ESPN Snowboarding

Sabine

Protestors rally against snowmaking and the expansion of Snowbowl Resort in Arizona.

Yellow marks a spot where someone or something relieved themself. That's a given.

But can you be guaranteed the snow is clean just because it isn't yellow? This is a much more complex question being posed in a recent lawsuit filed by the Save The Peaks Coalition against the U.S. Forest Service.

The suit is the second this summer filed against the expansion plans of Arizona Snowbowl, which is under the domain of the Forrest Service. According to the Arizona Daily Sun, the suit contends that the Forrest Service "did not adequately weigh or analyze the human health or environmental risks of making snow with reclaimed wastewater, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws." The kicker is whether the artificial snow is "safe for human contact and possible ingestion." Wastewater, blended with fresh water, is used in many ski areas' snowmaking systems, but Snowbowl's would be the first to use reclaimed wastewater alone, according to an article in U.S. Water News Online.

Cy Wagoner

The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, where the expansion is taking place.

It's a new twist in an a nearly 30-year legal appeal against the expansion of the Snowbowl Ski area, originating from suits filed by local Hopi and Navajo tribes on grounds that the development encroaches on sacred areas in the San Francisco Peaks critical to their religious practices. Save the Peaks Coalition became the voice of the ongoing Hopi and Navajo conservation efforts, while the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce and the Flagstaff Ski Club have started a counter group, Reclaim the Peaks, as a platform for the pro-snowmaking stance. Snowbowl has yet to have their development plans stopped; past appeals went all the way to the Supreme Court before being rejected, with Snowbowl currently having the go-ahead for snowmaking and other development plans.

All that could change with the latest suit, which has drawn in non-Native American parties to the list of plaintiffs and cites environmental, not religious, reasons for an injunction against installation of snowmaking equipment and other development until the new case is settled.

AP

Should Snowbowl be allowed to make snow? The courts say yes.

With the increased revenue and riding time of an extended season produced by snowmaking, increased terrain access of new lifts and a halfpipe hanging in the balance, the continued legal wrangling has become a lighting rod of contention in the Flagstaff area, with snowboarders falling on both sides of the issue.

In the current state of the ski resort industry, where it seems expansion, golf courses, and real estate are the only ways to keep business going, the outcome of this heated case could set a precedent for other groups arguing against ski area development. Until then, the question of whether Arizona Skibowl's snow should be considered yellow is still up in the air.

Sort comments by: Most Recent | First Posted