Comments on: Sacred Lands Safe Once More

By: The Wild Hunt » Will Supremes Weigh in on Skiers vs. Sacred Land?

The Wild Hunt » Will Supremes Weigh in on Skiers vs. Sacred Land? — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:49:40 +0000

[...] the Vatican”. Since 2005 the coalition have endured ignorant insults from lawyers, courtroom wins, and courtroom losses. Now the case is being appealed before the Suprem Court for a final say. [...]

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:10:00 +0000

It is also worth noting that part of the reason Snowbowl (and the US Forestry Service) lost is because they didn’t even bother to do a study on the environmental impact of piping in and using that water. Furthermore, there is reclaimed water, and then there is reclaimed water. Pro-waste snow advocates have been wildly overstating the quality of the water that would be used.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:00:00 +0000

Steve,I’m not against using reclaimed water (I’m actually all for it), and I’m not against progress. But I am against the stupid use of either. There is/was no great need for Snowbowl’s expansion except from the standpoint of Snowbowl. Contrary to their repeatedly stated opinion, the resort wasn’t some grand fiscal boon to the surrounding area, it didn’t draw in loads of outside business, it simply wanted to create more snow so it could make more money.Let us not confuse “mountain recreation” with progress. This wasn’t a case of the “needs of many”, unless you mean the many who want to ski more often.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:24:00 +0000

It does not particularly bother me to be seen as being “incorrect by response” by those who subscribe to the current PC feeling that the San Francisco Peaks are truly sacred and revered. I acknowledge readily that they rightfully revered by the purist among the Hopi and Navaho People – at least those who pursue their traditional ways and live by traditional means. Just remember to cut some slack for those who worship Wal-Mart and all the other things that economic advancement has brought – European style housing, the automobile, employment, and the pursuit of the so called “American Dream”.Think carefully of those that take full advantage of this “western way of life”. Are they truly those who we are to protect by this judgment?Perhaps reclaimed water is not good enough for educated people to reuse, and don’t kid yourself about those who do all over the world – just do the simple research – or that all the people in this environmentally challenged world should consider being more responsible and proactive in preserving what limited resources are indeed left, then perhaps you will be more comfortable with the Arizona Snowbowl being forced into using whatever potable water source is available to them – after all, the objection is a legal one that will remain as to their use of so called questionable quality reclaimed water. The fact is that this water is more environmentally “safe and pure” than many of the private and municipal sources of water in this country. Perhaps the efforts of a very few have triumphed again, over the needs of many – not to mention the desires broader society. Pitifully, ignorance remains bliss.

By: Hecate

Hecate — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:25:00 +0000

Good for the 9th Circuit. Who wants to go skiing on frozen sewage anyhow? I’m betting this isn’t what the drafters of the legislation had in mind. Heh.

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:49:00 +0000

This is great news! Thanks for keeping us posted.

By: ColoradoCelt

ColoradoCelt — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:25:00 +0000

I am happy about this decision as well. development is one thing but making snow where there naturally is none will not create a sustainable *economic* project. That water should be going for agriculture to some Navajo and Hopi farmers who really need it.