Each of the links at the ends of the snowflake "spokes" are sections of a paper which examines snowmaking in the context of Flagstaff, Arizona. If you explore the links clockwise, starting at the top of the flake, you will see the paper in its original, linear format. If you continue to scroll down from here, you can view the entire paper. You may find that some of these sections are difficult to read given that they are intended for an audience which is familiar with the jargon and basic concepts of social science. I have included an appendix of anthropological concepts as a means to facilitate a general audience’s understanding of this paper. If, however, you have any questions then feel free to pass them on to mev5@dana.ucc.nau.edu I will get back to you in a timely fashion and would love to discuss any problems you may have.

The overall goal of this paper is to explore Flagstaff’s Future in the context of snowmaking. The best tool available for understanding the future is a creative, holistic, diachronic perspective, one which includes not only an understanding of the present and past social and physical contexts, but which also has the ability to project this understanding, in a realistic manner, into the future. This paper will accomplish exactly that by first presenting a domain analysis of this year’s Daily Sun articles, editorials, and posted web comments on the topic of snowmaking. This analysis will begin with a description of the methods used, which will lead into a look at the structure of the Daily Sun web text and thoughts on the role of bias. I will then discuss the various domains before offering a series of future’s postulates which will form the basis of several futures scenarios.

It is important that I describe the methods and procedures of the domain analysis, so that other social scientists (or interested people like yourself) can check my work and test the validity of my findings. We must keep in mind that in many areas of social science, the primary "instrument" of data collection and analysis is a human being. Since human beings are biased in a variety of ways, since they have takes on the universe which are consequences of their upbringing, their society, their language, their bodies, their personal experiences, their cultures, it is often the case that the results of similar ethnographic investigations (like this one) will vary in a variety of ways. This does not mean that works such as this one are fiction; in fact, the major categories (the domains) I will describe would be noticed by most any student of social science. However, no two students would present the domains in the same way, they would each have unique writing styles and would each perceive the significance of the domains according to their own "takes".

The purpose of this literary reality is not to persuade you into my own "take", but rather to encourage you to think critically about water issues and snowmaking in the context of Flagstaff’s future. I encourage you to explore the links of this paper’s sections, to examine each of the areas of this website and to post comments on any insights you might have into our future. Hopefully, a variety of people will do the same and eventually we can establish a productive, electronic dialogue here that will have positive consequences in the other world. Have fun.

The first step in any research project is to decide what you are going to examine; I had a few options. Since I was interested in understanding the social construction of snowmaking, the ways in which snowmaking means to the people of Flagstaff, I had originally intended to explore the E-mails and letters that the Forest Service received during their 45 day comment period on the Arizona Snowbowl expansion proposal (which ended November 15th). Currently, this data is being analyzed by social scientists contracted by the Forest Service: I could not get access to it in time for the composition of this web site.

The focus of this analysis on the content of the Daily Sun is more advantageous for the following reasons...

Research was performed using printed copies of text. I began by accessing the Daily Sun web site, I selected the "search story archives" link, and performed a search for "snowmaking" for the year 2002. This produced a listing of "hits" which were either Newspaper articles, editorials, or comments that were posted by registered users and linked to articles/editorials. I printed all of these, along with the associated "search results" index, and sorted them in chronological order (the comments are linked onto the same page as the parent article or editorial which spawned them). I then went through and checked the print outs against the search index to ensure I had printed all of the material and not missed anything. Any duplicate articles were removed as they were encountered, unless they actually appeared on separate days in the Daily Sun (which was the case in one event). I then carefully read through all of the text two times. At every point in the process, I kept a running listing of notes, comments, and ideas; at first these had more to do with how I should code (reduce and organize) the data and toward the end they were aligned more toward patterns in the data. I decided that it would be best to examine each of the three types of data (article/editorial/comment) separately (so I could later discuss differences in them), and that I was interested in recording the following information...

A sample data reduction entry took the following form (in the case of a comment the log-in name was also recorded)...

For example...

The most significant methodological concern of this project involves the process of reducing the actual text. While there can be no adequate description of this process here, suffice to say that I tried to capture the essence of each textual item and shield it from my own bias by using as much of the actual text as possible. Another concern would be the labeling of text as "Pro", "Con", or "neither". In many cases the judgment was easy -the author blatantly stated the orientation. In other cases the orientation was implied, as with News articles or editorials which depict snowmaking (or reclaimed water) in positioned ways. When I could not decide upon the alignment of the text, I labeled it "neither"; only in a few cases was this type of judgment necessary given the often passionate nature of the comments and editorials and the bias of the news articles in favor of snowmaking.

Before I began data reduction I separated each group of text by month and removed any blank pages and non-relevant articles (there were two which did not even mention snowmaking). I proceeded month by month, reducing articles, then editorials, then the comments. Basic statistics on the number of "pro", "con", and "neutral" postings in each month were recorded. A total of 51 news articles, 67 editorials, and 159 posted comments were examined (277 items). The earliest article or editorial was first published on 01/09/02; the latest article was from 11/20/02. Once I had reduced all of the data I recorded excerpts from each data reduction synopsis onto note cards, using a separate card for each idea (thus, when multiple ideas appeared in one article there were multiple note cards filled out). I then read through the cards, mixed them up, and sorted them into like piles. At that point, I already had a good idea of what the domains might be given the patterns and trends in my notebook: I had been making notes the entire time and by the end of the process you begin to notice trends and commonalities. The various piles of "like thoughts/ideas" were then examined, and a new set of note cards were made, each one containing a summary statement representative of one pile. These cards were then examined, placed in new piles of "like thoughts" as before, and the final domains were taken from these groupings.

It is important to keep in mind that the domains described in this paper are not just insights into the structure of the Daily Sun, they represent the concerns and perceptions of Flagstaff in general. I have already argued that there is a link between the paper’s content and real world, local perceptions; my own experience with Water Commission meetings, local activist events (Such as the "Save The Peaks" event at Buffalo Park"), local interviews, and other exploratory-research has shown this to be true.

A surprising degree of biased reporting exists within the Daily Sun on the topic of snowmaking. Not only does the newspaper blatantly make its position clear in editorials such as "Artificial snowmaking deserves closer look" (from 01/09/02) and "Tribal Sovereignty over Peaks a stretch" (from 02/22/02), it supports snowmaking in a variety of other, more subtle ways. If the Daily Sun were an unbiased paper, we should expect roughly the same coverage of the various local opinions "for" or "against" snowmaking, or at least we should be presented with articles which favor no "side" and simply present the facts. There is in fact a definite imbalance in the content of the newspaper in favor of articles and editorials which portray snowmaking as a positive future for Flagstaff. For every month except February this is the case with the posted web page comments as well (for all months that have comments). If we factor out the 108 comments posted in reaction to the ethnocentric and degrading editorial "Tribal Sovereignty over Peaks a stretch" (written by Daily Sun editor Randy Wilson), then even February’s comments are more in favor of snowmaking than against it. Whether or not this represents a trend in public opinion can not be known, especially in light of the fact that the daily sun edits out some of the posted comments, as evidenced by the following text...

Most of the domains I found within the data can be broken down into "sides" which are in favor of or which resist the idea of snowmaking on the Peaks. To various degrees, the data displays a running dialogue between these sides (and within them). This conversation is most active in the posted web comments, where in many cases the authors will post several times, and less so in the editorials (which had to be selected, edited, and printed). While people can post comments and write letters to the editor in regard to news stories, the stories are, for the most part, a one sided conversation, a lecture in some sense from the Daily Sun to its readers. The average person flipping through the paper, I will assume, is not doing so with the intent of responding and writing comments for public inspection; they are leisurely reading the news. Given my prior experience with this process, I will also assume that the various titles of the news stories and editorials are more apt to be read than the content below them. Thus, the titles of articles and editorials in the Daily Sun play just as much a role in the semantic network of "snowmaking" as the content of the text below them (the web comments have no titles). Consider the following listing of article and editorial titles from the month of February (which appeared in the data set due to a focus on or mentioning of snowmaking)...

Aside from "Snowmaking is bad idea", there is not a great deal of text which associates negative meanings with snowmaking. In fact, we can see that snowmaking is associated with necessity, it is portrayed as gathering momentum and that Native American opposition to snowmaking is "a stretch". The power of these semantic strategies to give meaning to snowmaking is significant if we consider that the way in which a concept means is dependent not only upon common agreement (cultural definition), but also upon the associations which memory "piles onto" those cultural definitions. While I don’t argue that we are slaves to these associations, it is particularly when we don’t associate a critical gaze to these semantic links that they have the most potential influential power. When the average reader delves into the text under the titles and does not question the validity of the information contained within or the orientation of the article or editorial then their take on the universe, or in this case on snowmaking, is subject to change. Renfro and Morrison argue that...

I would take this a bit further and argue that it is most difficult to screen-away the semantic influences of our environment, particularly when we expose ourselves to its content without the benefit of a critical, holistic, deconstructionist mindset. The ways in which the people behind the text of the Daily Sun (not only the staff but also the people who send editorials and E-postings) assault us with their "take" on snowmaking, both for or against the practice, can be considered a type of semantic warfare.

While I will not go as far as to argue that Flagstaff has become a victim of the Daily Sun, I will argue that there is a good chance the content and orientation of the paper has played a role in the current local meaning of snowmaking, and that this meaning shift is, to some degree, subtle and covert. Even when the other side is portrayed and given a voice in the newspaper, it more often than not exists as a hollow version of itself, a caricature left unexplored...

Another semantic-warfare-related pattern I noticed while reading through the data was that news articles tended to support the arguments of the editorials and comments in favor of snowmaking. Looking at the month of January for example, the news headlines read "Snowbowl Season grinds to a halt" (01/09/02), "Ski resorts weather storm of Sept. 11th and a mild fall" (01/18/02). The editorial titles read "Artificial Snowmaking deserves closer look" (01/09/02) and "Support Snowmaking" (01/27/02). The first news story argues that "There are too many hotels, restaurants, and retail businesses that depend on Snowbowl for a good winter ...snowmaking would provide much-needed stability to the ski-areas operations..." (01/09/02), the editorial from the same day continues the theme of stability, arguing that "...the region needs a winter draw that will get Phoenicians up Interstate 17 in the same numbers as in summer..." (01/09/02). In addition, the editorial addresses the dangers of overdevelopment and rising housing costs associated with other ski towns like Aspen or Vail and concludes, "...None of that, however, appears to be at risk were snow to be made at the Snowbowl..." (01/09/02). We can wonder how the editor came to this conclusion (aside from his status as a proponent of snowmaking), but one thing is clear: the literary reality created by the 01/09 news article continued into the 01/09 editorial. In fact, the need for snowmaking is actively constructed by quite a few news articles which focus on the closing of winter businesses like Mountain Sports [see "Ski shop makes its last run" (02/01/02)], the looming danger of poor winters [see "As the season approaches, the West looks for snow" (10/16/02)], and the interconnectedness of Flagstaff’s tourist industry with the health of Flagstaff’s economy [made clear by the following text within "Panel backs water sale" (02/22/02)...]

As this excerpt demonstrates, it is not uncommon for news articles in the Daily Sun to quote local experts as a means to support the literary realities of the surrounding text. Through the device of quotation, the newspaper seems as if it were simply reporting facts, it seems more like a conversation between the reader and the expert and less like a strategic attempt to persuade.

But before we pass judgment on the Daily Sun editorial staff, we should keep in mind that negative semantic association is a basic and common means to construct an argument in our culture (and that people who oppose snowmaking use the same tactics). Often times it is our first reaction to attack "the other", to associate "them" with negativity instead of composing a rational argument which logically explains our side of the issue. We need only to turn to certain high-profile court cases or recent American (or specifically, Arizonan) political campaigns to see this process in action. One of the more interesting "semantic bouts" of association in the Daily Sun text dealt with variations on the term reclaimed water. Consider the following phrases which were used as synonyms for reclaimed water throughout the articles, editorials, and web postings: recycled water, reclaimed wastewater, grade A+ effluent, recycled wastewater, human waste-water, treated water, clean water, waste water, high quality water, recharged wastewater, reuse of wastewater, treated sewage water, high quality treated wastewater, treated effluent, Flagstaff effluent, treated reclaimed water, effluent, just plain water, water, reclaimed human waste. The particular variant-terms for reclaimed water used in articles, editorials, and web comments seemed to be, to some degree, strategic choices [1]. Consider the following...

In order to fully understand the semantic power of the reclaimed water synonyms, it is necessary to consider the sympathetically contagious nature of the concept (see Rozin and Nemeroff 1990). It is less important to see the synonyms above as clever composition (which to some degree they are), and more important to understand the cultural realities that give them meaning, both for the author and for the reader.

The last section has already provided us with some insight into the perceived contagious potential of reclaimed water. For some authors, reclaimed water is essentially as pure as the water we drink (if not more so); for others, it is the equivalent of used toilet water or even a carrier of dangerous chemicals, as the following web posting argues...

Other people are concerned that harmful diseases may lurk in reclaimed water...

It is possible to determine the chemical content of reclaimed water, and these types of concerns could be tested empirically. If the water were shown to be as pure, or more pure, than the snow falling naturally on the Peaks, then we might be inclined to argue that people who see reclaimed-water-snowmaking as "peeing on the Peaks" [2] are in error. However, the point of this section is that there are some types of contamination which can not be detected by chemical analysis but which are nonetheless of great significance to the issue of snowmaking. These varieties of contamination are culturally constructed, they exit and are significant because people believe that they are, or rather, because these types of contagion are considered to be natural processes of the universe [3]. Just as people come to think of their moral values and core political ideologies as somewhat basic to human nature, if not to reality itself (humans or no humans), the average person’s familiarity with the levels of potential contagion in her or his environment seems rational and necessary from their own point of view.

The most basic type contagion that Americans concern themselves with is based in a modern understanding of germs and chemical contamination, a system which stems from a complex, Western cultural history of medicalization [4]. Since we are constantly aware of the need to avoid the blood and bodily fluids of strange people, to wash our produce and to avoid the sick (particularly in classroom settings), it is not hard to see the ways in which biological/chemical contagion-concerns play a role in our lives; the need to avoid biological/chemical contamination seems quite logical and justified. But in fact, many of our seemingly rational American contagion concerns are more based in a type of magical system than in a scientific one [5]. Consider the following concerns which speak to the nature of these sympathetically magical constructions...

In each of these examples, the following central idea of contagion is outlined: "essences" are being transferred from sources to recipients through some form of medium, essences which are in most cases invisible and which can linger for extended periods of time, if not indefinitely (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990: 206). These essences are perceived to have real world influences, many of which are negative. In summary, sympathetic contagion is not unlike a childhood game of cooties, "contagion tag", in which players avoid the essences of others [9]; this type of play may well prepare us to deal with other varieties of contagion in the real world, both of physical and cultural natures.

It is apparent that one significant aspect of the current conflict between people who support and resist snowmaking is a local, varying perspective on the contagious potential of reclaimed water. The following quotation sums up the position of those who do not have a problem with snowmaking...

Of course, when that author was asking for "scientific backing", he was referring to the physical sciences, not social science. While I do not make a case for or against snowmaking in this paper, I certainly offer this section as scientific backing for the argument that snowmaking is a form of desecration in that people are enculturated to believe that negative essences are potentially transmitted by reclaimed water [10]. In a recent debate with a devout positivist friend of mine, I tried to describe the ways in which contagion is perceived to exist (as a creation of culture) in the context of snowmaking. His response was simple, "If the water is scientifically determined to be chemically pure and free of germs then it is not contamination, and cultural constructions to the contrary are wrong" [11]. To put this into perspective for him, I asked him if he thought that most local Churches would be willing to use reclaimed water in baptismal fonts (see "Have respect for Peaks", 10/26/02 editorial). He did not think that they would, and I agree. Consider the following exchange in the Daily Sun web comments...

These perspectives are typical of the types of arguments I have encountered over the meanings of snowmaking. While some people who support snowmaking do not believe that reclaimed water is anything but pure water, in this case we see that each author is describing a "take" on something in the water. For author 1, this something is infused with the negative essences of Flagstaff’s toilets and the profanity of human excrement. Author 2 does not deny that a type of essence is carried by the water; it too derives from the context of waste but is rather seen as a healthy, imperceptible fertilizer. One significant aspect of author one’s text is his identification with Native America and his labeling of Flagstaff as the Anglo-Christian other. Author one is drawing upon a cultural history of conflict between "the white man" and "native americans" as a means to understand snowmaking; the conflict is seen as another chapter in an ongoing battle, and takes its meaning from the metaphors of the larger history. That the waste water comes from "the white other" is thus the equivalent of spreading "Angloness" onto Native American space, the reclaimed-water snow thus contains an infectious essence of cultural dominance that would not show up in any modern, physical analysis of the melt water [12]. Author two can not understand this perception, since he either rejects the significance of the cultural history between "whites" and "natives", or he is not aware of its semantic power or significance. Essentially, these authors are not arguing about the same thing, but rather are locked within their own cultural, etic prisons; there is no common unit of contagion that we can use to bring these sides into alignment. What is contagiously profane to one side is nurturing and healthy to the other. A differing cultural "take" on the nature of sacred space is also in conflict here and throughout the dialogue between "pro" and "con" in the context of snowmaking which the next section describes.

The last section provides us with a typical glimpse into differing cultural perceptions of what exactly is sacred in the snowmaking debate. There are two aspects of this conflict of spatial misunderstanding which we will discuss here: the American perception of "sacred" and the Christian perception of "sacred space". Each of these are, to various degrees, in conflict with culturally constructed, Native American perceptions of sacred space [13]. But before I address these cultural realities, consider the following dialogue...

There are several, powerfully ethnocentric opinions expressed in Randy Wilson’s text which are relevant to the general atmosphere of hostile misunderstanding surrounding snowmaking. In regard to the Peaks as Native sacred space, Wilson argues that since they are not under the direct control of the Navajo people, they can not be sacred. Furthermore, Wilson suggests that only the physical spaces within the current boundaries of the reservation could possibly be sacred. Thus, only the spaces allotted by the American Government are viable sacred spaces, the rest has been conquered, taken from the Navajo people, and transformed forever into American space! [14] Furthermore, Wilson mentions that "some Native Americans" see the Peaks as sacred space - the number is in fact at least 13 tribes! [15] Why would the fact that the Peaks are not on the Navajo reservation have anything to do with the level of sacredness the mountains hold for other Native Americans? From Wilson’s perspective the answer would be this: Native Americans are essentially "all the same" to him. This 19th century take on Native Americans as homogeneous and "equally inferior" is a common feature of the current dialogue on snowmaking as sacred space violation. As counter arguments to Native objections to snowmaking, we can find texts such as the following...

Local examples such as this homogenize native peoples and portray them as more capitalistic, more destructive (and thus more ridiculous) than other groups in American culture. Of course, this is not the case, but it seems to be a common local opinion [16]. Not only are Native Americans being portrayed as the stereotypical "white man", the group constructing this portrayal see themselves as the protectors of the environment. Thus, they embrace the "Indian as in touch with nature" stereotype, one usually applied to Native Americans. So while native peoples are seen as greedy and selfish, Flagstaff’s support-of-snowmaking middle class are portrayed as wanting to protect the peaks from fire dangers, water the forest, hydrate animals living on the peaks, fertilize indigenous plant life, and restore the water table [17]. The argument from the side supporting snowmaking is that they are more spiritual than the money-hungry Indian other. Actually, the white middle class population in support of snowmaking is no more or less spiritual than anyone else, they just have a different perception of what is sacred, a perception captured by the following quotations...

This take on sacredness involves the family enjoying nature and having fun together, it is a modern sense of the sacred disconnected from religion and tradition and focused on what people like to do. That thousands of people gather to the Peaks and enjoy themselves in a perceived type of "community" is sacred to these authors, sacred in that skiing and being in "the great outdoors" is important to them [18]. The sharp distinction in American culture between the Christian sacred and the cultural profane [19] is not a strong reality within local Native American cultures. In fact, as the following quotations show, such a dichotomous split between "culture" and "religion" makes little sense to local "first cultures" [20]...

Since the one most important aspect of Christian religion (generally speaking) is whether or not you believe in Jesus, since people can believe anywhere and practice Christianity in any setting, since being a Christian involves doing God’s work in all settings, from a Christian perspective, sacred space is where you make it. Any space can be temporarily or permanently transformed into sacred Christian space through gathering together to sing, play group sports, or to pray (for example). As in the case of prayerwalking [21], certain types of Christians can even go out into their communities on spiritual adventures and take back "evil" or "daemonic/satanic" spatial areas through prayer. Traditional Native American perceptions of sacred space are in opposition to these realities. They involve the basic idea that the sacred is permanently mapped onto the Earth, that it essentially always was but that destructive action can remove or suppress its sacred essence. One type of destructive action would be the construction of structures or features on the sacred space, particularly those of a modern, destructive, or large scale character (such as strip mines or ski slopes). Thus, when Daily Sun editor Randy Wilson pointed to the lack of structures on the mountains as an indication that they were not in fact sacred, he was simply demonstrating his own culturally biased perception. In fact, the abundance of structures would speak to a lack of sacredness. That shrines, ruins, or petroglyphs may currently exist on the Peaks (I am sure some do, see 03/04/02 posted web comment) would not negate my argument, since these features are, if nothing else, expressions of an era long before the current conflict of cultural assimilation and oppression. In a very real sense, pipes and snowmaking equipment carry the sympathetic essences of modern America, essences which can certainly erode away Native sacredness. Even if we forget for the moment the potential cultural contagion of reclaimed water, the fact that Snowbowl would need new pipes and new constructions to complete its expansion plan would itself be a desecration of sacredness. In combination with the negative potential meanings reclaimed water has for both native, and non-native peoples, the arguments against snowmaking can at least be understood as logical concerns. Consider the following expressions of sacred space...

Just as local peoples are trying to compare apples to orangutans when they discuss differing perceptions of contagion, we can see that local, differing, culturally constructed ideas of what sacred space means is contributing to one aspect of the overall misunderstanding between people in Flagstaff who want snowmaking to proceed and the native peoples who want to block it.

To close this section and introduce the next domain, I offer the following bit of text...

The next two domains are not the result of cultural misunderstandings, they are not due to a history of Western conflict (directly), but rather represent differing understandings of the role and impact of Snowbowl and of the environment.

Throughout the Daily Sun text from this year there exists a continuum of perceptions of the economic role of Snowbowl. At the extreme points of the continuum we find arguments which portray Snowbowl (and thus reclaimed water snowmaking) as either absolutely vital to the economy of Flagstaff, or as having nothing to do with the state of Flagstaff’s economy. Generally speaking, those who have a stake in the tourism industry (such as Ash Patel, the president of a local organization of innkeepers or the Daily Sun, who sells local advertising) argue for the vital role that tourism, and hence Snowbowl, plays in Flagstaff’s economic performance. Since I am not an economist and know little about business in general, I have no real feel for the effect a good ski season has on Flagstaff’s economy. It seems logical that there is some connection, but consider the following alternative perspectives...

Thus, the problem might not be that Flagstaff isn’t getting enough regular snowfall, it may be that the city is overly dependant upon tourism. If this is the case, then apparently the connection between snow and economy is not negligible [22]. Do we find ourselves in the unfavorable position, as the author above argues, of "poverty with a view?". In any case, to argue for snow as the single most important factor in a successful winter economy seems overly reductive. The success of local businesses, even those directly tied-in to tourism dollars, are dependant upon good customer services, the price and type of services or products offered, and so on. Using the example of the closure of Mountain Sports to illustrate this, we find two distinct opinions...

I have never understood the mechanics of "trickle down" economic strategies; if businesses like ski resorts and hotels will do well with a bit of snow there is no guarantee that we will all share in the wealth (in fact, I don’t see how we could). We may find ourselves with an abundance of steady, low paying jobs instead. Whether or not the economic benefits of snowmaking outweigh the potential social concerns is not easily determined, but I think the notion of "Snowbowl as economic hero", which appears throughout the local media, is unjustified. Snowbowl is simply trying to make money and snowmaking may help it to do just that.

This brings me to the central reality of snowmaking in Flagstaff, the major obstacle to efforts which seek to prevent the practice. It is a fact that Flagstaff treats all of the water that we use, whether or not all of it gets purchased. What does not get sold is released back into the natural water system, the Rio De Flag for example, and the city looses money on it. During warmer months, the city sells a large percentage of reclaimed water to golf courses for irrigation (79%); this water is not sold during the colder months [see Ron Doba’s power point notes, this website, for exact information]. Thus, if Snowbowl wants to buy the water at this time, the city of Flagstaff is all too happy to sell it. In fact, the City Council would be seen as negligent by the community if they did not sell as much reclaimed water as possible to Snowbowl or anyone else for that mater, particularly in the current economic climate (in any event, the Council has already decided to sell it). Furthermore, since Snowbowl will have to construct new pipe lines extending from approximately the intersection of Cedar and Highway 180, the city will be able to sell reclaimed water to new customers along the new route, thus extending services with a minimum of expenditure on infrastructure (since it is my lay understanding that Snowbowl, not Flagstaff, will pay for the majority of the new line up the Mountain).

The majority of the text within the Daily Sun data which supports snowmaking portrays the current trend in low snowfall as an illness which Flagstaff is currently suffering from. As if the natural cycles of Mother Nature were being medicalized in the tradition of Western medicine and treated as a medical problem [23], the current drought is seen as an illness which water treatment can cure.

The following expressions were used to describe this "consistent outcome" within the data: guaranteed ski season, steady winter season, predictable ski season, artificially extended season, consistent winter season, consistent and dependable ski season, assured winter sport facility.

Just as Western medicine is based on an unholistic, unicausal, paradigm, the idea that snowmaking will significantly jumpstart Flagstaff’s winter economy is not factoring in the larger picture of variables. These would include the seemingly infinite implications of the current "economic slowdown" and the political climate of post-9/11 America. Are people traveling, spending, and willing to ski as much as they were five years ago? Instead of keeping our focus on finding ways to sustain the current economic system, Flagstaff should broaden its horizons and consider altering the system itself. I am not suggesting that we drop the tourism industry, but why not try to add other types of industries that pay more? For some people, having a job at Snowbowl or a local hotel while attending NAU or Coconino is not a bad arrangement, but trying to rely on these types of jobs for a career is something else entirely.

The idea that nature, Mother Nature, or other spiritual forces are in need of our control is not a significant aspect of the anti-snowmaking argument. Consider the following...

These authors speak to an illness as well, a sickness of the natural world caused by a modern destruction of the environment. Snowmaking from this point of view is not a cure, but a cause of the systemic decay of nature [24]. Another idea which these authors propose is that snowmaking will have real world consequences brought about by spiritual forces. The phrase "playing God" evokes the sense that snowmaking is crossing a boundary meant to separate humans from the divine, the same boundary stonemasons in Christian myth ignored before the fall of Babel, or living travelers into Hades encounter in Greek myth as they touch the water from the river Styx. Given the perceived spiritual power that the Peaks contain, and the passion I have encountered in text and talk for the beings that live there, I wonder to what degree people are staying out of the debate over snowmaking because they know that in the end the spiritual powers will win. As one web posting explains,

Whether or not Snowbowl should be allowed to use reclaimed water for snowmaking I leave up to you. Since the Water Commission and the City Council have already decided to sell reclaimed water to Snowbowl, all that remains in the way of snowmaking (potential legal challenges aside) is a decision from the Forest Service (currently they are evaluating the letters and E-mail they have received in response to their 45 day comment period), and from Coconino County (who would have to provide special use permits to allow for the reclaimed water pipeline to be constructed). One significant factor that I have not explored is the potential environmental impact of reclaimed water on the Peaks, an issue that future Environmental Impact Studies will attend to. I suspect that since reclaimed water is more tainted by semantic association than by pathogens, the impact studies will focus on the effects of digging pipeline and with the influence of reclaimed water on the soil. If there were a cultural impact study of snowmaking, then I suspect the potential dangers and damage would, in fact, outweigh the benefits.

I have spent more time discussing the anti-snowmaking side, since it is clear that the Daily Sun is not giving its readers an unbiased, holistic view of this perspective. The goal of this work is to provide an understanding of snowmaking on the Peaks, in the context of water issues in general in Flagstaff, so that you can take a creative and informed look into our future. If you like what you see, then great. If you do not like what the future holds, then let me remind you that it is possible to change it. In regards to water issues in Flagstaff, the Water Commission meets every month in the City Council Chambers and would desperately love to see you attend; there is even an opportunity at these functions to speak out, on the record, and to discuss any water-related issues you want. Time and time again I have heard Water Commission members complain about low turnouts and lack of community interest in what they do. As one member explained, "No one takes an interest in what we do until decisions are made and actions are taken." To keep you informed on recent decisions that the Water Commission has made, and water issues in general, I have included a separate section in this site with documentation from recent meetings.

If the future of Flagstaff in general is of interest to you, then I would encourage you to explore or even join the Friends of Flagstaff’s Future as one way to make a difference.

In the next section I will provide a series of future’s postulates which will lead us into my own take on Flagstaff’s worst case, most likely, and best case futures. I encourage you to do the same, to get involved, and to post comments to what you have read here. Thank you for your time.

This paper has shown the following to be true...

In addition, the following facts are relevant if we are to consider Flagstaff’s future in the context of water issues in general and snowmaking in particular...

The following future scenario components all assume that Snowbowl has been given a green light to proceed with their expansion plan, and that no foreseeable environmental impact was found by the Forest Service’s investigation...

The most likely scenario, I am afraid, involves a possible extension of some disturbing current trends. These trends include cultural-religious intolerance stemming from rampant ethnocentrism and a history of conflict between "Anglo" and "Native", a resultant cultural divide, a local economy dependant on tourism which slides as the "economic slowdown" continues, an extended drought and dwindling water reserves. While the amount of rain and snowfall is mostly out of our hands, these other factors are certainly not. A great degree of interconnectedness exists here, and to improve one of these factors would positively contribute to the whole.

There are other, more positive trends that I expect to see continued in the future. These include a willingness in the community to support water conservation efforts, a decrease in local turf and irrigation demands, an increasing use of reclaimed water throughout Flagstaff, and a general interest in the future of our community.

In regard to snowmaking, it is most likely that Snowbowl will receive permission to expand. Given the win-win scenario Snowbowl and the city find themselves in (one needs snow, one needs a customer for its water in the winter), and given the prior history of the Peaks, there will likely be some further outcry and activism, but none of that will prevent Snowbowl from making snow. While some people will be put off by either the insensitivity of Snowbowl or the potential sympathetic contagion of the snow, for the most part people will ski there (until the point at which Snowbowl is relying too heavily on artificial snow and the experience ceases to be worth the cost). While the end result will certainly be perceived spiritual damage to the Peaks [27], as well as a great deal of Native American anger, we might ask "what can be done?". If we can work to reduce ethnocentrism [28], if we can get people in Flagstaff to understand the native other, then perhaps I have a solution, labeled here "the best case" future.

I propose that the best case future for Flagstaff, in regard to snowmaking, is one in which Snowbowl seeks to lessen the desecration of the practice. I suggest that it may be possible to address the perceived contagious potential of the reclaimed water and the damaging effects of the new constructions in the following ways.

[1]: Of course, we have no way of knowing to what degree these are perceptions, strategic choices, or combinations of both. It is also possible that the terminology used reflects a limited command of reclaimed water terms; I could not have told you the difference between reclaimed water and potable water before this research project, and I suspect much of the terms used in local conversations both in and out of the Daily Sun in the context of snowmaking are not fully understood...

[2]: As a pamphlet distributed at the November 10th "Pray For The Peaks" Prayer Vigil at Buffalo Park (sponsored by the Flagstaff Activist Network, www.flagstaffactivist.org) argues..."Respect the Sacred Mountain! No Yellow Snow!"

[3]: That these forms of contagion are not real in the positivistic, concrete and physical sense does not mean that they can be tested away into oblivion. Indeed, as the comment above shows, there are some who would not trust even the most carefully constructed and regular tests of water systems. Lurking in common thought is the possibility that not everything that is harmful is being tested for or is understood to be harmful (as recent history has shown to be the case). Furthermore, let us consider that culture, like humanity, does not have to be logical in a Western scientific sense (even though we think it is sometimes), but rather it involves a way of seeing the universe which has more to do with aesthetics and traditions, politics and positioning, than it does with actual reality.

[4]: I do not pretend to understand the ways in which Western history relates to contagion, nor could I hope to convey my limited knowledge in this web site (it would be a project all in itself). Historical aspects of relevance might include the Western trend toward increasing medicalization after the enlightenment, the medicalization of the female (particularly the treatment of menstruation and pregnancy as illnesses, the menstruation cycle itself as highly contaminating, etc.), a wartime history of gas masks and chemical attacks, the consequences of "The Jungle", the Western obsession with Arcadian metaphors, and particularly the relatively recent atmosphere and culture of fear associated with the AIDS epidemic, along with the literary and film genre of science fiction oriented toward epidemics, such as Outbreak, The Stand, etc.

[5]: And by "magical" I do not mean ridiculous or simple. Magic in this sense refers to a consistent and personal, culturally defined yet individually expressed belief system which is not based on the observable and concrete (for the most part) but the potential and the possible.

[6]: I would argue that this is not an unfamiliar reality; it points not only to the ways we can manipulate and negotiate culture, but also to the socially constructed factors which modify potential contagion, factors such as degree of familiarity with source (our own elements, bodies, cloths, etc. are always less contagious), the character of our own being (I am a good person, how could that happen?), and so on...

[7]: (This example is not my own, see Rozin and Nemeroff, 1990) That this is a cultural reality suggests that, in fact, a social scientist (particularly an anthropologist or sociologist) could determine the degree to which the sweater was contaminated, but it would be far from easily quantifiable.

[8]: Just as the equipment and signatures of sports figures/heroes are desirable and valuable, even powerful in some way (Rozin and Nemeroff 1990). This is not to suggest that I would want Hitler’s sweater, but it would have great significance to WWII collectors (as a piece of history), to Holocaust survivors (who might want to destroy it), or to Nazi-sympathizers (who might want access to the essence of Hitler), and so on...

[9]: From a lecture by Dr. Jill Dubisch...

[10]: Cultural constructions should not be judged as "correct" or "incorrect", they simply are. This is a significant idea within anthropology that we refer to as cultural relativism.

[11]: We must remember that even science is a recent cultural product and that it is not exactly free from bias and politics, egos and relationships...

[12]: It would be as if Flagstaff had erected a giant sculpture of General Custer on the most sacred site of the Peaks, and had used the essence of Native American sacrilege as a building material.

[13]: I am speaking generally here and do not wish to portray Native America as a homogeneous category. I am speaking to general patterns that I have noticed both in my data and personal experience.

[14]: Wilson seems to place the argument over snowmaking into the context of Manifest Destiny, embracing the struggle to "civilize" America and to keep conquered lands in the control of whites...

[15]: According to one cultural expert, the tribal list includes: "Dineh (Navajo), Hopi, Havasupai, Tewa, Hualapai, Zuni, Paiute, Ute, Yavapai Apache, Middle Verde Apache, White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, and a few more..." [N8TV], web posting from 02/23/02.

[16]: We can wonder if the conflict in the West will ever be truly finished. It won’t be I think until cultural relativism fully shifts into mainstream culture as a major category of thought. This future is more advantageous than the current trend of cultural assimilation and intolerance.

[17]: Examples supporting these ideas exist, but to list them here would detract from the flow of this paragraph. See the following: "Supporting Snowbowl" (10/17/02 editorial), "New ‘reclaimed’ fire hydrant planned" (05/04/02 article), and the following 03-19-02 posted web comment which speaks to the (perceived) selfish and unholistic attitude of those who resist snowmaking (particularly native peoples):

[18]: Keeping with the spirit of cultural relativism, we should keep in mind that this particular perception of sacredness should not be judged as right or wrong, valid or invalid, it just is.

[19]: Which must have something to do with the tradition in this country of separating Church and State, and possibly related to the conflicts in American history between the government and the Mormon religion.

[20]: While some people would argue that religions such as Christianity originated in the Divine and have nothing to do with culture (in any time frame), in fact religion is one aspect of culture and is not disconnected from political concerns, race, class, gender, and a host of other constructed domains.

[21]: See the 10/19/01 NPR broadcast of "This American Life", or the text "Prayerwalking: praying on site with insight" by Steve Hawthorne and Graham Kendrick (isbn 0-88419-268-7).

[22]: I know quite a few people who occasionally drive into town when it snows because they don’t otherwise get to see any, and the majority of them do not ski. Is this the case for any significant percentage of people coming to Flagstaff?

[23]: One more woman falling under a medical gaze?

[24]: I am reminded of the Arcadian metaphor, though I do not think that these authors have fallen into its trap. To what degree is a reverence and preference for the natural a real aspect of general Native American culture? (if we can even speak to such a generality without making a case for homogeneous indigenous culture) Is it a basic thread or does it only appear in some indigenous cultures? What role does a modern American dominant cultural influence have here? Does it suppress or heighten the Arcadian ideal?

[25]: For a more complete discussion of these concepts, see the anthropological concepts appendix.

[26]: There were, admittedly, few in number but the Water Commission took them seriously.

[27]: And when I say perceived damage I do not mean unreal damage! From an anthropological perspective, whether or not the spiritual exists is not important. What is important is that people believe it does and are affected by it.

[28]: Particularly the most illogical and disturbing varieties which make social Darwinist arguments, but also the typically American "if it isn’t scientific it is wrong" attitude toward Native beliefs.

Go To Methods and Procedures