Peaks issue highlights larger conflict

Here in Flagstaff, AZ, we are waiting on a decision from the 9th Circuit court to determine if our local ski resort, Snowbowl, will be allowed to expand their operation on the San Fransisco Peaks. Snowbowl leases the land from the Unites States Forest Service. They are under contract with the Forest Service, as are most ski resorts, and must have any changes to the resort approved by the Forest Service first. The issue at stake is that snowbowl wants to build infrastructure up the mountain so that they can make artificial snow when there isn't enough from the southwestern winter storms. They want to do this using reclaimed water from treated city sewage. They also want to expand the skiiable terrain and increase the size of the lifts as well as add new buildings to the resort. Basically, they want to expand snowbowl so that it can be a much larger ski resort, being able to operate all season long.

All of the tribes in Arizona consider the S.F. Peaks to be sacred, a piece of the land that carries with it their history and sense of self. The Peaks are a beautiful and dominant part of the physical and cultural landscape of Northern Arizona. For Natives, puting reclaimed water on the mountain is the equivalent of spaying sewage on a church. All of the Arizona tribes and several environmental groups sued the Coconino C0unty Forest Service in 2004 for rubber stamping Snowbowl's expansion proposal. In 2005 a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and Snowbowl. The tribes and environmental groups appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit court where the previous decision was overturned in favor of the tribes. In the response, the judge stated that using reclaimed water on the mountain would be in violation of the tribes' religious rights. The tribes were thrilled www.savethepeaks.org/STPCrulingnewsrelease.html As was expected, Snowbowl appealed. A few weeks ago, the arguments were rested and now we are waiting on a decision. It is expected that no matter what the decision is, it will be appealed again, and this time to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, indiginous people around the world are following this case, as it carries with it an important precedent.

From a larger perspective, we have a case of dominant wester ideology of economic growth versus a non-western ideology of respect for the land and the limits of development that come along with it. At what point do we draw a line in the sand and say no, capitalist ideas are not the most important ideas in the world? Increased economic activity is not the greatest concern of ours? That more importantly, we have to have a healthy environment, ecosystems intact, and respect for the land? When can we stop this force of colonization that continues its oppression of Native people to this day? When can we agree that capitalism and economic development are not the only measurement of our human condition?

This case is a good example of the dilemma we face today in the world as a whole. Do we continue to expand and develop in the name of economic development or do we come up with new ideas and new ways to organize our lives and understand quality of life? Increasingly, we are pushing ouselves as a civilization to the brink of collapse, and this would be a good case to tell ourselves that yes, we are taking it into consideration and yes, we will do so by taking control of and limiting unregulated capitalism in the name of higher principles.