The Wall Street Journal printed a great article back in June that summarizes the Snowbowl snowmaking case from both sides of the coin. I recommend everyone interested read the full article, "Tribes Envoke Gods to Block Wastewater Snowmaking" to catch up on the issue.Or if you have A.D.D., there is a great summary and breakdown of the article on Ski-Blog.com.
My opinions on article excerpts:
- "The mountaintops are sacred to the Navajo and 12 other tribes, even though the land is not part of their reservations. The tribes regard the mountains as living deities that would be offended by man-made snowmaking, especially if it used treated wastewater..."
- So the tribes are saying these living deities (mountains) would be offended by snowmaking even if they WEREN'T using treated wastwater? That is absurd because the White Mountain Apache, the tribe who run Sunrise Ski Park and are 1 of the 13 tribes mentioned, also uses wastewater to make their snow, as "Sunrise's operators testified" in the article. An unnamed spokesman then contridicts that statement in the very next sentence by saying they only use spring water - but all this should be a moot point anyway since the deities are offended by ALL snowmaking. But...oh wait...in the same paragraph the Apache tell us their ski park sits on regular old fashioned mountains made of rocks...there is nothing sacred or living about them.
- "The tribes contend [using reclaimed/treated water] would contaminate plants and spring water used in religious ceremonies. The court compared spraying snow made from treated wastewater on the peaks to requiring Christians to use reclaimed water for baptisms."
- Irrigation is one of the main uses of reclaimed water so I find it highly unlikely their plants would be any less safe than the plants all of us (including our grazing animals) eat everyday. And, by its very definition, if the reclaimed water did get into the springs (a natural body of water) it would become.....wait for it.......potable drinking water! And no one is restricting the tribes to use only the plants and resources from the >1% of land that Snowbowl wants to make snow on, if they are that concerned about it, there is still another 77,000 acres of untouched mountain range to choose from! Therefore, a more accurate conclusion to the above analogy would be: it would be like requiring Christians to choose from 99 sources of water they normally use for baptism or 1 source of reclaimed water.
- "While most U.S. ski resorts make snow, Snowbowl would have been the first to do so only with reclaimed water, which is used across the parched Southwest on golf courses and parks. Under state law, the resort would have had to post signs warning skiers not to eat any snow."
- California - yes, those health and environmental nuts to the West of us - are the leading the nation in reclaimed water projects. As we become more populated and potable water becomes more scarce, reclaimed water projects will only increase. If your looking for an immediate precedence, you can bet your sweet ass Georgia is turning to reclaimed water in light of their dire drought situation. Snowbowl may be the first to make snow with it but they sure as hell won't be the last. As a matter of fact, the University of California has already established Treatment and Quality Criteria for reclaimed water snowmaking! And I understand people don't think a posted sign will provide any protection IF the snow was harmful to eat, but since reclaimed water treatment can exceed standard drinking water, this shouldn't be an issue, as long as Snowbowl uses A+ water.
- "This is not really about reclaimed water," says Joe Galli of the city's chamber of commerce. "This is about whether they want Snowbowl to exist at all, whether they want recreation to exist at all" on the mountain. The tribe called on the government to remove the entire Snowbowl resort and says snowmaking there would impair the tribe's ability to perform religious ceremonies."
- Ok, who are these guys, the fucking Taliban?
1 comments:
First, the 9th Circuit ruling stated two things--
1. That Snowbowl and the USFS didn't do enough research into the potential impact of using A+ treated wastewater.
2. The Hopi and Navajos are entitled to have Snowbowl use the least restrictive means (meaning lowest impact to the tribes' religious beliefs) to provide recreation on the peaks.
We have two issues in my mind. First, is the safety of the water for recreation. It is clear in my mind that aside from the Sierra Club claiming that it is harmful, the water is safe for recreation. Keep in mind that the Sierra Club wants to drain Lake Powell and opposes damned near everything,
so this is simply their single best argument to stop development. They are
not against snowmaking per se, they are against all development, anywhere, anytime. That is just the Sierra Club. Matter of fact, the Sierra Club and the tribes in reality want Snowbowl to go away.
Second issue is the religious beliefs of the Hopis and Navajos and the Religious Freedom Reformation Act. That says that Federal Government agencies must use the least restrictive means of enforcing regulations that
might impact the free exercise of religion. This came out of a court ruling in the 1980's that changed some existing interpretations of the First
Amendment, and Congress in their infinite wisdom passed a law telling the SCOTUS how they had to interpret the First Amendment. One would assume that if Congress can simply pass a law telling the SCOTUS what the First Amendment actually means, they have the power to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit. Expect the SCOTUS to overturn the law in this respect.
The fact is that the tribes tried to shut Snowbowl down in 1979 and lost at the SCOTUS. The Sierra Club wants them gone so that the mountain remains pristine. The Hopis and Navajos want them gone because of their religious
beliefs, but more than anything to demonstrate to their tribe members that they can stick it to whitey. The Apaches want them gone so that more folks will come to Sunrise. And so all of these folks with competing interests have teamed up to attack Snowbowl.
It should be obvious the benefits to each of these parties. This isn't about snowmaking. This is about the resort's very existence. They all want the resort gone. Now, they may claim it is about the quality of the water or about religious freedom, but these are simply convenient reasons to fight the expansion in court. I don't think they will hold up to the 9th Circuit
review, but even if they do, they will not hold up to the SCOTUS. The RFRA was a mistake and an overstretch by the Congress. And the EIS was completed properly. The science is clear that the water is safe. The same water is
used on golf courses and throughout the US with no problems.
Because of these issues, there is no compromise. Snowbowl has offered to simply drill wells and take water from aquifers that are already suffering from drought. The compromise was using treated water instead of groundwater. The resort's Master Development Plan that was approved over a decade ago allows for the expanded terrain and new lift. That is already approved and not an issue. The resort just won't invest $15M into lifts if
they cannot ensure adequate snow coverage. All this is about is water. The compromise is either A+ treated water or ground water.
The real issue is would we rather use potable drinking water to make snow or use treated A+ wastewater? And the only reason this is even an issue is
because the Sierra Club and the Tribes want Snowbowl gone. It is an attack against skiers and boarders. They want us off the mountain.
Justin
Post a Comment