http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/knau/local-knau-914020.mp3
Flagstaff, AZ – Judge Mary Murguia is being asked to temporarily bar the ski
resort from going ahead while the legality of using the effluent
is debated. Foes organized as the Save the Peaks Coalition say
the Forest Service, on whose land Snowbowl is located, never
properly considered what would happen if someone swallowed some
of the artificial white stuff. The delay is because Flagstaff,
which is to provide the treated sewage, is considering an
alternative plan to use what's called recovered reclaimed water -
- essentially effluent that has not only been treated but placed
into the aquifer to mix with runoff and everything else before
eventually being pumped out. It's considered under state law to
be potable, or drinkable water. Attorneys for Snowbowl maintain
there's nothing wrong with using just treated effluent. But Eric
Borowsky, general manager of the partnership that runs the ski
resort, said there's a good reason to go with the alternative of
potable water: It eliminates the basis of this lawsuit. He said
otherwise the company is stuck in court fighting this battle over
the use of treated effluent for perhaps another two years.
(I hope we can start construction this summer and then be ready
to go, we won't be ready to go making snow until November of 2011
right now.)
But shifting to potable water won't satisfy everyone. Clayson
Benally, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he envisions
a legal challenge to that plan.
(First of all, potable water in a desert. Think about it. This is
our children's water, potentially.)
Borowsky said that's overstating the issue. He said if city
officials were worried about reducing their own supply they
wouldn't consider this new plan.
(Flagstaff's got plenty of water.)
Benally, however, said that's not the only issue. He's not
convinced that simply putting the water through a recharge
process in the aquifer before it's pumped back out makes it any
safer. He said even trace amounts of chemicals can remain when
the process of water purification is short-circuited that way.
(I think the environment has a beautiful system. And we need to
respect and uphold that. And that's one of the reasons we're out
here speaking on behalf of the San Francisco peaks, because this
is truly a pristine environment where there aren't any
contaminants. And we'd like to see it that way.)
Borowsky said the foes are looking for problems where none exist.
(In all of the towns here in the Valley, Scottsdale, Phoenix,
etc., we are drinking partially reclaimed water. And in Flagstaff
they've been putting that water in the ground for 25 years where
it mixes with snow and rain and Lake Mary water, etc. And it's a
combination of that water that is the drinking supply of
Flagstaff.)
The use of potable water appears to resolve the complaints of
several Native American tribes. They had filed their own lawsuit
in 2005 claiming the use of effluent on the peaks they considered
sacred hampered their ability to practice their religion. When
that argument was rejected last year by the U.S. Supreme Court,
this new lawsuit was filed. All the talk about the merits of
potable water is legally irrelevant to the judge. At this point,
she is simply looking at the issue in front of her. She gave both
sides a couple of days to see if they can agree to a plan to
delay construction until that city council vote next month. If
that plan gets approved, this lawsuit goes away -- though
attorney Howard Shanker who represented both the Indians before
and the Save Our Peaks coalition now, conceded another may be in
the works. For Arizona Public Radio this is Howard Fischer.