Judge dismisses airport-noise lawsuit

The decision on the complaint from the town of Superior and Boulder County rejects the request for an injunction against the “public nuisance” of noise from piston-engine aircraft conducting touch-and-go operations at the neighboring Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Jefferson County.

In the complaint, Boulder County and Superior claimed that aircraft operating on Runways 30L and 30R “deposit unsafe levels of lead particulates on Plaintiffs and expose Plaintiffs’ residents to repeated and excessive noise and thus create unreasonable health and safety hazards for their residents, constitute a public nuisance, and must be enjoined.”

Jefferson County filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court cannot grant the injunction because federal law does not allow local authorities to regulate aircraft operations or the use of leaded aviation fuel under federal law regarding airport operations.

The case reflects the gradual escalation of friction between Superior and Jefferson County, which operates Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport. The airport opened during the 1960s, and as the town of Superior developed during the 1980s and 1990s, Jefferson County and airport staff members repeatedly expressed concerns about potential noise complaints that would become more likely as development moved closer to the airport.

In 1986 the airport authority sent a memo to Superior warning against building homes near the airport, particularly near common flight paths. A 1995 letter to the town from the airport expressed concern that residents in certain areas of proposed development could “expect to experience noise from the overflight of aircraft during all hours of the day and night.”

Warnings continued, but so did development. Residents of Superior, including many who earlier signed aviation easement agreements, have lodged complaints that the airport authority and staff members have predicted for decades.

Jefferson County contended that Superior’s “claims are barred because federal laws concerning airport operations leave no room for local control,” according to language in the decision.

The judge agreed, stating, “In summary, this court concludes that the injunction sought by plaintiffs would involve local regulation of aircraft operations, an issue preempted by the federal government. For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that defendants’ motion to dismiss should be, and it hereby is, granted.”