Snowbowl Snowmaking

[chumley]

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.

[big_load]

Have you seen any projections of how much water they'll use. Where will it be reclaimed from, and where was the reclaimed water going before that? There's a small ski area near me that makes snow, and they use over a billion gallons per year of groundwater. I'd feel better if it were reclaimed.

[azdesertfather]

Here is some info from the AZ Snowbowl website:

FAQs About Snowmaking & Hydrology at Arizona Snowbowl

Do you think snowmaking is the best use of reclaimed water, given the Southwest’s continuing drought and our normal desert climate? Use of reclaimed water is a public policy decision that is outside the scope of our study. The City of Flagstaff has approved providing reclaimed water for this use, and the ADEQ has certified A+ reclaimed water for snowmaking.

Is using reclaimed water the best option for making snow? Using reclaimed water for snowmaking is a feasible option. Other options would include drilling a well and hauling potable water. Given the long-term water predicament Arizona and other states in the west are facing, using reclaimed water to make snow is an environmentally and economically responsible decision.

How can you guarantee that Snowbowl will always have reclaimed water to make snow? What if the City finds more important needs for it in the future? That question is outside the scope of our decision. The Coconino National Forest cannot predict what the City of Flagstaff will decide to do with its reclaimed water in the future. Loss of this source of water is an inherent risk that the parties involved understand.

How does this proposal affect the regional water supply / quality? The FEIS concludes a negligible net effect to the groundwater supply beneath Flagstaff. The reduction in aquifer recharge resulting from creating artificial snow is a minute fraction of the normal annual recharge into the regional aquifer.

Does the EIS show conclusively that use of reclaimed water for snowmaking does not present a threat to human health from heavy metals, PPCPs (pharmaceuticals and personal care products), or other organic or inorganic constituents? Flagstaff’s reclaimed water meets all state and federal surface and ground water quality standards for this water. It is important for the Forest Service to carefully consider the potential health concerns regarding using reclaimed water for snowmaking. That is why the role played by state and federal water regulating agencies is vital. The public health issues relevant to using reclaimed water are regulated by the EPA and ADEQ, and these agencies have approved reclaimed water for the direct application in snowmaking. The Rio de Flag Water Reclamation Facility currently provides reclaimed water for turf irrigation in many places in and around Flagstaff, including on the Flagstaff Unified School District school grounds and at City parks. Reclaimed water from the Wildcat Hill wastewater treatment plant (not Class A) is used for irrigation at golf courses and for dust control at various locations in east Flagstaff. In other words, reclaimed water is already being widely used in the Flagstaff community.

Why does the Forest Service assume skiers will flock to the Snowbowl to ski on artificial snow? During the public comment period it became evident that a significant demand exists for snowmaking, despite the fact that the proposal stated that the snow would be made from reclaimed water. The majority of ski areas west of the Mississippi River already make artificial snow, which does not appear to deter use of these facilities. Furthermore, in a typical year, artificial snow at the Snowbowl will form a base that will help retain natural snow. During typical years, people will be skiing on natural snow covering an artificial snow base.

Will my kids get sick if they eat snow made from treated wastewater? Snow made from treated wastewater has been certified and approved for this use by the EPA and the ADEQ. Therefore, in the opinion of those agencies, the use of reclaimed water for snowmaking is not a health risk. Also, this same reclaimed water has been used to irrigate grass and landscaping at City parks and school grounds for a number of years. Anyone who eats any snow should be aware of what he or she may be ingesting. Snow at a ski area may have come in contact with animals, litter, boots, saliva, petroleum products from grooming equipment, etc.

[azdesertfather]

oh, and here's something about where the reclaimed water will come from ... from an Arizona Daily Sun article written in Dec. 2006:

"If snowmaking is ultimately granted, it would mean up to 1.5 million gallons of high-grade reclaimed wastewater would be piped daily from November through February 14.8 miles from Flagstaff, across Lowell Observatory, up Snowbowl Road and into a 10 million gallon storage pond near the top of Sunset chairlift."

[chumley]

So, if the ski area uses 1.5 million gallons per day for 4 months it would total about 180 million gallons, or about 600 acre-feet of water. To put this in perspective, Tempe Town Lake loses about 1,400 acre-feet of water each year to evaporation. The Salt and Verde River reservoirs lose over 100,000 acre-feet of water to evaporation annually.

Now, I'm sure that some percentage of the artificial snow will evaporate (or sublimate), but a significant percentage of that snow will likely also melt and be "recycled" back into to the ground, right? (though it will drain into Hart Prairie, and not the Rio de Flag or wherever it ultimately was pumped from.)

Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try to conserve water when possible, but 600 acre-feet is a very small amount of water when viewed with perspective.

[PaleoRob]

Flagstaff water is generally pumped from the Coconino Aquifer, with wells located mainly to the east of town down into the Coconino Sandstone, if I recall my geologic disasters class correctly.

[DarthStiller]

Using reclaimed water is the most environmentally responsible thing to do for recreational purposes. I don't see that the Indians have a real argument here in terms of religious or cultural impacts. That is federal land, not a reservation. If it were being applied to a reservation, they have a legit argument. Saying they have religious/cultural connection to federally owned land which gives them the right to determine what development happens on that land is similar to the Middle East conflicts where both Arabs and Jews claim they have rights to the same land by their religions.

[azdesertfather]

Using reclaimed water is the most environmentally responsible thing to do for recreational purposes. I don't see that the Indians have a real argument here in terms of religious or cultural impacts. That is federal land, not a reservation. If it were being applied to a reservation, they have a legit argument. Saying they have religious/cultural connection to federally owned land which gives them the right to determine what development happens on that land is similar to the Middle East conflicts where both Arabs and Jews claim they have rights to the same land by their religions.

I agree with you, stiller. If you start using water that isn't reclaimed in those kinds of quantities, I think you're not being very responsible environmentally, and that I would be personally upset about.

I greatly respect the Navajo, and spend a good bit of time each year up there myself, and have lots of relationships with really good, respectable Navajo families. Their culture is different than ours in many ways (not every way, but a lot of different ways), and to Americans in general their rationale doesn't always make sense. That doesn't make it wrong, just different (at least in my opinion). To them, Humphreys is one of their 4 sacred mountains, which is central to their ancient tribal religion. I don't agree with their native religion, or their view on this issue, but I can respect it. To them, this dumping reclaimed wastewater on their sacred mountain is basically akin to going and peeing on a pope's grave (or something along those lines!).

To quote an article from Nov. 2007, George Hardeen (chief spokesman for the Navajo Nation) said, "If you were to take a needle and inject it into your skin you would hurt the entire body not just that point on your body where you injected the needle - if it were a deadly poison as they view the reclaimed waste water. The mountain being a living entity, they see this as, frankly appalling beyond thought, that people would put waste water on a sacred mountain."

Yes it's true that Humphreys is in "our" (USA's) control, not "theirs" (Navajo), but that's just because when we came in, forced them off their land, and then "allowed" them to come back years later, we decided not to allow them to have Humphreys. We gave them all the "choice" land of the high desert. (Some of it is decent land, but a lot of the better quality land we kept.)

[chumley]

That quote by George Hardeen gives me a new perspective that I had not previously considered. It's certainly adds more respect to my opinion of the view expressed by the tribes.

However, I also question what the other three sacred mountains are. If one of them is Baldy, I would have to question the hypocrisy of Sunrise making snow from water taken from a stream that is fed with reclaimed water. If its ok on a reservation-owned ski area, why not on a privately-owned ski area on federal land?

And lets not forget that A+ reclaimed water is VERY clean... How many of us have hiked the Humphrey's trail, Kachina, Weatherford, Abineau, Bear-Jaw, Inner Basin, etc. without stopping to relieve yourself somewhere ... perhaps even dig a hole for something more substantial? Could an entire season of making snow with A+ reclaimed water equal the "contaminants" of even a single person answering nature's call? I've never seen a sign or read anything about that being akin to a Catholic peeing on the Pope's grave...

[PaleoRob]

The other three sacred Navajo mountains are Hesperus, Blanco, and Taylor, the first two in CO, the last in NM, all under USFS jurisdiction.

[big_load]

I wonder if anything reasonable can be done that would bring the reclaimed water up to a standard the Navajo could accept. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the answer were "no", but room for compromise would be nice. On the flip side, how much benefit is snowmaking expected to impart? I assume it could extend the season on both ends, but once the equipment is there, it's pretty hard for management to resist using every allocated drop to "improve" conditions on days when winter sports would have been possible without it.

[DarthStiller]

Yes it's true that Humphreys is in "our" (USA's) control, not "theirs" (Navajo), but that's just because when we came in, forced them off their land, and then "allowed" them to come back years later, we decided not to allow them to have Humphreys.

No argument there, but as far as legal avenues go, its federal land now. they're pursuing a legal avenue to get their way on this. If it sets a legal precedent, it could set up other avenues for them to have further control over that land. Make no mistake, if the Navajos got their way fully, there would be no white men on that land ever for any reason. Not for skiing, not for hiking, not even for the water line and pumping station that helps supply Flag with water. This attempt to gain any control legally over federally owned land via their religion has no place in this country. If they make a legal argument that it should have been made a reservation back in the day, I'll listen, but not for this.

I would have to question the hypocrisy of Sunrise making snow from water taken from a stream that is fed with reclaimed water. If its ok on a reservation-owned ski area, why not on a privately-owned ski area on federal land?

I have one better. Salt River won't allow reclaimed on their land because it the white man's @#$% water. But if you take the @#$% out of the water and pay them to store it in their landfill as sludge, that's ok. Its a different tribe and doesn't have the sensitive religious component that Humphreys does, but it's another example of how conveniently selective the Indians are with their "cultural sensitivies".

[azbackpackr]

This goes along with my belief that historically the Apaches never considered Mt. Graham and Mt. Baldy to be "sacred mountains." They got the idea it would be a way to cause trouble for the telescopes on Graham and the hikers on Baldy.

[hippiepunkpirate]

I have lived in Flagstaff for 22 years and I have gone skiing once. I couldn't care less about Snowbowl except that it is an important factor in the city's economy. I work for a pizza restaurant and have seen firsthand how much busier our restaurant is in the winter when the lifts are running. However, I wish the city would come up with a better way to boost the local economy. While any argument stating that using reclaimed water is like urinating on the mountain is totally bogus, the Navajos have been here longer than the white people and they deserve respect. And getting that much water 2000+ feet up a mountain is an expensive proposition. Can't come up with anything myself, but there have to be some intelligent people in this town that can figure out a better solution.

[chumley]

IT'S FINAL The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal and therefore the decision by the 9th Circuit will stand. Snowbowl is free to make snow on the mountain!

The United States Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request by several Arizona Indian tribes to stop a Flagstaff ski area from making artificial snow from treated wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks.

The case has bounced through federal court for several years, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the case twice, first siding with the Native Americans, who revere the mountains as sacred sites. Last August, the Appeals Court reconsidered in favor of the management of Arizona Snowbowl.

At issue is whether religious groups can trump the mandated multiple uses of federal land by the general public. Snowbowl sits in the Coconino National Forest, not on Indian land.

Several Native American tribes, including the Navajo, who were the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the Hopi, Hualapai, Havasupai, and Apaches, believe using reclaimed wastewater there was tantamount to dumping sewage on their sacred sites.

The Indians and supporting environmental groups took the case to the Supreme Court, which discussed the case in closed conference last Thursday. On Monday the news was posted that the court had turned down the case, letting the lower court decision stand.

The decision essentially clears the way for Snowbowl to make artificial snow, although it won't happen this season.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 8-onl.html

[azbackpackr]

This is an interesting topic, and no I don't think you were "asking for it" in bringing it up. I haven't actually formed a strong opinion. My daughter lives in Flag and tells me it is a hot topic there, though, with everyone taking sides, lots of pro and con bumperstickers, etc.

She also says that she prefers Sunrise. If she wants to go snowboarding she will often drive all the way over here, saying that Sunrise has way more runs, is a lot bigger, etc. etc.

This is a case where the Kachina Peaks were sacred a long time ago to the Indians, and it has been documented historically, whereas I don't think you can make that case for Baldy or Graham. I think that they claimed that Baldy and Graham were "sacred" so they could use that against the forest service, etc.

However, although I don't wish to disrespect the Navajos, I don't think this wastewater snow is going to be too damaging.

[Ckzona]

With the whole master plan for snowbowl to be approved I am somewhat happy. The snowmaking this is not that bad. If it snows just an average year snowbowl will use very little snowmaking. JUst enough to start the season then they will let nature take over. The snow-tubing park they are making at the bottom though I think is absurd. IT will be extremely crowded now plus alot of the snowmaking will be for the tubeing park. Plus they are destroying a good bit of land for the tubing park. Everything else though seems like a very good idea

[chumley]

Dear folks at "save the peaks":

When the Supreme Court refused to hear your case, that should be the end. Period. Now, lets go skiing. :bdh:

Lawsuit aims to stop expansion of Ariz. ski resort
By FELICIA FONSECA (AP) – 24 minutes ago
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The U.S. Forest Service is being sued in an effort to block expansion of a ski resort on an Arizona mountain that American Indian tribes consider sacred.
The lawsuit was filed Monday by the Save the Peaks Coalition and a group of citizens. It comes more than three months after the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal from tribes that said the use of treated wastewater to make artificial snow threatened their religious and cultural survival.
The suit contends the Forest Service failed to consider the human health risks of ingesting snow made with treated wastewater at the Arizona Snowbowl resort outside Flagstaff.
A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the tribes. The full court overturned the decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

[chumley]

Once again, the USDA/Forest Service has approved snowmaking. Sounds like litigation will still continue though.

http://azdailysun.com/article_7a3b646e- ... 03286.html

Arizona Snowbowl is cleared to make snow for skiing on the San Francisco Peaks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided today.
The new supervisor of the Coconino National Forest, Earl Stewart, signed the final document Snowbowl needed in order to proceed, stating the ski area has two choices:
--It could use potable water downstream and underground from a Flagstaff reclaimed water facility.
--Or it could use reclaimed wastewater directly, which would be less costly.
No new environmental analysis would be needed for the potable water, Stewart stated.
If potable water were to become the source, that’s a basis for possible litigation from environmental groups contending a new environmental review would be needed.
There is an ongoing lawsuit questioning the health and safety of using only reclaimed water.
The new water source was an attempt by the USDA to forge some solution more acceptable to area tribes.
The chairman of the Hopi Tribe has said neither water source is acceptable.
The Navajo Nation government has been silent on the issue.

[chumley]

And the latest lawsuit was ruled on today in Snowbowl's favor. An appeal is likely, but the injunction has expired, so Snowbowl may be able to begin work on the pipeline anyway.

Associated Press - December 1, 2010 5:14 PM ET

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) - A federal judge says the U.S. Forest Service did its job in considering the impacts of using treated wastewater to make snow on a northern Arizona mountain that American Indians consider sacred.

The Save the Peaks Coalition and a group of citizens sued the Forest Service last year, seeking a more thorough environmental assessment on the health and safety risks of using treated wastewater.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Forest Service considered the relevant factors and that the record supported its decision to allow the snowmaking source.

The plaintiffs say they'll appeal.

The city of Flagstaff has approved the sale of treated wastewater to the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort for snowmaking, but construction hasn't started.