In a previous post, Snowbowl's Artificial Snow debate is HEATING UP!, a representative of Howard Shanker (Rudy) wrote me some pretty strong words about the potential health risks of using reclaimed water to make snow at Snowbowl.
I wrote Rudy back with some questions to elaborate and Mr. Shanker himself responded! His email is follows:
Hi Zega - Rudy forwarded your questions to me. Hope this helps. Rather than read a lot of misinformation, I would recommend that you actually listen to the two Ninth Circuit arguments. The first one is more instructive because we had the opportunity to address the environmental as well as the legal/religious issues. I believe you can find the audio on our firm website www.Shankerlaw.net. Hope my brief answers below help.
Howard Shanker
www.Shanker2008.com
Candidate, Congressional District 1
P.O. Box 160 Flagstaff, AZ 86002-0160
www.howardshankerforcongress.com1.) What about the double standard of other native indian tribes who are plaintiffs against Snowbowl but who are using their religious lands for an economic boost (such as the Hualapi tribe building the Grand Canyon Skywalk)? I do not represent the Hualapai Tribe and cannot speak for their actions or beliefs. I certainly am not in a position to pass judgment on what they do or do not believe or what their priorities are. (I represent the Navajo Nation, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Havapai-Apache Nation, the Havasupai Tribe, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Flagstaff Activist Network, and others). Nevertheless, what the first panel from the Ninth Circuit held was that the project had a substantial burden on the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe's ability to practice their respective religions. Based on that finding the Court determined that it did not need to look further into the claims of the other tribes. Does their argument about Snowbowl impacting native indian religious lands really hold water? Whether or not Snowbowl and/or others are comfortable with the Hualapi's claim and/or feel that they are in a position to pass judgment on their claim, really has no bearing on the validity of the other claims made.
2.) In your opinion, is the White Mountain Apache's (Sunrise) objection to Snowbowl making artificial snow more heavily weighted on religious grounds or their predicted economic loss (because of Flagstaff's closer proximity to Phoenix)? Are Sunrise's ski slopes located on what WMAs consider "holy land"? The WMAT are one of my clients. Their objections are based solely on religious grounds. WMAT practitioners (who hold essentially the same beliefs as the Yavapai-Apache (Apache) practitioners) testified that Sunrise was not on ground they consider holy. It is land the Tribe owns, not federal land. The WMAT use fresh water from Lake Ono to make snow, not reclaimed sewer water.
3.) In today's litigious and "sue-happy" culture, why would Snowbowl knowingly use water that would be "deadly to skiers" instead of properly treating it to healthy standards? I think "deadly" is a bit strong. The main problem is that we don't know what many of the effects would be and it is unwise to use our children (and other skiers) as laboratory rats. In your opinion, would Snowbowl use this contaminated water because (a) they haven't done the proper research about its health effects? (b) it cuts the costs treating of the water? (c) they don't have other options? (d) some other reason? We have a system that allows chemical companies and others to use a host of chemicals that are not proven as safe. It then becomes incumbent on a person who is sick from exposure to prove that it is the exposure that made them sick. Without adequate science, this is often an insurmountable task. These companies have no reason to spend money developing good science that could ultimately be used against them. Specifically with regard to the instant matter, this is about money for Snowbowl: (a) additional research costs money and time and could render contrary conclusions; (b) the water is treated by the City of Flagstaff and it meets applicable standards for reclaimed sewer water -- if the City or Snowbowl wanted to run the treated waste water through reverse osmosis, I assume that would address most of the health and environmental based objections. That costs money and is currently not required by Arizona law; (c) using fresh water would be very expensive. More importantly, however, we live in the desert and are facing a water supply crisis in the near future. Using fresh water to make snow would not be a very wise allocation of the resource and would likely run into additional opposition from the community for that reason. Using reclaimed water treated with reverse osmosis would present similar allocation issues, or at least it should. Indeed, a valid argument could be made that using reclaimed sewer water to make snow is not a wise allocation of that resource given our ongoing struggle for water and unchecked growth. As discussed below, use of fresh water would not necessarily address the religious and cultural concerns raised by the tribes.
4.) If it could be proven beyond a doubt that Snowbowl would use properly treated A+ water to make artifical snow, would Howard Shanker's camp still petition against them? The proposal calls for "properly treated" A+ water. The problem is that under Arizona law "properly treated" A+ water is not potable. It contains a host of chemicals that could potentially impact human health and the environment -- many of which are untested. Why or why not? If you assume, arguendo, that the water was 100% pure and there were no health or environmental issues, many of my clients would still oppose the project on religious grounds (I think reference to "Howard Shanker's camp" is a little misleading). I would continue to represent my clients as their attorney. If you are asking for my personal opinion, I believe that the financial health of a private, for profit ski area, on federal land should not overbalance the sincerely held religious beliefs of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. Throw in the fact that this is not clean water and add my objections on scientific and environmental grounds to the mix.
Zega,
Though Howard may consider "deadly" to be a little strong, I have read a great deal about wastewater and how it has already killed people on golf courses in Phoenix. I would call the water deadly. Please google norovirus and norwalk virus to see what I mean. There will be times when this is definitely in the water snowbowl wants to use.
-Rudy
0 comments:
Post a Comment