Page 8 - the NOISE December 2012

NEwSFEATURE
reclaiming the peaks: what tO dO when a desperate idea just dOesn’t hOld water
stOry by charles seiverd
phOtO & rendering by jOhn running
than 75 inches for the season), the City of Flag- staff found itself with record city sales tax rev- enue, suggesting the winter economy was not based on skiing after all.
Just by allowing skiing, without the use of re- claimed wastewater for snowmaking, the USFS would satisfy its imperative for multi-use on public lands. So it seems striking it would stick with a plan — through two lawsuits and reams of public comment — that flies in the face of other constituents, namely naturalists, Native Americans, and scientists, who have voiced deep reservations about the substance’s safety, and who also claim right to the land.
For reclaimed wastewater is a new science, barely 40 years in real-world use, and its effects are still being weighed, both by the Environ- mental Protection Agency and the munici- palities who have gone to bat for it. Indeed, re- claimed wastewater is a progression from the days when a city’s raw sewage was funneled into rivers to be carried away or spritzed into a field a few miles from town, and certainly re- ductions in coliform and fecal bacteria can be applauded, but what has transpired in just the past two decades of its explosive growth has been nothing short of a well-aimed marketing ploy, with little empirical science to back it up.
Realizing the water deficit in many parts of the country due to population growth, golf course construction, and recreational activi- ties, reclaimed wastewater has been touted as the cure-all for water-use woes. Not only is it
“relatively safe” for human health, so says the literature, but it also appears incredibly “envi- ronmentally forward,” in that it uses technol- ogy to reuse a substance that would normally be considered simply “waste.” And there’s a two-for-one for municipalities with reclaimed wastewater: not only are they finding a “safe” way to disperse sewage, but they are also sell- ing the substance back to private entities who are wont to save on their water bill. Essentially, a municipality with reclaimed wastewater can end up selling a publicly held commodity — water — twice, and shore up city coffers, if only to justify the cost of a treatment plant in the first place.
So with bureaucratic seminars held through- out the nation, presentations on the benefits of
Pollution: the introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
Water: two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen; a colorless, transparent, odorless, tasteless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of all living organisms.
reclaimed WasteWater: sewage that is treated to remove solids and certain impurities; composed of hy- drogen, oxygen, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, sodium, chloride, boron, bicar- bonate, and other industrial & house- hold chemical compounds.
FlagstaFF: named after a Ponder- osa Pine flagpole made by a scouting party from Boston on July 4, 1876.
san Francisco Peaks: the moun- tainous remains of an eroded strato- volcano; an aquifer within the calde- ra supplies much of Flagstaff’s water while the mountain itself is located within the Coconino National Forest and is a popular site for outdoor rec- reation.
PHoto at rigHt: An artist’s render- ing of what may transpire within a season at Arizona Snowbowl
reclaimed wastewater abound, usually emceed by the very companies who build treatment plants, and a whole army of civic engineers are ready to defend its use, no matter the evidence presented in broad daylight.
The EPA plainly states, in its 2012 Guidelines for Water ReUse*: “Boron, a metalloid in deter- gents, can be present in domestic wastewater
... [and] can be toxic to some plants ... which can limit the types of plants that can be irri- gated with the water. Likewise, salts (measured as TDS) present in reclaimed water generally do not exceed thresholds of concern to human health but can affect crops ... [and] can cause leaf burn, reduce the permeability of claybear- ing soils, and affect soil structure. Salinity also can cause aesthetic concerns ... scaling, and corrosion.”
As observable science has shown in the Ponderosa Pine trees at Flagstaff ’s Continen- tal Country Club (irrigated for 36 years) and the Juniper Stand south of Sedona (irrigated for 10+ years), and experimental science has proven with laboratory tests at Colorado State University (Xiang, 2005*) and Arizona State University (Schuch, 2005*), reclaimed wastewater poses serious effects to the health of the environment. And the San Francisco Peaks, deemed a “sensitive ecosystem” by both the USFS and the City of Flagstaff, is about to get the stuff full throttle, to the tune of 1.5 mil- lion gallons of reclaimed wastewater per day
— more than what a Southwestern golf course would irrigate an acre with in one year.
Regulators at ADEQ point to the EPA’s same report, and one author, Don Vandertulip, who aligns reclaimed wastewater with winter recre- ation, and cites Sugarloaf Mountain as a prime example of a ski resort that uses the substance. However, Google Earth research and a call to the resort’s communication director, Ethan Austin, reveal that while the ski resort does make snow, it uses water from holding ponds that collect the 4-6” of precipitation the Town- ship of Carrabassett Valley, Maine receives each year. The Township, not the ski resort within its boundaries, utilizes snowmaking to dispose of its reclaimed wastewater in giant piles a few miles away during winter months.
Herein lies the disparity of perception when
Opposition to reclaimed wastewater as arti- ficial snow on the ski area at the San Fran- cisco Peaks is more than a petty complaint with religious undertones, it is the life and blood of a moral creed, the fears of the substance’s use af- firmed by recent hard science. These scientific studies, completed by qualified researchers in doctrines and schools accredited by state and federal governments, are as yet undisputed by the entities that claim authority over both the substance and the environment in which it will be used.
On the merits, the burden of proof now lies with the Arizona Department of Environ- mental Quality, the City of Flagstaff, and the United States Forest Service to show its safe- ty, even while these entities’ current research on file contains data showing the irreversible and detrimental effects of the substance on the environment. Common wisdom would prevail that if a substance looks like pollution, acts like pollution, and is composed of pollu- tion, that use of the substance would cease immediately, until proper handling procedures are put into place.
Yet as of print date, these publicly-funded entities continue to what amounts to acknowl- edged pollution of a habitat that, per federal law and state mission statement, is both pro- tected and publicly-held.
Already, this substance known as “reclaimed wastewater” has been shown many times al- ready to cause harmful effects on the growth of the Ponderosa Pine, the San Francisco Ground- sel, bluegrasses, roses, holly, the Holly Oak, the Leyland Cypress, the Rocky Mountain Juniper, the Southern Magnolia, the Arizona Sycamore, the Willow, and a multitude of fruit trees, in- cluding apple, pear, and plum; among others. A pamphlet published by Texas A&M Univer- sity* adamantly states to discontinue irrigation of the substance on areas containing stands of
“salinity intolerant” plant species, and has iden- tified those species since 2004.
Yet with blatant disregard, or a pocketful of economic beliefs and hopes, these three enti- ties cast a deaf ear to objections both logical and enumerative, and neglect their own au- thority, ignoring legitimate calls to action.
By charter, it must be understood that eco- nomic concerns are not the sole and guiding
principle governing these entities — rather that is the purview of laissez faire capitalism, whose bottom line is “yielding the greatest profit for stakeholders,” and which inherently enjoys a government not immersed in its work- ings. Instead, each of these publicly-funded entities are directed to balance scientific and natural concerns for the “good of the people.”
For instance, the mission statement of ADEQ is to formulate “policies, plans, and programs to protect the environment of the state.” The mission statement of the USFS is “Caring for the Land and Serving the People.” The mission statement of the City of Flagstaff is “to enhance the quality of life of its citizens while protecting the values of our community.”
Yet, these missions are disregarded for the benefit of one private out-of-town entity, driv- en by profit, and willing to push an ill-proven concept onto land it doesn’t even own. Ari- zona Snowbowl, a limited liability company, whose offices are not based in Flagstaff, but in Fountain Hills, and whose majority owners live out-of-state, pays no city sales tax, no county property tax, and already enjoys a sizable dis- count on premium land that is publicly-held.
The annual $93,000 it pays to the USFS for 777 acres of “prime real estate” is a penance, when compared to what it really costs any oth- er business to do business in Northern Arizona. At a $1 a square foot, Snowbowl’s lease would amount to $33 million a year if it were bound by commercial rates; downtown Flagstaff, an- other area considered “prime real estate,” cur- rently has commercial rates listed at $20 per square foot — based on that price, Snowbowl leases a half-billion-dollar view for tenths of pennies on the dollar.
Even with this sizable economic advantage, Arizona Snowbowl has suckered regulators over these 12 years into believing the ski sea- son will be lost and it will be forced to file for bankruptcy if artificial snowmaking with re- claimed wastewater is not approved. In a letter to ADEQ* in 2000, Snowbowl General Manager JR Murray lamented: “The ski seasons have been unpredictable and shortened resulting in large losses within the communities and the ski areas themselves.” Yet, in the years 2002-2004, when the ski area was open a limited number of days due to decreased natural snowfall (less
8 • DECEMBER 2012 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
>> CONTINUED ON P. 10