Lawmakers Challenge Air Force’s Controversial Plan for Rural Flight Operations

PHOENIX — In a significant response to proposed U.S. Air Force operations, federal and state lawmakers are requesting a reevaluation of plans for low-level training flights, some of which involve supersonic speeds above Arizona. Congressman Raul Grijalva highlighted concerns over transparency in the Air Force’s draft environmental impact statement, questioning its adequacy in addressing potential local risks.

In a letter to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall III, Grijalva stated that the proposed increase in low-altitude and supersonic operations threatens the safety of constituents in his congressional district. He noted that previous concerns raised during a 2022 survey had not been adequately addressed.

State Rep. David Cook echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the draft fails to consider the risks of devastating wildfires potentially caused by the use of flares. Cook pointed out that while the document suggests restricting flares based on local fire conditions, such measures lack enforcement and are left to individual unit commanders.

Cook’s concerns are personal; he linked the 2021 Telegraph Fire, which devastated 180,000 acres of land including his property, to the risks posed by flares. He highlighted the need for the Air Force to take wildfire risks seriously, especially given their historical connection to flare usage.

The issue is compounded by a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the Air Force for failing to respond to public information requests about the proposed plans. The Air Force has justified the need for low-level and supersonic training to rectify deficiencies in pilot training, arguing that current operations do not adequately prepare crews for real-world scenarios.

Proposed changes include flight operations in specific areas such as the Tombstone Military Operations Area, which would enable flights as low as 100 feet and supersonic operations at 5,000 feet. Other regions would see increased training hours and changes in current regulations on flares and chaff, with some areas allowing training until midnight, effectively extending operational hours.

Grijalva expressed concerns over noise pollution affecting local communities and wildlife. He emphasized the lack of public hearings in Cochise County, despite anticipated increases in flight activities. More troubling are the 6,667 public comments the Air Force has kept out of the public eye, raising questions about stakeholder engagement.

Additionally, Cook and Grijalva’s apprehensions reflect broader environmental concerns, particularly the disturbance to wildlife. They argue that the Air Force’s claim of compatibility between military operations and local land uses is inconsistent with community experiences and environmental impacts.

As lawmakers await a response from the Air Force, the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit remains unresolved. The legal action seeks to compel the Air Force to provide requested information, with implications for public access to data critical for understanding the impact of proposed military actions on local ecosystems.

The unfolding situation underscores a growing tension between military preparedness and environmental stewardship, with local representatives pushing back against operations they believe could endanger public health and safety.