Opposition is rising to a development proposed just south of Grand Canyon National Park/NPS
U.S. Forest Service planners have heard from more than 200,000 people opposed to a plan to allow a development to surface on land just south of Grand Canyon National Park.
According to opponents of the development, if approved it would bring roads, sewers and other utilities that would pave the way for a multinational developer to transform the 580-resident community of Tusayan, Ariz., from a small, quiet tourist town into a sprawling complex of high-end homes, retail stores, and restaurants only a mile from the park's boundary. The development threatens groundwater that feeds Grand Canyon's creeks, springs and seeps, endangering some of the park's most important and biodiverse wildlife habitat, according to the opponents.
The outpouring of public opposition included business owners in Tusayan and nearby Flagstaff, a former Coconino County development director, a former Grand Canyon National Park superintendent, outdoor enthusiasts, and thousands of park visitors who want to keep the experience of visiting Grand Canyon unmarred by a massive commercial development, a news release said. The Department of the Interior has warned that the proposed development was raising international concerns over the potential harm to Grand Canyon, a World Heritage Site.
'Building a massive sprawling development at the gateway to Grand Canyon threatens the very things that the park was established to protect ' the waters, wildlife, dark skies, and opportunities to experience natural quiet,' said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. 'That is why thousands of people here in Arizona and across the country are asking the Forest Service to reject this proposal.'
Commenters also noted that the project would increase car and plane traffic and light and noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park. The National Park Service has called the project one of the biggest threats to the park in its nearly 100-year history.
'The Grand Canyon is one of our most beloved and iconic national parks ' a sentiment that reverberated in messages of opposition sent by our members, supporters, and partners in Arizona and across the country,' said David Nimkin, Southeast senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. 'Water is a precious resource in the park and throughout the West, and we call on the Forest Service to recognize the resources in Grand Canyon and the nearby Havasu Canyon that would be jeopardized, and reject this proposal.'
Earthjustice, on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a letter urging the Forest Service to reject the proposal or, at a minimum, to prepare a full environmental impact statement disclosing the impacts of the massive development on water, wildlife, air quality, traffic, crime and other resources and factors.
'The flood of opposition to this project shows that the public doesn't want Grand Canyon's unparalleled natural values given away to developers hoping to cash in on its popularity,' said Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney.
'The local, national and international communities have spoken, and the message is clear ' this development doesn't belong next to Grand Canyon,' said Robin Silver, a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. 'Now it's up to the Forest Service to act in the public interest and reject this proposal'
The comments and signatures included nearly 200,000 from members and supporters of conservation and advocacy groups including more than: 52,000 from the Center for Biological Diversity; 55,000 from Earthjustice; 13,000 from the National Parks Conservation Association; 30,000 from the Sierra Club; and 50,000 from the activist website RootsAction.org.
The Forest Service will review the public's comments over the next month or two and then decide whether to reject the application outright, proceed with a minimal 'environmental assessment' with little public review, or prepare a more rigorous environmental impact statement. An environmental assessment would likely take up to a year to complete; an impact statement would take twice that long.
Comments
But why can't those developers simply buy the services of a few Congressmen to push through a big pipeline from Lake Powell to provide water for their development forever and ever?
I just read that in the early 19th Century, members of Congress regularly came to the floor with knives in their belts. Today they come with wads of lobbyist money in their pockets.
Vigilence is needed as this battle continues lest these foreign folks manage to purchase a few influential members of the august body to do their bidding.
While the endless debate about climate change wanders on and on, here's something that might also need some attention.
Will money once again trump good sense?
Not if it is in fact good sense. At this point it is mere speculation. I am all for a full environmental assessment. Will you pay your fair share?
Sure makes sense to me that those who seek to profit from the exploitation should pay the burden of the environmental assessment. Unless one is to be the one profiting, there are no positive definitions of the word 'exploit'.
Exactly right, Rick. But those who seek to profit are all too often socialistic conservatives. They are the ones who frequently exploit something in an attempt to gain immediate, temporary profits without any consideration of future consequences. Then, when the conseqences begin to manifest themselves, they sell the operation off and leave the mess for others. In the case of parks and public lands, the "others" are, guess who?
If the project is halted, isn't it everyone but the developer that will "profit"? You need to have some stake in the game else people will be crying "environmental disaster" and asking for costly assessments on every little project.
Examples Lee?
You know, that phrase 'stake in the game' just struck me wrong. As it stands, the natural beauty speaks for itself without need for justification, and exploiters seeking 'the game' are creating a situation, not just participating in one. The ethics of 'exploitation as a game' leave one needing a shower.
Rick - its an expression. Noone is suggesting this is a game. All that is being said is that we need balance. People shouldn't be able to shout "environment" and shut everything down.