by Jesse Huffman
ESPN
23 September 2009
|
 |
| Sabine
Protestors rally against snowmaking and the expansion of Snowbowl
Resort in Arizona. |
|
"Don't eat yellow snow."
Yellow marks a spot where someone or something relieved
itself. That's a given.
But can you be guaranteed the snow is clean just because it
isn't yellow? This is a much more complex question being posed in
a recent lawsuit filed by the
Save The Peaks Coalition against the
U.S. Forest Service.
The suit is the second this summer filed
against the expansion plans of
Arizona
Snowbowl, which is under the domain of the Forrest Service.
According to the
Arizona Daily Sun, the suit contends that the Forrest Service
"did not adequately weigh or analyze the human health or
environmental risks of making snow with reclaimed wastewater, in
violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and other
federal laws." The kicker is whether the artificial snow is
"safe for human contact and possible
|
|
|
ingestion."
Wastewater, blended with fresh water, is used in many
ski areas' snowmaking systems, but Snowbowl's would be
the first to use reclaimed wastewater alone, according
to an article in
U.S. Water News Online.
It's a new twist
in an a nearly 30-year legal appeal against the
expansion of the Snowbowl Ski area, originating from
suits filed by local Hopi and Navajo tribes on grounds
that the development encroaches on sacred areas in the
San Francisco Peaks critical to their religious
practices. Save the Peaks Coalition became the
voice of the ongoing
Hopi and Navajo |
 |
| The
San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, where the
expansion is taking place. |
|
|
|
conservation efforts, while the Flagstaff Chamber of
Commerce and the Flagstaff Ski Club have started a counter
group,
Reclaim the Peaks, as a platform for the pro-snowmaking
stance. Snowbowl has yet to have their development plans
stopped; past appeals went all the way to the Supreme Court
before being rejected, with Snowbowl currently having the
go-ahead for snowmaking and other development plans.
|
 |
| Should Snowbowl be allowed to make snow? The courts say yes.
AP |
|
|
All that could change with the latest suit, which has drawn in
non-Native American parties to the list of plaintiffs and cites
environmental, not religious, reasons for an injunction against
installation of snowmaking equipment and other development until
the new case is settled.
With the increased revenue and riding time of an extended
season produced by snowmaking, increased terrain access of new
lifts and a halfpipe hanging in the balance, the continued legal
wrangling has become a lighting rod of contention in the Flagstaff
area, with snowboarders falling on both sides of the issue.
In the current state of the ski resort industry, where it seems
expansion, golf courses, and real estate are the only ways to keep
business going, the outcome of this heated case could set a
precedent for other groups arguing against ski area development.
Until then, the question of whether Arizona Snowbowl's snow should
be considered yellow is still up in the air. |
|
|
|
