement and natural resource protection measures regardless of location and ownership), and establish and collect rates, fees, charges and rentals for all airport facilities and determine how those funds will be spent. Minn. Stat. § 473.608.

3. The Legislature also charged the MAC with "assur[ing] the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement...and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports." Minn. Stat. § 473.602 (emphasis added).

NOISE MITIGATION AT MSP

4. The MAC and the City of Minneapolis began to study noise insulation for homes near MSP in 1984. See MAC and City of Minneapolis, Aircraft Noise Research Project at 1 (June 1987), Pls.' Ex. 3. The joint study found that "[a]ircraft noise is a major problem for residents living near the Airport," and that "[p]eople experienced problems with aircraft noise while living in noise contours of about 60 to 80 [DNL]." Id. at 1, 28.

5. In 1985, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") adopted 14 C.F.R Part 150 to provide airports with a framework to analyze and recommend measures to address airport noise. Part 150 provides for "corrective" mitigation measures, such as soundproofing, consistent with a 45 decibel interior noise level goal, and assumes an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 decibels based upon a home's existing construction. Hefner Aff., Ex. 4 (Nov. 2004 Part 150 Study Update), App. N, p. 2 of 161.

6. Part 150 then establishes interior noise level reduction goals above existing attenuation levels for the 75, 70 and 65 DNL contour intervals to meet EPA's interior noise level goal of 45 decibels or less. 14 C.F.R § 150.23; 14 C.F.R. pt. 150, App. A, § A150.101(e)(8) and Table 1, n.1. There are no FAA interior noise level reduction goals in the 60 to 64 DNL contours area. Id.

7. In 1992, the MAC developed a sound insulation program for the airport, which it implemented in 143 homes through MAC's Residential Sound Insulation Pilot Program. Under the Pilot Program, the MAC established a noise reduction level goal of 10-15 decibels greater than base home noise level reduction for homes in the DNL contours greater than 75, 5-10 decibels of noise level reduction in the DNL 70-74 contours, and 5 decibels in the 65-69 DNL contours. See Part 150 Study Update at 8-10 to 8-11, Pls.' Ex. 2.

8. After its experience with the pilot program, the MAC expanded and made some adjustments to the sound insulation program. Id. at 8-11, 8-12. MAC eliminated the differential noise level reduction goals for the different noise contours and then established a universal "5-Decibel Reduction Package" for all homes in the DNL 65-75 contours. Id. at 8-12.

THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS AND EXPANSION OF MSP

9. In 1989, the Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act ("MAPA"). See 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 279.

10. The MAPA required the MAC and the Metropolitan Council to A) project aviation demand for a prospective thirty-year period and to B) evaluate two alternative ways to meet aviation demand: (1) continue to develop MSP; or (2) develop a new replacement airport. This was known as the "Dual Track Airport Planning Process." See Minn. Stat. § 473.618; Dual Track Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), p. I-1; March 8, 1996 Nigel Finney memo to MAC re: Dual Track Airport Planning Process Recommendation, pp. 1-2.

11. As part of the process for approving the expansion of MSP, the MAC and the FAA were required to undergo an environmental review of the proposed projects—the MAC under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act ("MEPA") Minn. Stat. § 116D.01, et. seq., and the FAA through the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") 42 U.S.C. 4321, et. seq.

12. The MAC and FAA agreed to prepare joint Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the Dual Track Process. The Draft EIS was released in December 1995. FEIS at i-ii.

13. The MAC also agreed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") in 1992 to have EQB determine the adequacy of the FEIS for MEPA. FAA was responsible for issuing a Record of Decision for NEPA compliance.

14. In the Draft EIS, the MAC and the FAA evaluated several alternatives, including an expanded MSP and a new airport in Dakota County. The draft concluded that retaining MSP at its current location would expose 7,445 more persons to high levels of noise than...