|
|||
| Conservation Home |
SAVING DRY LAKE
article by Norm Wallen I consider myself fortunate to have been one of the core group members of Friends of Dry Lake. It is my hope that one day another of these fine folk will do a real history of the three year saga that saved Dry Lake. In the meantime this personal account, accurate to the best of my ability, will have to do. Dry Lake is not dry; it is also not a lake. It is a unique ephemeral wetland in a 450 acre volcanic crater just outside the city limits of Flagstaff, Arizona. Volcanic craters are not rare around here; what is unique is that it holds, because of a rare geologic history called hydromagnetic eruption, enough water, even in dry years, to support a large grassland meadow in the flat bottom. And stands of Gambel oak and aspen along with the abundant ponderosa pine on the very steep slopes. It is habitat for migratory birds and a variety of plants and animals, some of them threatened or endangered species. To many locals it is a place of rare, relatively unspoiled natural beauty including a spectacular view of the San Francisco Peaks, the region's landmark. All of this was not enough to keep it safe from development. It was homesteaded and eventually became a dairy farm until the late 1970's; since then it found its way into the land speculation pot and into the hands of land baron Rex Maughan. In 1983, by some forlorn and mostly forgotten set of circumstances, Dry Lake got itself zoned for a 'planned community' including 1600 homes, a business center and, of course, a golf course. It never happened, probably because of the cost of trying to build such an improbable development on such steep slopes. In 1997 a local developer, Jim Mehen, having gotten an option on the property, applied to Coconino County for rezoning to build an upscale, golf course gated community of (eventually) 300 homes to be called Flagstaff Ranch Golf Club. He had already built one in the vicinity, Forest Highlands, with 650 lots and about 300 homes so far, most occupied summers only. Another 165 lots starting at $250,000 was getting under way (the median family income in Flagstaff is $34,000 a year). Two years later, in September '99, the County Board of Supervisors rejected the heart of the project - the homes on steep slopes and the golf course. Early in 1997, the word was that this was another unstoppable development, touting the usual tax revenue, jobs and alleged largess of wealthy part time residents. Further, it was a downzoning from 1600 to 300 homes and it was private property in a state where property rights rank slightly above motherhood. How it was stopped is the story I'll try to tell. Any account such as this must be suspect as to details but, to the best of my knowledge it was a Forest Service wildlife biologist, Tammy Randall-Parker, who woke up the environmental community, and, eventually, all of Flagstaff*. She knew Dry Lake well, being in the midst of a study on the Mexican Spotted Owl in the area**. She became aware of Mehen's intentions for the crater early in 1997 and began taking anyone interested on excursions to see the property. Interestingly, many, like me, had never been there, partly because it is pretty secluded, partly because easy access through the private land was prohibited and party because access through Forest Service and State Trust lands (which make up roughly half of the sloped perimeter) is inconvenient. * It is probably no coincidence that it was biologists who were
initially and largely responsible for saving another treasure - Mono Lake
I well remember my first visit. Topping out on the Forest Service trail, part of my breath taken by the climb, but most by the view. This was a gem, made more astounding by my ignorance of it. In the distant background, the Peaks; the city off to the northeast but not visible. The 40 acres designated official 'wetland' by the Army Corps of Engineers in the middle of the vast meadow a light green; the rest shades of yellow and brownish grass. Later, after the rains of summer, the meadow would come to full bloom with a genuine, though temporary, lake in the middle. To the southeast on the basalt cliffs, the mingling of gnarled oak and white trunked aspen. Small in the distance, to the north, the remaining dairy buildings, now just dilapidated ruins, ravaged by time, the intractible weather and the occasional despoiling trespasser, using them as targets. It must have been a good life - lived amidst beauty, nature and, at least for a time, sustaining both the family and the crater. As usual, economics changed and children left, one grandchild would support the development, another would condemn it - in memory of his grandmother who told him the place was sacred. All of this violated by the silly pink surveyor flags marking out the golf course; around most of the wetland and up into the oak. Even up in the very steep slopes - a flag with 14th tee on it. Imagining the blasting of trees and slope needed to provide this 'challenge' was only partly 'mitigated' by the fantasy of corpulent corporate golfers gasping to get there. Except that some conveyance would surely be provided - at these prices. There were about nine of us there that day including a couple more biologists, two city councilmen, a businessman/outdoorsman and, most importantly, a writer, Mary Sojourner, there, I think, not for the first time. She was to become, through her poignant, angry manifestos, a major figure in the Dry Lake war - and war it became. As we walked around, some quietly cursing, others kicking dirt, the talk drifted to possibilities. Maybe the golf course could be re-designed to avoid the most sensitive areas, maybe they wouldn't be able to build on the slopes. Maybe Mehen could be persuaded to put conservation easements in some places. Maybe some of it could be saved. After a bit, I recall one comment:"I don't want anything in here - ever". A little more talk and we left. I don't know how many field trips preceded or followed mine but a few weeks later Mary called the first meeting to save Dry Lake. She had happened to see a brief story on the project in the newspaper and wrote a column for a local weekly, Flag Live; this started the chain of phone calls. The meeting was held in a park opposite City Hall and it was raining and cold. About thirty people showed up and decided to organize community opposition at the first public hearing; at the County Planning and Zoning Commission in September, 1997. Organization was mostly word of mouth, still possible in a city of 55,000, enhanced by support from the usual organizations: Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Grand Canyon Trust, Friends of Flagstaff's Future. 'Save Dry Lake' bumper stickers appeared as did picture post cards. A flood of some 500 letters reached the County, almost all opposed. At Planning and Zoning, the scenario was familiar. Staff gave its report and recommended approval with reservations and numerous conditions. Next came the developer with his 'suits' to put on their well rehearsed show. Led by Mehen himself, his engineer, architect, environmental consultant and lawyers all showed off their expertise and people skills. Styles ranged from earnest attentive to 'good ol boy' to 'big city slick' but all had answers for anything. Either the concern was a misunderstanding or reflected very understandable ignorance or - as a last resort, was real and would be fixed. No problem. Interlaced throughout, sometimes subtly, sometimes blunt, were the overriding importance of private property rights and the phony spectre of 'takings' should Mehen not get the full value of his property. Those speaking as members of the public, pro and con, selected alternatively from a deck of request cards, were limited to five minutes. Those opposed, unable to match the developer in time or expertise, could only challenge specifics, express general concerns or vent emotions. This they did for another four hours. Often repetitive, sometime incoherent, they hammered away at protecting the wetland, its wildlife and vegetation, the serene beauty, the idiocy of building on such steep cinder slopes, inconsistency with the County Comprehensive Plan, the priority given to protection in the recently adopted Open Space and Greenways Plan, the contamination brought by the golf course, the wasting of water in this arid land and the elitism of gated communities. They also made much of the 'error' in the report from the environmental consultant which stated that "there are no threatened or endangered species on this property". At the hearing, the consultant said he was sorry about the mistake in 'communication'. 
Supporters of the development, in this disjointed point - counterpoint, answered that the project would protect the wetland, enhance habitat by attracting new species (the migratory birds were only sometime visitors) and providing forage (elk visited Forest Highlands). Further, there are lots of pretty places left, engineers could guarantee safety of the homes and roads (nothing is beyond the skill of engineers) though this would likely require, as it turned out, massive cut and fill along with eleven foot high retaining walls. Also, the Comprehensive Plan contains ambiguities. Holding ponds and technology would prevent pollution of water; the state water board had agreed that a nearby private water company would provide enough water (though no hydrologist is prepared to say what the impact would be on the underlying aquifer) and anyway, since counties in Arizona have no authority over groundwater, this issue shouldn't even be considered. Last but by no means least, people have a right to their expensive homes, and a gate if it makes them feel secure, and they are really nice, generous folks. Eventually, around midnight, the Commission voted 3 to 2 (3 members absent) to recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors. Die hards on both sides shook their heads in disbelief or hugged each other in joy. The developer and his team, being old hands, moderated their dissapointment with knowledge that they would have another shot with the Board in November. Failing that, they would re-group and decide how to play it better next time. The temporary winners, now sporting a moniker - Friends of Dry Lake - focused on influencing the Board. They formed a core group of about twelve who began meeting weekly to coordinate efforts. More letters to the Board, to the local newspaper; soliciting help from around the state (the statewide chapter of the Sierra Club sent a letter opposing the project); raising money for publicity and perhaps to help fund alternatives; rounding up expertise; organizing an e-mail network; inviting Board members to visit the property. Mr. Mehen was also busy. The Friends got hold of a letter he sent to members of the Chamber of Commerce claiming that his opponents were "Flagstaff's small but very vocal group of anti-growth, anti-business and anti-development proponents" followed by the statement that the business community "needs to take a firm stand against these unreasonable and misinformed groups that threaten Flagstaff's ability to grow in a planned fashion consistent with the best interests of the majority of our town's citizens". A letter to the editor, signed by ten well known citizens refuted these allegations. Vandals broke some machinery at Forest Highlands; Mehen foolishly blamed Mary Sojourner. The Friends were much better prepared for the Board hearing six weeks later. In particular, Linda Brandt, a former librarian whose prior involvement in political matters was essentially zero, had found herself drawn into an arena where she felt most uncomfortable. Uncomfortable or not, her thoughtful and technical analysis of the problem in building on these slopes in violation of both common sense and County requirements made an observable impression on the Board. So did the public protest, now up to a thousand letters or petition signatures. Not since the early 1970's when a developer tried to put condos in Hart Prairie, another treasured place, had this normally complacent city stirred itself. New voices were heard; a few construction workers said the price to be paid for these job was too high; data was presented showing the highly touted charitable contribution of Forest Highlands was greatly exaggerated; pleas were made to place Mother Earth above short term profit; objections were raised to the implication that the Audubon Society certifies golf courses (Audubon International does). 
Mostly though, the scenario played out at P and Z was repeated, both sides doing their best to refute the other. Finally, after six hours, Mehen, correctly reading the Board, announced he was withdrawing his application. He would wait until the recently formed Regional Task Force on land use finished its work, provided he could participate. And hope for sympathetic replacements on P and Z. Another victory for the Friends, tempered by knowing Mehen would be back. Their problem now was how to keep the issue alive; they knew what almost always happens. Having rallied to a cause, come victory or defeat, people go back to their other lives; the few that don't find themselves worn down by the relentless development juggarnaut. They made three wise decisions, the first was to keep the core group involved with periodic meetings, at least monthly; the second to keep the list of supporters informed through e-mail and mailings; finally, to keep informed as to Mehen's activities with the County. Most of these responsibilities fell to John Grahame, a wildlife biologist and filmmaker who was to play a key role in keeping things moving throughout the next two years. Fortunately, both he and another core group member, Earle Hoyt, were appointed to the Regional Task Force. Mehen was appointed to a sub-committee focused on an area including Dry Lake. Though unhappy at not making the Task Force, he attended almost every meeting, blatantly promoting anything which would serve his interest and thereby alienating many of the twenty-eight members. In March, a new group was emerging which would add needed energy and bodies to the next set of hearings - the Flagstaff Activist Network. The year and a half following Mehen's withdrawal was a difficult time for the core group. They met but often had little to talk about except rumors, never in short supply. Waiting for Mehen to show his hand. Had he lost his option? No-one wanted to tell us. Was Maughan susceptible to other arrangements? Maybe a land swap; maybe the kind of financial package most of us couldn't even imagine. Were the Supervisors working on it? Was the Grand Canyon Trust? Did anyone know Ted Turner? It was agreed to keep getting informed and recruiting, on the assumption that someone would be trying to develop the crater. By spring of '98 it was learned that Mehen and whoever his backers were had purchased the property. It was also becoming clear that, whatever his financial investment, he had made Dry Lake a personal matter. He was moving full speed ahead. By summer, he was distributing a glossy brochure to investors/purchasers. All this impacted the core group in two ways. It was discouraging, finally destroying all hope of purchase by a saint, or of a buy out by some organization such as The Nature Conservancy (not high enough on their priorities), or of negotiating a combined development/preserve. It was all there in the prospectus, the golf course, the homes on steep slopes, the whole package. Did Mehen know something? Had the Supervisors been bought? We didn't think so, partly because we thought we knew them and partly because we are still small potatoes. In Phoenix, maybe, probably not here. Still, the lure of substantial tax dollars and minimal County responsibilities can't be ignored. The other effect was to mobilize energy. We now knew what we were up against and how we would have to fight it. Pretty much as before, with numbers and expertise. Now it was tactics. When to alert the total opposition group? Who to reach for more expertise? How to raise more money for a more ambitious publicity campaign? The latter should begin yesterday, the first had to wait until Mehen again applied to the County; we had to mobilize public opinion at the right time. Probably the most remarkable thing about all this is that the core group managed to hold together. Pretty much the only thing that united them was Dry Lake. They were made up of an established writer, three biologists (one working for government, one also a writer, one also a filmmaker); a high-school teacher,a lawyer ; two retired professors (chemistry and psychology) - one a member of the city council; a former librarian, and two former teachers. It included two married couples. From time to time they were joined by about six others. They differed widely in income, age, history of activism, radicalness of politics and, most of all, in temperament. Some were inclined to intellectual analysis, others counting instead on intuition and emotion. Some liked group process, others tolerated it. Some all business, others playful. More than a couple of meetings degenerated into nastiness but seldom for long. Communications outside meetings fed hurt feelings and resentments. Somehow, for over two years they managed to patch up the fights, learn to respect each other and function effectively. Only one person withdrew permanently. In early spring of '99, Mehen made his move, re-applying to the County with his new plan. It was, in fact, only slightly different, primarily in the extent of changes in zoning required because of some redesigning. Although he had said he would wait until the regional planning was completed, he did not - as noted in the staff report to P and Z in April. Nevertheless the County decided to proceed. This meeting required a larger hall with some 400 people present. Many of the same people said many of the same things, the big differences being the developer's team explaining how they had addressed all the prior concerns and the more impressive opposition from experts in geology, hydrology, wildlife and engineering. After repeated pleas from the chair to stop saying the same things, the meeting finally ended after midnight with much the same outcome as 19 months earlier; all 73 lots on the slopes rejected, the remaining 42 units on the flats approved, both unanimously; the golf course approved 5 to 3. Good, but not over. Mehen, as expected, called in all his chips, getting endorsements from Northern Arizona Home Builders and Northern Arizona University. Interestingly, the Chamber of Commerce, for once, stayed out of it. He delayed the Board hearing for three months as he tried, once again, to re-engineer his roads and slopes which had become the biggest thorn in his side. He hired the biggest and best land use lawyer in the state to represent him. He missed several deadlines as his consultants needed more time. Friends of Dry Lake had not been idle. By this time, the Web page was up and active, one side effect being the obvious distress it caused Mehen. It became public that Supervisor Paul Babbitt and Geoff Barnard of the Grand Canyon Trust had long been trying to broker a complicated land deal involving the developer of adjacent property and were getting frustrated with Mehen's recalcitrance. Mehen and his friends had denounced Mary Sojourner and obviously viewed her and her writing as the devil's handiwork. She, in turn, began to feel sorry for him. A consensus grew within the core group that he simply didn't get it; that he actually believed that he was a community benefactor and those opposing him were either invincibly ignorant, crazy, communists or all of these. Word was spreading around town that his financial backers were pushing him - but in what direction? Why wouldn't he make a deal? The Friends had been active on other fronts; at one point, the head County planner said, only partly tongue in cheek, that he had as much information from them as from the applicant. Position papers rebutting specifics wre submitted; Mehen's violation of deadlines was emphasized in letters; appointments were made with all five supervisors to present them with a detailed analysis complete with an aerial photograph taken by a well known local photographer. Inquiries were made to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding permits needed for impacts on the primary wetland. Peter Friederici was largely responsible for an application to the Arizona Department of Environment Quality to have Dry Lake designated a 'Unique Water' which would ensure that water quality did not deteriorate. Ads were placed in successive Sunday papers strongly in opposition and signed by 74 residents, many well known and respected. A substantial article appeared in the statewide newsletter of the League of Conservation Voters. From somewhere, posters appeared on the NAU campus inviting students to attend the hearing and see in action 'Evil Developers', 'Scary Lawyers', 'Corrupt Consultants', 'Big-time Politicians' and 'Heroic Activists'. Received generally with smiles, this prompted the Home Builders to describe the opposition as playing on emotions. The Arizona Republic, the state's largest newspaper, out of Phoenix, carried a major story on the Dry Lake dispute as one in a three part series on how growth is threatening unique places; it appeared in the midst of the public hearings before the Board - three nights spread over four days beginning on August 30, 1999. Mehen's well paid consultants appeared; suited and unflappable as always but he didn't look well as the drama unfolded once more. We knew, from a friend in the business, how they rehearse their presentations in which they have as much time as needed to patiently explain and explain away, to impress with credentials, to make detailed notes for the final rebuttal that only they would get to do. A few new faces, some consultants replaced, others added. The high priced attorney sent his assistant - what did that mean? He was young, super prepared and massively detailed, never forgetting to remind the Board of their legal obligations - and limitations and of the ever present threat of litigation. For me, he overdid it, but my vote didn't matter. Mehen brought in a new fire consultant who offered the novel argument that the untried fire protection plan would become a model throughout the state. The Friends decided not to beat it to death. Each of three presenters would lay out the major objections as briefly as possible; this on the last night of public comment. Others would comment on other issues as they felt necessary. By now, we were quite impressive. Our three spokespersons, Linda Brandt, having become a lay expert on the engineering and environmental problems on the slopes, Tom Moody an authority on the crater and hydrology of the wetland, Rick Moore on protecting natural resources (including water) and local control of growth were highly professional and knowledgeable. For two nights, others restrained themselves, mostly, as they touched on the credibility of the developers data; the social effects of gated communities (this was now to be left to the homeowners association); violation of the Open Space and Greenways Plan and the County Comprehensive Plan; quality of life and the importance of biological diversity. Karen Delaibau, known for her fiery defense of Dry Lake delivered one of the most articulate and well reasoned of the comments. Mary Sojourner described the proposal as "nuke and mitigate" similar to Forest Highlands and asked the Board to make a decision they would not regret in ten years. Surprisingly to many, several NAU professors, not known for their activism, spoke in opposition. Toward the end, welcome relief was provided by a young woman who admitted she didn't really know what she was talking about but just knew the development was terribly wrong. A total of 70 people spoke, 24 clearly in support, 44 opposed. The verdict - after twelve hours of staff, developer and public testimony: everything rejected (including the golf course) except the 42 houses on the flatland. Finally, a genuine victory. As Friends of Dry Lake and their allies hugged one another, some crying in relief and/or surprise, Jim Mehen and his team, clearly chagrinned and probably surprised, left quietly. Some would hail it as a watershed event. The newspaper quoted one: "Dry Lake is going to cut a lot of ways. It's inspired the community and it tells developers that you can't walk into Flagstaff and get what you want anymore". This, of course, remains to be seen. What next? Immediately the Grand Canyon Trust stepped up its efforts to make a deal. In outline it involves a land swap in which Mehen merges his 42 lots with a Bob Semple development on and around the slopes outside the crater to the east and then the crater is purchased from Semple. This effort was to consume, on and off, the next seven months. The Friends were asked to put together a three person negotiating team to which the developers could submit and receive proposals. Not surprisingly, both developers kept pushing for concessions. Move the southern edge of Mehen's approved area further south; allow a road and houses at the top of the ridge; don't raise a fuss about the new development being a gated golf course, high-end batch of homes clearly visible from Flagstaff. Tough choices: would the Friends, as an organization, agree not to oppose it? To most of the core group, this was a shocking disappointment; not at all what they had wanted. They envisioned some houses outside the crater but not this many, not this much enroachment into the crater; certainly no roads or homes up on the ridge or visible from inside the crater. And no damned gated golf course. Older hands, knowing the power of development money, especially in Arizona where the legislature is famous for bending over for developers, were more resigned. After all, we had saved the crater and the wetland. We agreed to go along. On January 25, 2000, Planning and Zoning recommended approval of the new 'joint' development, contingent on finalizing of the contact between Mehen, Semple and the Grand Canyon Trust which was verbally agreed to at the meeting. This supposedly simple task took another eight weeks due to the seemingly endless bargaining over financial details. Ironically, Friends of Dry Lake found themselves allied with Mehen in trying to get Semple to sign. Once again, the power of a single property owner to frustrate and potentially thwart the wishes of, by now, an entire community was glaringly evident. Finally, Semple signed and the re-zonings were approved by the Board on March 20. To everyone's surprise and delight, Semple along with Mehen and his associates made last minute concessions to facilitate financing. We had beaten the odds. But how? While no-one can ever be sure what influences such decisions, several things seem reasonably clear. First, as always, the efforts of a few people to make others aware of what was at stake was crucial. Second, the ability of the core group to remain active for two and a half years was essential. Fortunately, the diversity of the group, augmented by a number of others who contributed their talents, brought important expertise and contacts which more than offset their differences and disagreements. Organization, while always pretty loose, permitted action to be taken, not the least of which was the 'rallying of the troups' by means of an operative e-mail list. While we never raised a lot of money (a total of about $4,000), it was necessary, mainly for publicity. A few people made sizeable contributions at crucial times, notably to pay for newspaper ads. Support from other organizations, both local and statewide, was important and facilitated by contacts made by Dry Lakers, especially the core group. Media coverage was overall very good, again largely because of personal contacts. While Friends of Dry Lake was the identifiable public force leading the opposition, other, less visible contributions were hugely important. Far from the least of these was a Board of Supervisors, always sympathetic and eventually willing to take a stand that, while enjoying popular support, would cost them in terms of revenue and alienation from the small but very powerful development interests. Some commissioners went far out of their way to explore alternatives which might save Dry Lake. An illusive but probably important factor was the behavior of Mehen himself. His presence at virtually any forum to argue for his self interest probably hurt him as did his repeated mis-statements and exaggerated attacks on the opposition, all of which were exploited by the Friends. Another important player was the Grand Canyon Trust, using its considerable resources and influence to broker a deal that all could live with. Not an enjoyable task when forced to tolerate both the sometimes temperamental demands of hard nosed, top-dollar businessmen accustomed to getting their way and the frequently emotional, idealistic and sometimes naive Friends. So, Dry Lake is saved? We hope so but not necessarily. What remains is for the Grand Canyon Trust and its allies to raise the $3 million needed to buy the crater from Semple, no easy task these days. We'll need all the help we can get. But its not likely that Friends of Dry Lake - now including the entire community - will let up, having beaten the odds so far. If you'd like to help, tax deductible contributions can be sent to:
Page updated: 5/1/00 Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, 202 E. McDowell Rd, Suite 277, Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 253-8633 |