This story is part of the WHYY News Climate Desk, bringing you news and solutions for our changing region.
From the Poconos to the Jersey Shore to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, what do you want to know about climate change? What would you like us to cover? Get in touch.
Domestic travelers can avoid the hustle and bustle of major airports by booking a flight out of the Trenton-Mercer Airport in Mercer County, New Jersey.
The security line — only a few feet from the main entrance — is short, and passengers don’t walk far before reaching the airport’s four gates and one restaurant.
Only one commercial airline, Frontier, takes off from the airport — though the runways are used by a flight school, as well as private jets.
Passengers walk across the tarmac to get on and off the planes, and the baggage claim area is inside a separate trailer.
As the number of passengers at the small airport has grown exponentially over the past decade, the terminal feels cramped, driving the county to invest $300 million to expand and modernize the airport. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates the project will support a 51% increase in passengers by 2035.
Proponents of the expansion say it will boost the local economy while making the airport a regional hub. But some nearby residents have fought against the project, arguing it will worsen noise pollution. They’re also concerned construction activities may harm the environment, as the site has a history of toxic PFAS contamination.
But opponents hit a roadblock in June when state environmental regulators denied their request for a hearing on a permit that would clear the way for the beginning stages of construction.
“For years, we’ve been trying to get information from the airport and New Jersey DEP, and basically, we’ve had the door slammed in our face at every turn,” said Rich Preston, who lives in nearby Yardley, Pennsylvania.
The expansion involves building a new air rescue and firefighting building, as well as a new terminal, parking deck and tower.
Mercer County Executive Dan Benson said the expansion will not only make the travel experience more enjoyable, but also attract businesses that want to be located near an airport.
But residents say they have concerns about so-called “forever chemicals” that contaminate the former Naval Air Warfare Center site, an area that is now part of the airport.
The contamination is likely from the historic discharge of firefighting foam, which contains PFAS and has polluted drinking water supplies across the U.S.
In 2022, a Navy inspection report recommended a remedial investigation to evaluate the nature and extent of PFAS in and around the site, as well as any associated risks to human health and the environment.
The investigation, estimated to be complete in 2027, will help determine whether Navy or other non-Navy PFAS sources migrated to nearby drinking water. If warranted, the Navy will take action to address any impacts.
Residents say the county’s land use permit doesn’t acknowledge PFAS, and argue the project shouldn’t be approved until any remediation process is complete.
“We believe they shouldn’t be issuing permits until the sites where they’re going to be excavating have been sampled and any mitigation steps that are needed have been carried out,” said Preston, who lives within the direct flight path of the runway. “So until then, it’s just, we think, irresponsible for them to be issuing permits.”
Residents are concerned that construction might cause PFAS to travel into the nearby Delaware River, which provides drinking water.
“They’re going to dig in areas, and when they do that, it’s a concern that the current PFAS, which is sitting towards the topsoil, is actually going to be disturbed and it’s going to leak into the groundwater,” said Michael Shaffer, one of the Ewing residents who petitioned the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for a hearing.
Construction activities can mobilize contaminants, and when it rains, those pollutants can run off a property, said Christopher Higgins, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the Colorado School of Mines. However, he said there are ways to mitigate the risks, including using berms.
The residents’ request to the New Jersey DEP for a hearing on the county’s land use permit was denied by the agency earlier this summer on the notion that “fear of resultant injury to property does not provide the right to an adjudicatory hearing.”
In an email, a DEP spokesperson said the agency does not regulate construction or redevelopment plans.
It’s not the first time the group has faced setbacks. In 2024, a federal court ruled that a larger terminal would not necessarily harm the environment — siding with the Federal Aviation Administration and against the groups’ appeal.
County Executive Benson said the county is taking steps to remediate PFAS at the site and that the county is also required to prevent any kind of runoff.
“All that has to be contained on site so that we’re reducing any flood risk from development,” Benson said. “New Jersey has some of the highest environmental rules compared to our neighboring states.”
However, residents such as Shaffer say they’ve been kept in the dark about the process, and don’t trust that appropriate steps are being taken.
He’s calling for greater transparency about the extent of PFAS contamination and remediation strategies, prior to when the county breaks ground. The county hopes to tear down the old fire building in 2026 or 2027, and then build the new terminal shortly after.
Residents have also expressed concerns about increased noise exposure. Rick Wright, who lives a couple miles from the airport, said the drones of small planes flying above his house have become more persistent since the airport has been used by a flight school and private companies.
“The noise definitely has affected my ability to sleep, relax, and also I have to say, I believe in sleep,” Wright said. “I believe it’s very important and I know it’s definitely going to affect my health.”
He said he can’t enjoy a relaxing afternoon on his back patio because of the constant noise, and is concerned that expanding the airport will only make it worse.
“It would be great to be able to go out there every single morning and have coffee and just relax and start my day in a normal way,” Wright said.
Benson said the airport does its best to be good neighbors.
“Our airport has been there longer than any of these homes, in most cases,” he said. “We try to make sure when we do get complaints, we investigate to see if there is an alternative. But in most cases, we’re not seeing anything that is so detrimental, compared to, say, other noise that we’re seeing environmentally around these communities.”
As for Shaffer, he said he’s willing to support the expansion if the county can prove it’s taking action to protect the environment and prevent noise.
“If they do address those concerns, then I don’t really have an issue, and I understand economically it could be good,” he said. “But if it poisons our water, potentially, and also depreciates the value of everybody’s house around here, then I don’t think that can be good for us.”