The mayor writes back

May 14, 2026

Summer “Hoopfest” action just outside Spokane’s City Hall

The City brings some clean water, some cash, and a baffling, confidential legal strategy to the West Plains PFAS imbroglio

First, some promising news.

I learned late yesterday that Spokane and Spokane County have now delivered their respective shares (roughly $9,000+ each) to cover the compensations required to fund the Washington Department of Ecology’s response to the Spokane International Airport’s (SIA) PFAS contamination. According to Ecology, the payments cover what each—The City and the County—owe since being named, last summer, as responsible parties.

If you’re keeping score, that leaves $186,000 (plus accumulating interest) on the tab for Spokane International Airport (SIA)—which, since the airport was named as a responsible party three years ago--has refused to make any of the payments. It’s a reasonable question to ask how things got to a point where the entities that charter the airport pay their shares, but not the airport which, as I reported in late April, has paid a Washington, DC-based law firm nearly a half million dollars for legal efforts to resist the state’s intervention. But it is something and, in the course of the PFAS quagmire, the payments by the City and County are positive steps.

Mayor Brown’s message (below) is a response to a request I sent her last Friday as I was doing reporting for Navigate this…Spokane in the PFAS bear trap.

Much of my recent reporting focuses on a recent move (collectively) by SIA, the County and City—to assert the possibility that any funding for the SIA PFAS cleanup could be opposed by the Federal Aviation Administration. As I’ve reported, the FAA, citing case law, has very clearly indicated just the opposite. There is simply no evidence the federal agency is itching to sanction SIA for funding cleanup activities mandated by the state.

Thus, it does beg the question as to how this backstroking cockroach—the debunked notion that the federal government would sanction the Airport, (and perhaps the City and County as well) for spending money on PFAS remediation——got into the city’s soup?

Assuming it might succeed—and the probability of that is about the same as my hairline spontaneously regenerating—the consequences would fall heavily on city and county taxpayers. That—together with the bad faith it displays to already anxious West Plains well-owners—begs the question of why the city would lend its voice to it. That’s why I’ve pursued it and, late last week asked Mayor Brown to waive her confidentiality privilege ago to explain why and how this happened. As you’ll see in her letter, she’s politely but firmly declining to do so.

LETTER from Mayor Brown received 3:35 pm, 5/13/26

Dear Tim,

First, thank you for your years of education of the public and advocacy for people affected by the contamination of air, land and water by the Hanford operation and your involvement in other public health issues.

Senior leaders at the city have been engaged since early in my administration in researching, analyzing, and implementing strategies to address the presence of PFAS in the West Plains. We are implementing testing and facilitating the conversion of city residents still on wells to city water and planning how to provide access to clean water to West Plains residents.

As you know, we have also participated with Spokane County and Spokane International Airport in the development of the short-term interim action work plan and submitted the first draft on the long-term interim action work plan as required by the Department of Ecology. We have also monitored the response and actions of Fairchild Airforce Base. We are committed to being an active partner in developing and implementing solutions for the region, not just for city residents.

City attorneys have been an active part of the city team, engaged in assessing the city’s legal liability and how to respond to it. It is my belief that it is not in the best interests of the city’s residents to waive privilege or discuss the city’s legal analysis or strategies.

Sincerely,

Lisa

I shared the mayor’s message with John Hancock, the founder of the West Plains Water Coalition which, over the past three years, has emerged as a galvanizing force in the citizen movement to address the widespread PFAS groundwater contamination emanating from both SIA and Fairchild Air Force Base.

Hancock’s response: “This is a message of defense favoring the Airport, not care for the 900 families with PFAS trouble..How to respond legally is a different matter than how to care for your voters, who want to know the whole picture, not the legal escape from culpability. City was asleep at the switch on PFAS revelations by the Airport. She’s listening now to too much lawyering, not enough care for citizens. There’s neither talking nor listening.”

Please support this reporting project with an annual subscription to The Daily Rhubarb at the link above.

Below is my earlier (May 8th) message to Mayor Brown requesting she waive attorney-client privilege to publicly explain the City’s legal strategy.

Dear Mayor Brown:

Through my Substack, The Daily Rhubarb, I’ve reported on the West Plains PFAS controversy—a problem that has the mark of a crisis for many Spokane and Spokane County residents—for the past three years.

Suffice to say the bare facts do not present a model of local government responsiveness and transparency. For starters, it was only after an affected West Plains resident and well-owner filed a public records request with the Spokane Airport that the public—and the state Department of Ecology--learned of well data gathered at Spokane International Airport (SIA) revealing PFAS in groundwater at the airport.

Whereas the U.S. Air Force, nine years ago, accepted responsibility for the contamination down-gradient of Fairchild and began working with affected well owners, it was left to EPA, the state health department and Ecology to fashion an emergency response to the contamination from SIA. In conjunction with its Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) the Air Force has hosted regular events where the public has had opportunities to voice its concerns and interact directly with personnel assigned to the PFAS response. In contrast, SIA’s response (without discernible objection from either the City or County) has been bereft of public outreach. Instead, SIA has actively resisted Ecology’s efforts to bring SIA into compliance with state law and defied the law by refusing (thus far) to fund Ecology’s regulatory and public outreach activities as required under the Model Toxics Control Act. (MTCA)

SIA’s resistance and failure to pay its bills to Ecology may have been a factor in Ecology’s decision, last summer, to name both the City and the County as liable persons for the PFAS contamination emanating from the airport. That decision could have severe financial consequences for City taxpayers because—as Ecology officials have emphasized—the City is not just liable for its 1/3 share of the cleanup costs, it’s also liable for the remaining 2/3 if either SIA or the County are unable (for whatever reason) to pay their shares.

This is pertinent because SIA officials continue to raise the prospect that the airport may be exempt from SIA’s share of the cleanup costs. Because SIA receives grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration, SIA suggests FAA may find the airport in violation of federal rules if it allocates airport revenues to non-aviation purposes, i.e. environmental remediation.

FAA has made no such determination. Moreover, I think it obvious that a letter SIA solicited from the FAA in 2024 (attached) plainly discourages such an interpretation—i.e. “Although we are not experts in Washington state law, we note that generally, at least in the Federal space, environmental liability for contamination, subject to limited defenses, is strict, joint and several.”

Yet, as recently as last month, SIA continues to waver on its commitments under MTCA, again raising the prospect that there is a legal impediment FAA may invoke that would prohibit SIA from funding its share of the cleanup. This was communicated in the context of a joint (SIA, City of Spokane, Spokane) response to Ecology in early April. It resulted in a sharp reply from Ecology and a joint response from the City, County and SIA that, on its face, lends support SIA’s view that it may still escape liability for the cleanup coasts by a future FAA ruling. (See attached portion of the SIA, City, County response on April 3rd)

And that’s what brings me to you. Given the extent of the City’s added liability if FAA somehow bars SIA from using airport revenues to fund its share of the cleanup, it acutely raises the question of whether the City conducted an independent legal analysis of the available March 29th, 2024 FAA letter before it signed onto the joint response to Ecology on April 3rd.

For obvious reasons, I did contact City Attorney Mike Piccolo yesterday. He declined to answer my question—about whether he was asked to independently opine on the FAA letter.

I realize his opinion (if he proffered one) could be withheld as attorney-client privilege and, for that reason, I’ve not bothered to file a public records request for it. But, more to the point, he replied that he could not respond to my question about whether he was consulted, “without disclosing attorney client communications in violation of the rules of professional conduct.”

I understand that as well and do not dispute it. But that’s what brings me here because, as mayor, you’re the client. Thus, you’re the only one who can:

•waive the privilege and release the city’s independent legal opinion if there is one.

or, at least

•answer the question about whether City Legal was asked to render an independent opinion on the FAA letter.

So I am asking that you do so.

I believe both questions are reasonable and hope you will agree. Moreover, I think disclosure would be a welcome development in a process that has only exacerbated public distrust and anxiety due to the lack of transparency.

Sincerely, Tim Connor, The Daily Rhubarb