Guest opinion: Don’t risk loss of Fairchild

Is a Spokane tribal casino worth the risk of Fairchild Air Force Base closing? Putting aside all other issues, such as the creation of new jobs at a casino, ancestral lands on the West Plains, or financial benefits to Spokane County and Airway Heights, the big issue is: Will the casino be an encroachment on the base?

Encroachment is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as the cumulative result of any and all outside influences that inhibit normal military training and testing. Land use that can have negative impacts on community safety, economic development, and sustaining military activities and readiness is called encroachment. It doesn’t require that specific criteria affecting flights must be violated.

Air Force land-use recommendations are contained in Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) reports prepared by the Air Force. It recommends zoning processes, land uses and other criteria designed to promote compatible development around military airfields. The Air Force relies on local authorities to implement planning practices that incorporate these protections. In the case of the casino, the land is not in the planning jurisdiction of Spokane County or Airway Heights. The normal process of approving/disapproving the proposed land use does not exist.

Letters and publicity have pointed out that the Federal Aviation Administration has stated the casino is not an obstruction to flights. That is being interpreted as FAA approval of the casino at that site. The FAA does not address the underlying land use for a casino and therefore is not the evaluator of what is or isn’t encroachment.

What is not covered in discussions is how guests in the casino/hotel complex will react to seeing and hearing military aircraft regularly flying at 700 to 1,000 feet above their heads. If guests avoid the place because they are in fear, will the tribe ask the Air Force to change its flight paths? In an already limited airspace, what changes are possible, and at what cost? What risk is the Air Force willing to take that a tanker will never crash into the casino? The risk is extremely low, but if it should happen it would be a catastrophe.

In 2005, the last round of congressionally mandated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), Fairchild stayed open. Other tanker bases were closed, but some bases proposed by the Air Force for closure were kept open by commission action. It left the Air Force with excess facilities. Another round of BRAC is expected in 2014.

Cuts in defense funding are in the pipeline, and excess facilities will have to go.

Obviously, a facility with a mission that can’t be relocated or eliminated will have an enormous advantage in the competition. Since tankers already operate from bases throughout the United States, the tanker mission at Fairchild is not sacrosanct. Fairchild is a great base with enormous mission responsibilities and tremendous facilities, but that may not be enough in the competition under BRAC criteria. Should the Air Force decide to base the new KC-46A tanker at Fairchild, approximately $200 million in new construction will be needed. If the base closes, or is at risk, the work will not take place.

In meetings with leadership at all levels of the Air Force and DOD, encroachment is the next biggest concern after mission. Even though Fairchild is well-protected today, they will take the long view and try to estimate land use 20 years ahead and evaluate what restrictions could limit activities at Fairchild.

Why hasn’t the Air Force given a strong statement about the casino? My experience since the beginning of the AICUZ program is that they rely on the local authorities to provide the same level of protection given to commercial airports. If the authorities fail to do so, it becomes another criterion to help in determining which base to close.

The community is faced with a real dilemma. Fairchild provides good-paying jobs to about 5,000 people, and has a direct economic impact annually of $449 million. Is the risk that the casino will be the encroachment that puts Fairchild on the closure list acceptable to the community? If this were a Howard Johnson hotel of the same size the issues would be the same. This is not a simple question of adjacent landowners having a disagreement. It will affect all of us.