The Controversy at Snowshoe Mountain Resort

 

The Controversy at Snowshoe Mountain Resort

The controversy at Snowshoe Mountain Resort stemmed from the construction of a wastewater treatment plant and the related issues of environmental impact, eminent domain, and corporate responsibility.

Unplanned Development and Infrastructure Needs

The rapid growth and development at Snowshoe, driven by Intrawest Corporation, strained the existing infrastructure, leading to sewage problems. The resort's privately owned utilities, Snowshoe Water and Sewer, Inc. and Silver Creek Water and Sewer, Inc., were cited for numerous violations and fined by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. These issues highlighted the need for a new wastewater treatment plant to handle the increased sewage load.

Location Disputes and Eminent Domain

The proposed location for the new plant on the Sharp family farm sparked significant opposition. Opponents argued that the plant would negatively impact the scenic viewshed, harm heritage tourism, and damage the rural character of the area. The use of eminent domain to acquire the Sharp family's property further fueled the controversy. Snowshoe and the County Commission defended their choice, claiming it was the only cost-effective option. They rejected an alternative site offered by the Governor, citing additional costs for access. This clash between development interests and property rights intensified the debate.

Corporate Responsibility and Public Burden

Critics accused Snowshoe of shifting the burden of financing, building, and operating the plant onto taxpayers after initially attempting to build their own plant. They argued that Snowshoe should be responsible for addressing the sewage problems caused by their development. The fact that the county also had to assume liability for the aging infrastructure on the mountain further fueled resentment. Snowshoe's actions were perceived as prioritizing corporate profits over community well-being and environmental protection.

Public Opposition and Advocacy

Community members actively opposed the chosen location and Snowshoe's role in the project. They signed petitions, protested at meetings, and voiced their concerns in local media. They argued that alternative locations on state-owned land were available and would avoid harming the Sharp family's property. They also criticized the County Commission for supporting Snowshoe's plans and not prioritizing the interests of local residents.

Conclusion

The controversy at Snowshoe exemplifies the tensions that arise when rapid development clashes with environmental concerns, property rights, and community values. The sources highlight the importance of responsible development practices, transparent decision-making, and equitable burden-sharing when addressing infrastructure needs in growing communities. They also showcase the power of community activism in challenging corporate influence and advocating for environmental protection.