First, it is gratifying that the Cities' lawsuit resulted in proving that statements about preserving quietude under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and not doing it means that airport neighborhoods are due relief under Minnesota law. In this one instance, citizens' legal rights to compensation for unlicensed avigation and intrusive airport noise were upheld.

It is unfortunate the compensation determined in negotiations is substantially less than the 5 decibel attenuation package documented in the agreements and statements presented in Court. We do not give the MAC the credit they claimed for themselves in their press release. Perhaps $300 million (not $380 million) has been spent for neighborhood sound insulation, but most of this was funded from passenger facility charges paid by Minnesota travelers, not from revenues such as airline landing fees or gate or hanger leases. For the most part, the victims, not the noise-makers, pay. Now $130 million more may be spent - if FAA agrees - from the same source.

Little attention was given to how and if the contour maps reflect actual noise levels. In truth, noise exposure has worsened in many areas and less in a few areas compared to the map based on non-binding and understated airline projections and unrealized flight restrictions fed through a complicated computer model. The moral imperative for noise insulation strongly depends on relief for those actually experiencing high noise levels and frequent overflights. Since 2000, MAC has systematically excluded outside airport operations or acoustic science testimony in updating the MSP Noise Compatibility Program. MAC's statement that DNL (is) the Federal metric used to measure noise around airports is ridiculous in this context.

The noise mapping process (never more accurate than uncertain use predictions, future airline schedules, and planned airport improvements) also had fits and starts. However revised maps were rationalized, predicted noise exposure was reduced and actual noise exposure was not calibrated and almost certainly increased. If falsely-projected and never corrected noise contours were considered "measurements" on both sides of the table what was the plaintiffs' motive? Actual operations at MSP, particularly flight paths derived from April 2002 use, differ greatly from the 2003 model.

We were not surprised that determining, building-by-building, what, if any, noise-attenuation treatment will be applied was still pending.

Politicians will have moved on by 2012. Each year, work on homes or apartments will be begun, or not, based on conditions imagined in 2003, with the process subject to cash flow, airline priorities, and other exceptional circumstances not yet defined. We do not doubt that the buildings to be treated have been or will be subjected to noise at or over the qualifying levels. We believe the for-2007 map understates the extent and the levels of noise.

As quoted in the MAC press release, Chair Lanners said the agreement will bring ... closure and (end) public policy debate over noise mitigation. Does this mean the MAC intends to discontinue the Noise Compatibility Program at MSP and never update the noise exposure maps and provide mitigation again? Or, perhaps the Cities agreed not to debate changes in operations, or disagree with the airlines' projections, outside of the Noise Oversight Committee?

In Minneapolis, Mayor Rybak's leadership convinced the City Council to sue, and his insistence that a government agency's promise to homeowners was a moral imperative fired up the plaintiffs. Council Members Benson and Colvin Roy deserve the credit Mayor Rybak gave them in his statement. Some of their constituents will benefit, some more than others. SMAAC also applauds Mayor Mike McGuire and the City Council and staff in Eagan and Mayor Debbie Goettel and the City Council and staff in Richfield for their parts. We admire the courage it took for elected officials to face criticism in advance from those who doubted success, knowing that they would again be criticized regardless of the outcome.

The Cities have inexplicably placed a lot of faith in the MAC, and in cooperation by the airlines and FAA, in implementing the settlement. If this settlement proceeds, perhaps that cooperation will carry over for other public needs and rights: other aspects of MSP expansion need public and legislative scrutiny.