Argumentative Essay On Arizona Snowbowl

Since 1938, Arizona’s premier ski resort, Arizona Snowbowl, located at the base of the San Francisco Peaks just outside of Flagstaff, has been providing a different view of the Grand Canyon State (Granillo). Due to effluent (the outflow from water treatment plants), full-season skiing on manmade snow is a thing at Snowbowl (Pela). As of the 2012 ski season, the resort became the first ski resort in the world to use 100 percent sewage effluent to make artificial snow (macmillan. ever since Snowbowl implemented the use of artificial snow in 2012, Snowbowl has seen a steady average of 182,000 annual skiers, whereas before implementing artificial snow, skier visits could drop to as low as 2,000, as in its 2001-2002 season. However, Native tribes,

For decades, the underlying argument for Native Americans has been for the protection of the San Francisco Peaks, which they view as sacred and from which they retrieve ceremonial and cultural artifacts. Though the Snowbowl resort covers approximately one percent of the Peaks, many tribes feel its presence, development and use of reclaimed wastewater has had a negative impact on the environment, their religion and their culture (granillo). To some, Snowbowl is beacon of fun. It is the highest point in Arizona, the place where you can ski or snowboard while catching unimaginable views of Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon. To others, Snowbowl is a desecration of the natural world, of things that benefit our spirits and the environment.

According to their current petition against Snowbowl, the Navajos believe the snow-making is incompatible with the sacred character and ecology of the mountain and infringes on their ability to live as their faith calls them to. (finnerty). The conflict between the 13 Native American tribes and Snowbowl resists a clean resolution because courts seek compromises, by percentages, dollars or acres. But anything less than a full expression of belief is a diminished expression, in the eyes of the faithful. (finnerty) The decision in 2008 Court of Appeals case Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service made it clear that emotivism and authoritarianism, rather than the need for logic and rational justification, have been behind the Court’s claimed inability to respond when justice and fairness demand consideration of competing goods or principles. The court ruled that the use of recycled wastewater on sacred tribal land does not constitute a substantial burden on religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (court case), which showed that the majority’s opinion misstates the law under RFRA, fails to prevent intrusions on religion protected by RFRA, and misunderstands religious belief and practice. RFRA creates a protected interest in the exercise of religion. (Quimbee. In saying the Navajos were having a "subjective,