OCR Text |
Show 137 North Main Street Moab, Utah 84532 February 20, 1970 Mr. Sam Taylor, Publisher TIMES-INDEPENDENT Moab, Utah 84532 Dear Sam: , We would like to thank you for your fine article about the Gemini Bridges in the February 12th issue of the Times-Independent. It was a good summary of the discovery discov-ery story as it appeared last year in Western Gateways magazine. We would, however, how-ever, like to comment on a (question raised by certain local officials and on one statement in your article. The question raised by the local officials pertaine to the naming of the Gemini Bridges. We would like to clarify this matter. As a favor fa-vor to us, Mr. Fran Barnes, author of Hie Western Gateways Gate-ways article, and another on the bridges that is scheduled sched-uled to appear in full color in another publcation, took the steps necessary to name these unique bridges. The enclosed copy of a letter from the U.S. Department of (Interior, Board of Geographic Names, is a result of his efforts. ef-forts. You will note that this agency has "approved for! Federal use the name Gemini Gem-ini Bridges." We presume this includes the Bureau of 'Land Management, as welli as the National Park Service, which may ultimately have jurisdiction over the bridges.. Our comments about your article are concerning its statement that "There are others who saw and admired admir-ed these bridges before Ot-tinger Ot-tinger pointed them out . . ." We would like to point out that, to date, all claims to knowledge of these bridgges1 prior to 1957 are completely unproven. When the Western Gateways article first appeared, ap-peared, several local people made this claim to us personally, person-ally, yet when they were pressed for details, or even) a general location, they invariably in-variably missed by a wide margin. There is no doubt that men have, indeed, seen these magnificent twin bridges bridg-es before, but there is also little doubt in our minds' that most of these men were Indians In-dians and cattlemen, lone; since dead. We believe that the probability is very low that anyone now living in this area saw these bridges before 1957, except perhaps fleetingly from the air, where their unique nature would not be apparent. The bridges are so unusual that, surely, had they been spotted, they would have been reported, if only to the Times-Independent. Then, of course, there is the circumstantial evi dence provided by the num- toer of local people who quickly and obviously seized1 the first chance they had to visit the bridgesafter Fran Barnes showed the Jeep Safari Saf-ari leaders how to find them. We can only conclude, then, that substantiated claims to (pnior knowledge about thai Gemini Bridges are largely "sour grapes." Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Lin Ottinger. P. O. Box 677 Moab, Utah Times-Independent Moab, Utah Mr. Sam Taylor, Editor Dear Sir: I am writing as a citizen concerned about the three proposed coal-burning power plants in the Navajo country area. One plant, located in the vicinity of Page, Arizona, is scheduled to begin construction con-struction this April. Another plant is proposed for construction con-struction on the Kaiparowitz Plateau in Southern Utah and a third is planned for Ship-frock, Ship-frock, N.M. A present plant of this nature na-ture is located near Farming-ton, Farming-ton, N.M., introduces approximately ap-proximately 7Yi tons of fly-ash fly-ash pollutant into the air every 24 hours. Smog problems prob-lems in Monument Valley and around Shiprock have been traced directly to the Farm-ington Farm-ington installation, which is also responsible for the presence pres-ence of traces of pollution in the Grand Canyon, over 200 air miles away and against prevailing winds. As a park service official has pointed out, Canyonlands National Park is only 120 miles by air from the Page plant location 'and with the prevailingf winds. The Moab valley is only a few miles beyond the park and will definitely be adversely affected by pollution pollu-tion from these plants. If the people of this town aren't Concerned about the smog which will cover the canyons, or the smog which will cover cov-er Lake Powell, or the smog which will cover Ghesler (Park, then they should at least be concerned about the smog which will cover the Moab Valley and oppose the construction of these plants on that basis. To speak in terms of "covering" "cov-ering" an area may sound exaggerated, ex-aggerated, but it should be considered that only one ton of flyash pollutant released into 100 cubic miles of air will cut visibility by 50 per cent in that area. The Farm- ington plant, with it's Vk tons output per day, is doing an excellent job of befouling the air for many miles around. Yet this plant, as compared to the Page development, devel-opment, is as an ant to an elephant. Plant officials are almost reassuring in their promise to prevent 99.5 per cent of the particulate material mater-ial from escaping into the atmosphere. However, they neglect to point out that at the rate of 23,000 tons of coal1 (burned per day (estimated output of the Page plant), of 1 per cent of the flyash tonnage produced by this monster will still amount to approximately 115 tons per day ! ! ! Consider the condition con-dition of the air when three such plants are in operation. To say we have no smog or pollution problem is just shortsightedness; to say we have no cause to be concerned concern-ed is blatant stupidity. Los Angeles County has outlawed further construction construc-tion of plants of this nature na-ture in its area because of their great smog producing qualities. However, the Los Angeles Department of Water Wat-er and Power is one of the participating companies in this venture. Burning coal to produce electricity is and should be a thing of the past. With the emergence of nuclear power, we can meet our expending cost and minimum environmental environ-mental damage. It would seem that the coal companies compan-ies are so concerned with fighting for their economic lives that they are willing to sacrifice the quality of our lives in the bargain. James Giambruno |