Controversy Over Utah Coal Field

* Re “Mine Plan for Lonely Plateau Sparks Debate,” Sept. 3:

Your story speaks of the “Utah-backed measure” that would allow plenty of room for development while setting aside 2 million acres of wilderness. This bill is “Utah-backed” only by Utah’s congressional delegation, who as a group believe any development is good development. The majority of Utahans (70%) support the 5.7-million acre wilderness bill (HR 1500), as reported by the Utah governor’s Office of Planning and Budget in June 1995.

Left unsaid in Andalex’s promotional literature (the proposed $1 million in annual revenue and $10 million in state and federal taxes) is the fact that Utah will need to spend more than $100 million in road construction and upgrades to facilitate the movement of coal from the mine site to rail sites in either Utah or Nevada.

I find it telling that for the people in favor of the mine their motivation derives from profit. Nothing wrong with profit (I’m a small business owner), but people have been known to be less than honorable in pursuit of a buck. And what of the majority of Utahans (and other Americans) who support HR 1500? We are willing to set aside large areas of land primarily for nonhuman uses. We think it’s important to have places where the only sound one can hear is the wind and where a desert bighorn can exist for its own sake. We are not so poor in spirit that we must degrade what is left of our wild lands in order to let a Dutch company ship American coal to Japan.

MIKE KASTELZ

Fullerton

* Any time a natural resource is preserved it costs all of us money, often big money. The Utah coal fields can provide needed jobs, bring in both state and federal tax revenue, offset our foreign trade imbalance and reduce the deficit, to name a few of the benefits.

On the other hand, what are we preserving? It is a rock pile in the middle of nowhere where nobody goes.

There may be archeological artifacts somewhere on the site. I think digging for coal is the best way to unearth and preserve these treasures and make them available for others to see, inspect and enjoy.

Radical conservationists that oppose moving a stone or leaf are just not in touch with reality. They don’t want nuclear power plants and they don’t want us to mine the coal that would substitute for nuclear power. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

JOHN F. NICHOLSON

Woodland Hills