HikeArizona.COM

Dare I start a HAZ thread on this topic?

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:

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.”

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.

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.

Jim_H wrote:Hopi, Navajo, Hualapia, Apache, it's more than just Navajo and Hopi.

To be fair, we were talking about Hopis and Navajos not liking each other, not all the tribes that are involved in the lawsuit.

Sure, sure, I'm just saying it isn't just Navajos and Hopis.

rlrjamy wrote:According to Arizona Department of Environmental Quality regulations, treated sewer water can be graded A+ even when it contains fecal matter in three out of every 10 samples....

That's not correct Bob. It can test positive for E. Coli, which is an idicator organism, not actual fecal bacteria. That test is determine the presence of pathogenic organisms, not fecal matter, there is a big difference.

Jim_H wrote:it's the wasting of water with which I have the real issue. I would actually rather they dig a well to tap fresh water to make snow,

These two statements seem contradictory. Using fresh water from an already depleted aquifer in that area for recreational purposes seems like a huge waste of water, or not a very responsible way to utilize that water when reclaimed is available as an option.

@The Stillernator
It was a quoted in an article....i just thought it was gross.

Yeah, from what I hear, there is worry that if the aquifer is depleted any more then all the huge waterfalls, such as Havasu, Mooney, Deer Creek, Thunder River and Vasey's, in addition to the countless smaller ones in the Canyon, which come out of the Coconino Aquifer, could be affected.

The Stillernator wrote:

Jim_H wrote:it's the wasting of water with which I have the real issue. I would actually rather they dig a well to tap fresh water to make snow,

These two statements seem contradictory. Using fresh water from an already depleted aquifer in that area for recreational purposes seems like a huge waste of water, or not a very responsible way to utilize that water when reclaimed is available as an option.

It definitely does, I just mean that I would rather they be able to make snow with "pure" water ( and supply people who's wells they are likely to draw down) until it runs out, then when that happens they get no more water and go back to how it is now. Basically taking them off of our city grid and making them independent. The reclaimed water still has to be pumped up the mountain, and piping needs to be installed. It would shut a lot of people up, too, and eventually when Flag has its water shortage we wouldn't need to feed them reclaimed water and hopefully would start recycling all of the available water we could. They could, I mean, I'll be long gone.

@Jim_H

I'm not familiar with the hydrology up there, but I think either way, you're going to be drawing from the same water source one way or the other if you use any kind of fresh (i.e., not reclaimed) water. Doesn't the waterline on the north side of the mountain supply Flag's water grid from the runoff? Six of one half a dozen it seems to me. and if you drill a well from a minimum elevation of 9000', you're pumping costs might be same either way.

First, let me say I freely acknowledge the contradiction or illogic of saying we should conserve water and then advocating for Snowbowl to drill a well for snow making. The primary reason for that is to not use reclaimed water, and to have them on an independent system, which in my mind separates us from them and creates a system where we have no responsibility to supply them with snow making water. I know you say reclaimed water is drinkable and all that. I question that based on my experience with the horrendous smell of it, but if it is drinkable then that is what we should be doing.

Our water comes from a variety of sources. The Peaks, with a few springs and wells supplies a small part, Lake Mary and Surface water supplies a large part when the lake exists, and wells from down off of Woody Mountain Rd and as far east as some ranch out near Winslow supply a lot of our water. I recall hearing about plans to drill wells north of the Peaks up towards Vail, but don't know a lot about that. Though the volcanic rock had to come up through the Coconino Sandstone and Aquifer to make the mountain, the aquifer on the Peaks is probably considered independent of the other surface aquifers in the area.

The wells that pump in the Inner Basin are probably the closest ones to the resort. As far as I know, there are no city wells with pumps on the Peaks outside of the Inner Basin. That pipe runs on the road up there, but I think it just taps springs that flow naturally. Basically the only reason the wells are there is because of the basin acting like a bathtub shaped volcanic sponge, though with a very large outlet to the north east. BTW, does anyone know if the wash up there ever flows from the IB? It seems like we tap out all the water before it leaves the mountain. Anyway, the well pumps run for part of the year, but seem to be turned off (the diesel pumps) a lot, possibly because of yearly draw down. Some of the springs run or trickle all the time, and that probably gets to the city.

I'm not arguing the draw down of the Aquifer, I acknowledge it when I say they should have to supply the residents up there who they would impact. If Snowbowl did drill a well, they would likely do it out in the Hart Prairie or Baderville area. Since there are homes there and they have wells, they would likely be impacted by the sudden draw down of water to make snow. Because the pipe needs to be run from somewhere in Flagstaff and up US 180 and then Snowbowl Rd, it seems that the cost of installing the system should be less. Plus my big love, they are independent of Flagstaff's water system, reclaimed or other.


The well depth and aquifer tapped is the big issue. The main aquifer the city taps (outside the Peaks) is the semi-consolidated Coconino which seems to have varying levels of draw down from our city wells. Recharge is from snow melt, and supposedly directly from the surface in some areas through sinkholes, and also from direct injection of reclaimed water. I take that to mean a pipe that pumps it into the ground and not a leaching field, though such fields do exist in east Flag near the Wildcat Hill Treatment facility and can be seen from Elden. The actual pumping cost don't matter to me, and they might be more since they would be taking water from something more like 6500', or lower, to 9500 or 9700'.

I remember a proposal to do something similar to what I was saying, but it was to come from the well field by Winslow.
http://www.skinet.com/ski/blogs/2010/09 ... nother-hit
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/articl ... 92f3a.html

Again, I would prefer no snow making up there. Since it is likely, I prefer non-reclaimed water. I don't argue the draw down issue. I like the idea of them being off the city grid, even if they can never really be out of the system. I suppose things would be better if the resort was on the smart side of the mountain for snow, but they aren't.

http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=6404

Jim_H wrote:to have them on an independent system, which in my mind separates us from them

I think this is the crux of where we diverge in our opinions on this issue. The hydrologic cycle in any local ecosystem is so interconnected, that this is just impossible as a reality.

Jim_H wrote: I know you say reclaimed water is drinkable and all that

Actually, no. Even Class A+ water is still classified as non-potable, just for the increased potential of pathogenic bacteria (see Bob's posts). Recent thinking is trending towards changing this classification, but even though I'm liberal in my socio-political beliefs and values, as far and engineering goes, conservative design rules the day. Still, we are trending overall towards the day where reclaimed water will be utilized either indirectly or directly in our drinking water supply as a result of both the increasing population in AZ and the already depleted aquifers throughout the state. And by trending, I mean within the next 20-30 years. The direct injection wells that you mentioned in use in Flag (which my employer already uses) is already a step in that direction.

You know, I think it says a lot about how Snowbowl is run when they report a storm total (and therefore an assumed base) of 19 to 27 inches and they are not open. Their slopes are pathetically rocky, they don't cut the grass and brush down in November before it starts snowing, and they can't open until they have a bigger base that is 3 times what some operating places, like Big Bear in California, are running with. I'm no skier, and their opening has mixed consequences for me as a peak hiker/snowshoer. Still, Big Bear is open with an 8 inch base. That is not a big base. Snowbowl is reporting 19 inches at 9500'. How can they not be open?!?

@Jim_H
I can't speak for Big Bear, but for ie. Crested Butte pays people/gives them season pass to bootpack the first couple of snow storms to get a base started. A 19-27 snowfall is going to settle to something much less and the terrain coverage depends on as you mentioned brush, grass, and rocks. Now if they started packing this by whatever means (the main runs) they may be able to accumulate a base. Big Bear also makes snow so they can fill in the low coverage areas creating a more uniform consolidated base to build upon with storms and artificial means. I've have snowboarded at Snowbowl with a 12 inch base at the lodge and it is the reason I keep a "rock" board for early and late season snowboarding particularly in AZ.
Also, Snowbowl is I believe the 3rd oldest ski area behind Sun Valley and Timberline on Mt. Hood. I don't know for sure, but they probably picked the sucky side of the mountain for access reasons as they probably did not care what the Native Americans thought about the peaks at the time. I have snowboarded the backside down to the road in the 90's and Snowbowl could rival some Colorado resorts if they had built it on the other side or were able to expand. I have seen skiable terrain into May and June on the backside at least in the 90's when I spent any amount of time in Flag.
I

What I was trying to say was that even with 19 inches of snow (which could be packed by the cats) they aren't open due to them not maintaining the runs. They wine and scream and cry about needing waste water to make snow and have angered plenty of people and done all the things they have done for the last decade as the legal battle has gone on, but they made no attempt to improve the runs themselves so that they could open when they have a small but half decent base. Yes, the runs are rocky, and the lower run, the Hart Prairie Run, is very grassy and quite nice with flowers in summer. Several weeks ago, the snow that was there was covering most everything except the tall Utah Stewartia and some of the big rocks, and was packed down when I walked on it. Had it not been for the rocks and plants sticking up out of the snow the lowest run appeared ski-able for a few days before it melted. For as much money as they have spent to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for waste water, they could have had a crew remove rocks and improve problem areas of the lowest runs and then every fall in November they could mow the run to allow them to open and generate revenue when a storm like we just had arrives. They might have opened 7 full days before they did this year if they had done these things I suggest since 19 inches isn't far from what the storm total was from 12/15 to 12/23.

Snowbowl seemed to pick the side that was easiest to access and had the most vertical relief to use, but an inner basin or northern aspect would have been smarter for getting and holding snow. Not much they can do about that now, but if they bothered to use what they have fully, instead of insisting the city furnish them with water, they could still have more money each year.

I remind you of a couple of points:
1) Snowbowl insists that they are absolutely critical to the tourism and service sector of Flagstaff. Removing obstacles and improving the run surface by mowing would allow them to open earlier and would have given Flagstaff as many as 7 extra days of skiing and tourism dollars this year, but they didn't and the city saw no benefit from this.
2) Snowbowl has stated that the water they will get from the city will only be enough for them to make snow on the lowest run, the Hart Prairie Run, and that the other runs both do not really need to have snow made on them and it would not be feasible for them to make snow on them.
3) Snowbowl has stated that it's business is primarily from learners who ski the lower runs and who come there to learn on that easy terrain. Therefore they need the waste water to make snow on that terrain to be open to serve these customers.

So, I say it says a lot about management that they will demand to be able to use waste water to make snow and spend what I assume is millions of dollars in the process to reach this goal, when simply improving the lowest run by removing rocks and mowing them in the fall has been completely ignored as an option. I hope people in town and on US 180 and Snowbowl Rd enjoy the road being torn up, the construction delays, and traffic problems that are going to start this coming summer when Flagstaff's ever economically critical Snowbowl starts to lay pipe from somewhere in Flagstaff to their facility. US 180 is already in horrible shape from being poorly maintained, I wonder how bad the construction on it will make the road surface?

Is anyone up there at Snowbowl this weekend? I'm wondering how traffic and parking are, and also how the snow is on the slopes. In the back country it has been getting pretty nasty and used up. We really need more snow. I was thinking of heading up this Tuesday, but the NWS is calling for high winds, and that gets old up there.

http://www.arizonasnowbowl.com/pdfs/map_upgrade.pdf

My guess is that people are aware of this, but does anyone know how much of this will happen, and when it will?

It will all happen, and most of it should occur this summer providing further lawsuits don't prevent construction from moving ahead.

Where's ELF when you need them?

Jim_H wrote:Where's ELF when you need them?

If you want something done right, do it yourself.

PageRob wrote:

Jim_H wrote:Where's ELF when you need them?

If you want something done right, do it yourself.

Maybe some die hard "Save The Peaks" types will step up to the plate. I'm won't be around for the construction time period. Probably wouldn't care about the expansion were it not for the new parking, the ne Humphrey lift and runs, and the obliteration of the prairie and south facing forest in those areas.

I wouldn't be surprised if there some people do try and stop it by means other than lawsuits. This seems like a situation tailor-made for that sort of thing (and almost retro in a way, going back to the old Snowbowl ecotage).

PageRob wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if there some people do try and stop it by means other than lawsuits. This seems like a situation tailor-made for that sort of thing (and almost retro in a way, going back to the old Snowbowl ecotage).

You have to elaborate on that. What sort of stuff happened here in the past?