| OCR Text |
Show 2 Air pollution control I More important projects needed - Rural Utah is going to suffer from legislation en-Z en-Z acted to control air pollution in Ihe metropolitan area H along the Wasatch Front. - M.-irrh 5 1 ')(!! a now Onon Burnintr regulation, en- ;acted by the U. S. Air Conservation Committee of ;the Stale Division of Health, became effective. - This law provides that nowhere in the state of -Utah will open burning bo permitted, with some Iminor exceptions, and specifically states that "no Sopen burning shall be done at sites used for disposed dispos-ed of community trash, garbage and other wastes except when authorized for a specific period of -time by the Air Conservation Committee." - Cedar City, which has opposed this blanket reg-Sulation reg-Sulation from the outset, including a public hearing Iheld last year, has made application for authorized Sextension for the next three years in relation to the regulation. ; Mayor Whetten, in the hearing conducted last -year, pointed out that rural Utah, although concern-led concern-led about air pollution, is not faced with the same Sproblcms as the more heavily populated areas of line state and has thus opposed the blanket policy adopted by the Division of Health. ; The Mayor points out that there "is only one. person per-son per 18S acres of land in Iron County," and air pollution as a result is not the same here as in the metropolitan area of the state. Z The mayor has further stated that he feels local authority is "better qualified on local priorities ;than any state agency." - It is in this area of priority that we agree with Mayor Whetten. There are other matters more ur-Sgent ur-Sgent to the residents of Cedar City than the air pollution pol-lution problem. Z It has been estimated that for Cedar City to concert con-cert to the land fill method of garbage disposal jwould initially cost the city $50,000 and that it would increase the annual cost of disposal an estimated S$15,000. Priorities and the available funds then play an Simportant part in what should and can be done un-Jder un-Jder existing bonding limits and without the necessity neces-sity of a mill levy-increase, which residents would surely fight. H Mayor Whetten has listed three major priorities Swhich he believes, and we agree, are more import-Sant import-Sant in Cedar City, a part of rural Utah. They are: Z First on that priority list is water which Mayor ;Whetten indicates "has been and will remain, for the forseeable future, the greatest problem facing SCedar City." Z Second is the problem facing Cedar City with re-Sgard re-Sgard to improvement of sewage treatment facilities. SThe present plant is obsolete and inadequate and if Sanyone disputes that.theory all they need do is take ;a trip some evening to the area of the municipal air-jport air-jport and it will be quite evident to them that some-Jthing some-Jthing needs to be done. The State, as a matter of Sfact, has requested that a new plant be installed Iwithin the next five years, and this may be delaying JJsuch a project far too long. J Third is the important need of continued extension exten-sion and development of the Municipal Airport fatalities. fa-talities. Mayor Whetten points out that in commer-Scial commer-Scial travel the Cedar City airport is second only to ISalt Lake City in the state of Utah. Z Therefore we back Mayor Whetten and the city council in their efforts to defer requirements of the ;new open burning regulations. We believe that the city is better equipped to set priorities and that certainly cer-tainly there are priorities here that come ahead of Jthe dictates of the Air Conservation Committee. - I,, i - |
