Page 9 - the NOISE September 2014

CITY
Water Contract.” The word “renew,” however, caused some members of Friends of Flag- staff’s Future to pause, remembering that in Snowbowl’s initial request JR Murray specifi- cally requested a “new” agreement. A “new” agreement, they assumed, would require public input and perhaps even a council vote, however the end result for Snowbowl was an
“amended” contract. Mr. Hill commented that in Snowbowl’s case, there is no distinction here between a “new” or “amended” contract.
“The Policies requires the Utilities Division to give first priority to those users that have a valid Reclaimed Water Agreement,” said Mr. Hill. Because they are already in the system as a user, Snowbowl’s contract is simply “re- newed” with “substantial changes.”
Further, under the City’s newly adopted water policies, such a distinction between a new contract and an amended one no lon- ger matters anyway because Mr. Hill has the power to enter into a new contract or renew existing contracts without a council vote and without public participation.
Unless this issue is brought before coun- cil again, as a future agenda item, this water policy stands: “According to City Code and Water Policy, both of which are approved by the City Council, Reclaimed Water Agree- ments, new or renewal of existing users, state that the Utilities Director approves, ex- ecutes and enforces Reclaimed Water Agree- ments.” Mr. Hill did add that two other types of reclaimed wastewater agreements, such as those detailed as conversions and exten- sions, would still be approved by City Coun- cil “since those agreements commit the Utili- ties Division to expend public funds.”
Others, however, are quick to point out how public funds are still in play with Snow- bowl’s agreement. Protect the Peaks, a con- sortium of groups against the expansions at Snowbowl, said, “Currently, Flagstaff taxpay- ers are subsidizing Snowbowl’s reclaimed wastewater use for dirty snow. Arizona Snowbowl receives reclaimed wastewater for a fraction of the cost that city residents would, resulting in millions of dollars of Flag- staff tax payer funds subsidizing this unsus- tainable business, a business not even within city limits.”
Mr. Hill went on to state that renewing existing reclaimed wastewater user agree- ments is a “routine thing for the Utilities Division,” he said. “In fact, I have already ap- proved eight agreements this year, one of which was Northern Arizona University.”
Protect the Peaks and other concerned citizens argue that Snowbowl’s agreement is not on par with other users, given its fragile ecosystem as well as the ongoing controver- sy surrounding the cultural impacts of using reclaimed wastewater on a mountain held sacred to Native Americans.
“Over 13 Indigenous Nations have ex- pressed overwhelming opposition to the use of reclaimed wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks, citing the damage it will do to medicinal plants, animals, culture, and the sanctity of this sacred site. The Forest Service, City of Flagstaff, and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality have all colluded to push snowmaking through and to ignore any voice against such action,” wrote Protect the Peaks in a press release.
Two separate lawsuits challenged the For- est Service’s approval of Snowbowl’s use of reclaimed wastewater to make snow. The first of which charged the Forest Service with violations against the American In- dian Religious Freedom Act, citing the use of reclaimed wastewater is tantamount to desecration of a sacred site. This lawsuit lasted several years, stopping just short of a
hearing by the Supreme Court. The second lawsuit cited human health as a concern, as there were and still are many unanswered questions about the content of reclaimed wastewater.
“City officials acknowledge that reclaimed wastewater may contain antibiotic resistant bacteria and pharmaceuticals, but have no timeline for testing and mitigating these is- sues,” stated Protect the Peaks. “It is illegal to ingest reclaimed wastewater through the eyes, mouth, ears or skin due to its fecal coliform and chemical content. In spite of this, state agencies are turning a blind eye to these facts when considering matters with Snowbowl — thus the City and state agen- cies are therefore putting thousands of skiers and families at risk.”
Protect the Peaks was also quick to point out the Hopi Tribe currently has a lawsuit with the City of Flagstaff attempting to halt the sale of reclaimed wastewater for Snow- making, citing a “public nuisance.” The Hopi Tribe did not return requests for comments at time of publication, but did maintain its lawsuit is still ongoing. Protect the Peaks stated that the City should have waited until the lawsuit was resolved before such a long- term contract was approved.
Considering last winter was one of the dri- est on record, bringing neighboring Williams into level 4 water restrictions, Klee Benally, a volunteer with Protect the Peaks expressed outrage that such a contract would be ap- proved considering the water scarcity issues that have plagued the area. “This is incred- ibly offensive, unsustainable and ultimately irresponsible, considering the escalating water crisis we’re facing in the Southwest,” he said. Speaking to 12 News, Mr. Benally elaborated: “To commit water resources for 20 years for recreation to a business, a single for-profit business that operates outside of city limits ... we should be thinking about the water for Flagstaff,” he said.
Interviewing “avid skier” Curtis Shultz who was pursuing equipment at Ski Haus, Krystie Henderson of 12 News recorded the following comments, “Whoo skiing! ... I’ve been a very strong advocate for the snow- making, so we’re going to have extended snow seasons, more revenue for Flagstaff ...” While the success of some businesses like the Ski Haus are dependent on Snowbowl, there is little to no evidence that suggests Snowbowl provides significant or consistent revenue for Flagstaff as a whole, according to an independent economic analysis com- missioned by the Hopi Tribe. Protect the Peaks also pointed out that according to the Environmental Impact Statement detail- ing Snowbowl’s expansions, even the Forest Service said, “It is unrealistic to think that the Snowbowl would be a significant driver of tourism activity or the economy.”
In terms of the future of water security in Flagstaff, candidates for City Council have noted updates to water treatment facilities would be a possibility or the proposed pipe- line from Red Gap Ranch could be complet- ed, though both options are incredibly ex- pensive. “There needs to be meaningful pub- lic involvement in such serious decisions that not only impact the cultures of indigenous nations and the environment,” Mr. Benally told 12 News, “but we’re talking about water resources 20 years down the line.”
| Kyle Boggs eats bureaucratic loopholes for breakfast. kyle@undertheconcrete.org
STAFF
PROMISES
3.6 BILLION
GALLONS OF PUBLIC WASTEWATER TO SNOWBOWL WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING; CITIZENS ASK
“HUH?”
STORY BY KYLE BOGGS
In August, Flagstaff Utilities Director Brad Hill administratively approved a contro- versial amended 20-year contract with the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort, extending its ability to make snow from the City’s re- claimed wastewater through 2034. At 180 million gallons used by Snowbowl per ski season, the total commitment is 3.6 billion gallons over two decades, or at 2014’s cur- rent wastewater rate for “Outside City Off- Peak/Golf Course ,” a guarantee worth $4.25 million. In contrast, if a private citizen were to use the City’s reclaimed wastewater to such a degree, he or she would be charged $15.9 million, accordingly.
The approval came at the direct request of Snowbowl. In a letter addressed to Mr. Hill July 22, Snowbowl General Manager JR Mur- ray stated the resort’s reasoning for the re- quest. “We request a new 20-year agreement for the following reasons: 1) financial lenders are expecting more certainty with respect to the term and renewal of the current water agreement, 2) ski area owners expect to in- vest substantial amounts of additional capi- tal and they need the certainty of a longer agreement, 3) the new agreement provides benefits to the city of Flagstaff, 4) the city of Flagstaff has recently approved a new water policy,” wrote Mr. Murray in the letter.
Many groups including Friends of Flag- staff’s Future and Protect the Peaks ex- pressed concern that one single city official was granted the power to make a decision that impacts so many for so long, with no public input. “I find it reprehensible that we, the public who will be affected by this deci- sion, were not allowed to make comments; and that an open review process was not put in place,” said Mary Sojourner, a volunteer
PHOTO BY OMAR VICTOR
with Protect the Peaks.
The “new water policy” that enabled the
approval of Snowbowl’s request was the product of a city ordinance adopted in 2002, and reaffirmed by council in April 2014. “In 2002 City Council voted to amend City Code so that the Utilities Director administratively approves, executes and enforces Reclaimed Water Agreements,” said Mr. Hill. “Existing Agreements have timeframes that range from 5, 10 & 20 years, depending upon the needs of the end user.”
The second time City Council voted on this topic was earlier this year, where council vot- ed to adopt Principles of Sound Water Man- agement, recounted Mr. Hill. The wording of these new policies was approved by the Water Commission in 2012, and formerly adopted by council this year.
“City Code and adopted Water Policy is very straight forward on how utilities can ap- prove an existing reclaimed water customer agreement,” said Mr. Hill. “In Snowbowl’s case, since they were an existing user, the Utili- ties Division shall renew a Reclaimed Water Agreement if the existing user is in compli- ance with all applicable financial and legal requirements of city, state and federal laws. If an existing user is in compliance, then the Utilities Division renews the agreement.”
Members of Friends of Flagstaff’s Future and the Sierra Club met with Mr. Hill at the end of July to discuss the matter, and ex- pressed that they were concerned with this policy when it was adopted in April. Never- theless, in the newly adopted Principles of Sound Water Management Water Policies Plan, page 23 of section C7, clearly states “The Utilities Division shall renew a Reclaimed
NEWSFEATURE
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news • SEPTEMBER 2014 • 9