Route Editor
Route Scout
As some of you may have noticed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned their previous decision, which now paves the way for the upgrading of some facilities at the Arizona Snowbowl, as well as the installation of snowmaking equipment using A+ relcaimed wastewater from Flagstaff.
Originally, three judges from the same court ruled that the plan would infringe on the religious freedoms of several Native American tribes in northern Arizona who view the mountain as a sacred religious site.
In today's ruling, the full court of 12 judges ruled 9-3 in favor of the US Forest Service and Arizona Snowbowl:
As an avid skier, I'm personally pleased with the decision for my own selfish reasons. I'd like to think that those selfish reasons don't sway my objectivity in the argument either, which also agrees with the decision.Friday's ruling sympathizes with the tribes' religious beliefs but points out that there is no likelihood of ecological damage from use of the reclaimed water, nor would any tribal members be denied access to worship. The spiritual effect, it opines, is not substantially harmed to prohibit the resort's plans.
“Were it otherwise,” it reads, “any action the federal government were to take, including action on its own land, would be subject to the personalized oversight of millions of citizens. Each citizen would hold an individual veto to prohibit the government action solely because it offends his religious beliefs, sensibilities or tastes, or fails to satisfy his religious desires. Further, giving one religious sect a veto over the use of public park land would deprive others of the right to use what is, by definition, land that belongs to everyone.”
After years of proposals, studies, public input, and meetings with concerned parties following the normal procedures required by the Forest Service, and after the EPA and ADEQ cleared the use of the reclaimed water, the Forest Service approved the plan set forth by the lessee of that land (Snowbowl). Since they apparently did everything they were supposed to do, and got all the approvals required of them according to the book, and the plan was approved, my opinion is that the people who didn't want to see it happen (and subsequently the courts) should accept the decision and stay out of it.
Of course, I post this here because we all like the outdoors and have different views on issues of preservation and access so I'm curious what others think about this story.
It's even more ridiculous when someone tells you "I decided to go to NAU so I could go snowboarding all the time." Wow, what a great academic decision!
