| OCR Text |
Show Phosphate development Dear Editor: I am again prompted to address the problem of phosphate development north of Vernal. This need stems in part from a considerable and somewhat unexpected number of contacts made with me regarding the matter. Several phone calls to my home as well as encounters in the community have been most encouraging. A second reason for response was a recent article in the Express. I refer to the article which appeared in the Vernal Express shortly after my first letter to the Editor, regarding the phosphate development. The timing of that feature as well as certain references made therein can hardly be attributed to coincidence. Of particular interest was .the rather casual statement credited to one of the officials of the phosphate company, the substance of which was that the organization had always been concerned con-cerned and had taken measures to minimize damage. If this be true then the situation is probably worse than had been perceived. The bare rolling hills directly above the phosphate plant stand as mute testimony. An additional reason for this letter is the emergence of additional development problems which were not previously referenced. Before proceeding to further delineate the negative aspects of the resource development let us again recognize the considerable value of the employment and product which is provided and should not be denied. Any further efforts to propagandize the worth is unnecessary. The idea of having the best of both sides i.e. truly minimizing the negative aspects of the project as well as reaping the benefits, seems desirable and should be required. Some of the information which has recently come to light from different individuals comes by way of belief or reports and may not in its entirety be completely accurate. Enough truth is present to be significant. An example which is worthy of note is a reliable report that even though the project is on private property an impact statement was required and seems now to be largely ignored. The fact that on more than one occasion recently the water in Big Brush Creek as flow beneath Highway 44, has had the green mucky appearance of something flowing into a sewage treatment plant requires only casual observation. The wet storms of October along with other factors served to convey material from denuded areas into the normally sparkling stream. Another interesting aspect of the obvious pollution of Big Brush Creek is . the lack of protest or even comment from public officials charged with responsibility for overseeing the interests in-terests of projects which affect the public. Various sections of the Utah Code (Law) deal with pollution of waters. Sections 73-14-1 to 73-14-13 clearly defines pollution, public policy, pollutions as public nuisance, inspection, in-spection, investigations and other regulations. Sections 73-14-10 provides for fines up to $50,000.00 per day for water pollution violations. Sections 73-14-4 states in part that it is unlawful to cause pollution of water which con- . stitutes a menace to public health and welfare or is harmful to wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational or other beneficial uses of water, or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location where there is probable cause to believe they will cause pollution. Why is this ignored? One concern expressed by an individual in-dividual was in regard to the effect of stream pollution on the trout in Big Brush Creek and the Red Fleet Reservoir. The idea concerned the possible coating of stream and lake bed with an undesirable residue detrimental tofish habitat. Further, we have heard much about the particulate (silt and sand) problem in the Vernal City water system. Where does this leave us in terms of the material which will be pouring into the Red Fleet water being scheduled for use by the local community. Again, it appears that the silence of various people conveys the idea that they have been muzzled. If there is no problem, beyond aesthetic damage, which is undesirable, then let it be stated as a matter of record and then the facts can be further examined. Some one once said that unless one had a solution to a problem perhaps not too much should be made of it. I therefore submit that as -a partial solution to the problem of destroying the landscape that funds should be clearly identified as a part of the cost of production and as being available for rehabiliation of the area. One additional ad-ditional proposal might be for the phosphate company having mined the property to pass title of the land to the Federal Government, State or even private agencies or individuals who would be willing to convert it back to use and public enjovment. TOM FREESTONE |
