Airport master plan is the weightier issue

County officials say we must revise the aircraft weight limit adopted by voters years ago. Perhaps. That limit was put in place to keep ours a modest, rural, low-impact, local-serving airport.

But in terms of keeping our airport the way residents want it, the real problem is the airport master plan adopted by county officials in 2008. If we're going to put a repeal of the weight limit on the ballot then we should put the master plan on the ballot too.

Before I explain, a bit about me. I flew 2,500 hours as an Air Force pilot. And I'm retired from a 30-year career as a land use planner for a metropolitan Bay area county, the last half managing the planning department. That included planning in relation to two county airports and a major air carrier airport.

Airport development is paid for by a national aviation trust fund accumulated from passenger and fuel taxes. The FAA requires only a 10 percent local match for approved projects. So airports like ours get built mostly with "other people's money." Aviation businesses benefit significantly from the nearby public investment, sort of like a truck stop on the Interstate, and are usually anxious to see the airport improved, regardless of the consequences for others.

To get FAA funds, the airport must have a master plan showing that the funds will achieve a logical result. An airport serving the business jet community would have a different plan than a light aircraft and glider base.

Once the FAA pays for improvements it requires they be available on a nondiscriminatory basis. You can't build a big airport and then restrict it to small aircraft. Which is exactly what the FAA accuses Douglas County of doing.

We have taken FAA funds to improve the airport. And voters passed an ordinance restricting the weight of aircraft that can operate there to something significantly less than what our old Army airfield can physically handle.

The FAA always questioned our ordinance but did nothing about it. Suddenly they've threatened punitive action. Why now is unclear. But I suspect the FAA has been goaded into this by those who want bigger aircraft here. And the county seems to be going along.

To procure more FAA funding the county adopted an airport master plan. It creates a new, second airport to the east of the runway, to which light aircraft and gliders will be relocated, thus freeing the existing "old" airport to the west to become something else. Just what isn't clear. But the master plan and plans submitted by Pinon Aero and the recent actions of Hutt Aviation to bring a Silicon Valley mogul's private 737 here say to me jet center or equivalent. And not for locals, but for outside interests. More, much larger aircraft than have operated here, with very different operational profiles.

Operations in the past have been mostly daytime, by light aircraft and gliders that stick to a traffic pattern close to the airport. If the airport is improved as proposed we could expect more operations, including at night, and further from the airport. As aircraft get larger they abandon the traffic pattern for straight-in, straight-out operations. Because of the runway's orientation, those would occur right up and down our valley. Do we want that?

No. I believe that's contrary to the will of the voters expressed in their adoption of the weight limit designed to keep this a rural airport serving local needs.

So the current situation is that the county has approved a plan for turning our airport into something entirely different than it has been. And they want FAA funds to implement that plan. But with the FAA on record against our weight limit, it is unlikely they'd approve more grants until we revise the weight limit. So the county is asking us to go through a "process" to do just that.

The fundamental problem is that even a modified weight limit is the wrong tool to accomplish our objectives. The county has no control over the actual operation of aircraft. Once a plane takes the runway it is under FAA control until it lands. That's the problem with a weight limit. It's an operational ordinance that intrudes on the FAA's prerogatives and they don't support it.

What the county does control is the configuration of the airport. The FAA can't require a specific airport configuration. All it can do is require an honest plan, as explained earlier. The best way to control our airport is to control its configuration. If we don't want jet centers or their equivalent, then we shouldn't configure the airport to facilitate that. Unfortunately, the airport master plan does just that.

Many residents opposed that plan. They were ignored by county officials. And, of course, the county has waited to "rework" the weight ordinance until after the master plan was adopted. So the plan is a fait accompli and now we're being asked to revise the weight limit, in my opinion to get it out of the way as the last significant obstacle to development of the airport into something it shouldn't be.

You'll be told that we can control the airport through a "better" ordinance. Don't believe it. This reminds me of the county's approach to the residential growth limit adopted by voters in 2002. The county fought it for years, then insisted on a new "better" ordinance drafted with developers, then repealed the voter approved limit and replaced it with the "better" limit. Which is no limit at all.

The county wants the weight ordinance repealed so that it can get on with its plans to transform our airport into something voters don't want. But if our leaders have the courage of their convictions and want a fair process then they will put the master plan on the same ballot, to give voters the opportunity to say whether it should be implemented or repealed.

And if the county won't do that then perhaps citizens should.

I, for one, will vote against repeal of the weight limit if not given the opportunity to pass judgment on the airport master plan at the same time.

Terry Burnes is a Gardnerville resident and former Bay area planner.