Page 7 - the NOISE August 2012

another state university, replied: “Probably be- cause there wasn’t any interest.”
What’s startling is a prime example of the effects of reclaimed wastewater is right in our own high-falutin’ backyards. Continental Country Club, home to 2300 residents on its courses, first joined with the City of Flagstaff to bring reclaimed wastewater to its courses, because potable water was limited, as the two entities aptly realized.
Nearly three decades after reclaimed waste- water was first introduced to Flagstaff’s eco- system, today what is observed is 60-70% of native trees within a two-hole radius are either stressed or dying. Individual homes bracketing the greens, and without access to reclaimed water, are remarkably healthier, with more cones, needles, and leafy branches. In many places, where new grows have been attempted by landscapers, young trees of five years in age refuse to thrive, also yellowing, with limited leaf cover, and showing signs of distress.
These are observable facts brought to light by reader, Barry Bertani, who wrote: “There is no question in my mind having property in the Continental area, and having played golf there, that the trees around the Continental golf course fairways are dying or now dead. My guess is that it is from the reclaimed wastewa- ter that is being used. It is just a guess as every fairway seems to be affected.” For Mr. Bertani’s full letter to this publication, turn to page 36.
As reported last month, a stand of juniper trees alongside Highway 89A between Cot- tonwood and Sedona, where the latter city disperses its reclaimed wastewater, also shows similar signs of distress, but in a very anoma- lous way. An inner ring of trees, all within the spray-line radius of a reclaimed wastewater pipeline, are yellow with no berries, their tops stripped of foliage; while those juniper on the outer ring, not within the contact of the spray, are healthy and green.
Phoned in reader, songwriter, and native Arizonan, Katie Lee: “We’ve been watching those trees turn, day after day, knowing exactly what’s going on.”
Detractors of this information may still argue for the benefits of reclaimed wastewater when used for snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks: “But the grass is green, so what? It’ll be the same at Snowbowl. We’ll have great skiing in the winter, and then it’ll be sky rides and Fris- bee golf on the greens in the summer.”
A reader could hypothesize, however, that grass is nature’s repair species. It grows any- where and everywhere it’s given enough water; as the EPA has proved in its use for the cleanup of SuperFund sites — the first order of business is raining grass seed down whenever there’s a call to restart natural processes that then can lead to larger, more complex plant growth.
One could also theorize that, as a form of pollution to a pristine environment, irrigating the San Francisco Peaks with reclaimed waste- water could result in a circumference of dead and dying trees in as little as 3-8 years. A Tradi- tional Cultural Property as defined by its stew- ards, the National Forest Service, the Peaks are home to an abundance of rare native species, and are sought the world over for this reason.
When the Forest Service gave the nod for using reclaimed wastewater as a substitute for natural snowmaking, it was clearly at odds with its own federal authority, as the agency systematically worked to undermine the legiti- mate concerns of thousands of Northern Ari- zona citizens. While it is true Coconino Forest Supervisor Nora Rasure, when she approved snowmaking with reclaimed wastewater at Snowbowl, could not have had access to Ms. Schuch’s study, she made no attempt to scien- tifically clarify the misgivings of 7,349 of 9,887
comments submitted by the public relating to this specific topic.
Ms. Rasure, like the City of Flagstaff, relied merely on the determination of ADEQ, which again, does not test for the elemental com- position of reclaimed wastewater, but only its pathogenic level. Even while in 2003, the Hopi Nation brought up specific concerns “that plants ... would be affected,” Ms. Rasure an- swers with a soil analysis of the existing area. There is no mention, in her 2005 Final Environ- mental Impact Study, of the effects reclaimed wastewater has on plant life within the San Francisco Peaks, or an environment similar.
Because the FEIS is non sequitur it could be classified as illegitimate, just as ADEQ’s deter- mination of safety is moot, because it has no verifiable documentation of the physical, longi- tudinal effects of reclaimed wastewater on any species, plant or otherwise. Simply put, ADEQ doesn’t know what it’s dealing with, nor does it have the capacity to find out. And as the City of Flagstaff also relies on ADEQ’s determination to make its contract with Snowbowl valid, the gravity of the situation is underlined.
A case could be argued that these publicly- funded entities — through negligence, igno- rance, and/or collusion — have disregarded their own missions, thereby becoming systemi- cally corrupt. Due to acquiesced civility, the people of Northern Arizona are en habeaus corpus, held captive by an oppressive authority which merits the accumulation of profit over and above independent scientific verification. Like a game of Jersey-style bait-and-switch, each entity refuses to be held accountable for what amonts to be a “reclaimed wastewater ex- periment” on the pristine San Francisco Peaks. To be blunt, these entities’ inaction is nothing shy of nefarious.
If the City of Flagstaff really had a vested in- terest in clean water technologies, for the same cost as the incentives it is currently giving the proposed high-falutin’ Sno-Park, it could be providing chemical sinks for every household in Flagstaff, retrofitting qualifying homes with shower and laundry greywater systems, and building neighborhood-wide rainwater catch- ment tanks to replace current potable water delivery methods.
It could also be providing city-wide alternate means for industrial wastewater catchment and effectual sublimation of chemical com- pounds — say, for instance onsite processing tanks for restaurant dishwasher water, or grey- water installs for apartment complexes.
The Environmental Protection Agency, for which ADEQ declares as being a state branch of, defines pollution as: “the presence in or intro- duction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.” According to the EPA, the National Pollution Prevention Policy, enacted by Congress in
1990, established a national policy that:
Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible.
Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible.
Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible.
Disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.
| Charles Seiverd practiced his mani- festo writing at the NAU Philosophy Dept. charles@thenoise.us
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news magazine • AUGUST 2012 • 7