Page 9 - the NOISE January 2013

S
ADEQ &
RETROGRADE
THE FOIA REQUEST:
RESEARCHING THE RESEARCH THAT APPROVED SNOWMAK- ING IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE POWER OF 13,
& DEFINING “DIRECT REUSE” BY RUDY PRESTON | rudy@truesnow.org
So just how did “snowmaking” with treat- ed sewage effluent became legal in the State of Arizona?
This was a question I asked myself and the United States Forest Service many times as it went through its legally mandated National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) policy — a process to determine if it would allow the Arizona Snowbowl to use Flagstaff’s “treated sewage effluent” or “re- claimed wastewater” to make artificial snow at the ski resort perched high atop the San Francisco Peaks — the highest point in Ari- zona.
Any decision to expand or upgrade the Arizona Snowbowl must be approved by the USFS because the ski area sits on pub- lic land in the Coconino National Forest. Arizona Snowbowl does not own the land it occupies; it leases from the USFS for roughly $93,000 a year, depending on how many ski- ers use the facility in a given year.
In addition to the USFS, I also posed this question to the City of Flagstaff many times at public meetings while it created a contract with Arizona Snowbowl to sell our reclaimed wastewater. Both entities told me the Arizo- na Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for creating and en- forcing water policy. It was “assumed” by the USFS and the City that ADEQ completed all the necessary research and testing to deter- mine if making snow with reclaimed waste- water is in fact a healthy reuse.
But is it? What did ADEQ do to ensure our health and safety?
I am not a person who just blindly trusts our state always has our best interests at heart. So I decided to dig a little bit deeper to find the answer to my questions.
Before we get into the nuts and bolts, it is important to have an idea of the timeline of the decade-long struggle to “Save the Peaks.” The USFS, due to NEPA process requirements, was the first to bring this to the public’s at- tention when it called for a scoping of the Snowbowl expansion and “upgrade” in 2002.
Scoping is the public process of determin- ing what questions and concerns the public might have regarding a proposed use of our public lands. Scoping “guided” the USFS as it developed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and subsequently a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS usually contains two or three paths of action. The chosen path of action is put into a Record of Decision (ROD).
After the DEIS was released in early 2004, the USFS again took public comments on how well it addressed the issues that came up in scoping, and also if the DEIS raised any new questions or concerns. These comments were then “supposedly” addressed in creat- ing the FEIS and ROD, which was released in February 2005.
The ROD determined that Snowbowl
could move forward with expansion and up- grade despite having nearly 20,000 comments pleading to not allow the use of reclaimed wastewater on public lands. The reasons ranged from health concerns of skiers to spiri- tual concerns from thirteen indigenous nations.
The ROD has led to four lawsuits. One of which went to the steps of the Supreme Court in 2009. As of press time, there is still one law- suit pending in a District Court in Washington DC regarding the effects of reclaimed wastewa- ter on an endangered plant known as the San Francisco Peaks Groundsel; their sole resi- dence on a few acres surrounding the ski resort.
So when and how did ADEQ decide that “snowmaking” was a healthy use of reclaimed wastewater? After dozens of failed phone calls, I decided to file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request for “all documents regarding
treated sewage effluent for snowmaking.”
The packet of information I was received
from Charles Graf, then Deputy Director of Wa- ter Quality, was much thinner than I expected. I had hopes of extensive test results and re- search. However, it did contain what I needed to piece together just how snowmaking was made legal.
In 1999 (long before the USFS process) ADEQ started a process similar to NEPA to revise treated sewage effluent rules and regulations. ADEQ also completes a scoping, followed by a draft Rulemaking, then a final Rulemaking. In between each step, ADEQ holds public meet- ings and accepts public comments.
The same year, Arizona Snowbowl began developing its own private plans for expan- sion. General Manager JR Murray and majority shareholder Eric Borowsky met with represen- tatives from the USFS, the City of Flagstaff, the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, and many elected officials regarding making snow on the San Francisco Peaks. They were told that ADEQ currently had no regulations regarding snow- making.
By early 2000 ADEQ had completed scop- ing and released a draft Rulemaking and had begun taking public comment. Three public meetings, one each in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson, were held. Mr. Murray was among those in attendance at the Flagstaff meeting.
In ADEQ’s FOIA packet released to me, there contained a handwritten note from Mr. Murray thanking Steve Palowski, an ADEQ employee, for his “support on behalf of the agency.”
Other documentation in the FOIA packet spoke of the need for “public support” for snowmaking with reclaimed wastewater. Con- sequently, Mr. Murray contacted his business acquaintances, urging support, even attach- ing a “sample letter” complete with “talking points”meant to regale policymakers with accounts of economic imperatives and “un-
predictable ski seasons” due to climate change.
The extent of “public interest” in support of making snow with reclaimed wastewa- ter totaled 12 individuals, many of them using carbon copies of Mr. Murray’s origi- nal talking points.
Those individuals numbered include: former State House Representative John Verkamp, former State Senator [and NAU Chemistry Chair Emeritus] John Wettaw, former Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce President David Mauer, Flagstaff Alpine Ski Club President Brian Beamer, hos- pitality consultant Gary Vallen, former interim president of the now-defunct Greater Flagstaff Economic Council Jerry Chavez, Grand Canyon State Games Ex- ecutive Director Erik Windmark, Moun- tain Sports President Mark Lamberson, National Ski Areas Association President Michael Berry, Managing Officer of the Flagstaff Wells Fargo, Paul Olson, former Arizona Snowbowl owner, Norm Johnson, and President of the since-bankrupt Wil- liams Ski Area, H.L. Moody.
A 13th letter included in the packet, signed by former Flagstaff City Manager, David Wilcox, requested that snowmak- ing with reclaimed wastewater be includ- ed as a “type of direct reuse” in ADEQ’s Wa- ter Quality Standards Rules.
Further, his letter, presumably meant to address several city issues in one corre- spondence, maintained the city’s position that chemical feed facilities for reclaimed wastewater ought not be required with turbidity standards met, and questioned whether reclaimed wastewater would ef- fect downstream lakes in golf courses sub- ject to discharge. In addition Mr. Wilcox, as if seeking advise from ADEQ, queries: “Are individual contracts required between a reclaimed water agent and end users?”
From the information provided, ADEQ did not directly address Mr. Wilcox’s ques- tions or recommendations.
Keep in mind these letters from “promi- nent members” of the Flagstaff commu- nity were received only after the draft rulemaking was quietly circulated, and the comments maintaining apprehen-
FROM LEFT: handwritten letters to ADEQ from JR Murray & Norm Johnson; virtually identical letters from John Wettaw & John Verkamp
sion to snowmaking, or outright opposition, never were included in ADEQ’s final rulemak- ing, nor was the opinion of anyone without a economic stake in the ski resort’s proposed expansion.
But “public interest” alone can’t be enough to sway an arm of the government charged with defending the environment, can it? Wouldn’t scientific studies maintained by ADEQ surely lay the question of safety to rest?
After receiving my FOIA request, I spoke once with Mr. Graf over the phone. He ex- plained to me that ADEQ does not have a big budget and usually follows suit with Cali- fornia’s Department of Environmental Qual- ity. California had legalized snowmaking for commercial uses — however a call to Califor- nia DEQ showed that it was made legal as a way for factory farms to manage raw swine feces that has been liquified.
In fact, the few states who had legalized snowmaking had done so solely as a way to deal with raw sewage in cold climates and no end use beyond dispersal was sought or granted.
Mr. Graf in an email correspondence said that other places made snowmaking legal for skiing, but ADEQ research documenta- tion reveals not one state in the Union actu- ally does this.
To be sure, I did my own research. There is only one other instance of skiing using artificial snow from reclaimed wastewater. A ski area in Vermont in the early 1980s tried to make snow with reclaimed water and was stopped by a lawsuit. While it is true Vermont allows snowmaking with reclaimed wastewater, it also uses zoning laws to con- trol where the substance will be dispersed, and will only allow for such activity as long as barriers to human contact are in place. Vermont’s regulations were also initiated for managing industrial pig farms.
>> CONTINUED ON PAGE 11 >>
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • JANUARY 2013 • 9