OCR Text |
Show s-s. Letters YWSkS To The lip7 Editor The editor welcomes letters to be written in this public forum, from any and all parties. Letters should be concise and to the point as possible. Type-written double-spaced letters are preferred but hand written letters will be accepted. All letters should be signed, but names will be withheld if a specified reason is stated. No unsigned letters will be published. Writers should keep all letters under 250 words if possible, longer letters will be subject to possible editing. In general, all letters will be published as they are written. No libelous, obscene or malicious copy will be accepted. Dear Editor: Your editorial of last Thursday concerning con-cerning the Wilderness Proposal for Cedar Breaks was misleading in that it avoided substantive issues in the Wilderness Proposal and it presented inaccurate information. . First, to equate the present wilderness proposal with the closing and subsequent removal of Cedar Breaks Lodge is misleading. While it is not our intent to condemn or support the Park Service's action which resulted in the fate of the Dear Editor: As nurses, we are very concerned with the health care of the community, and it has come to our attention that the volunteers of our new County Ambulance Service has been giving extraordinary service. These men and women have sought extra education to prepare them for any emergencies and are very well trained to handle the cases they are called on. They give so freely of their time for very little renumeration and are extremely concerned con-cerned with people. A case in point is one volunteer who lives in Parowan and spends his on-call hours at the hospital so his response time is minimal. (Response time is the time from when a call is received for an ambulance until the ambulance leaves the hospital.) This necessitates leaving his family, but he does it for the good of the community. As officers of our professional organization, we would like to express our thanks to these dedicated people and we also want the community to know of their outstanding service. Sincerely, Fay Frahske, RN, Pres. Ann Petersen, RN, Pres. Elect Jean Meyers, RN, Treas. Susan Kesler, RN, Sec. .wbua Officers, District 5 Utah Nurses Association lodge, we wish to stress emphatically that you are misleading the public when, even by innuendo, you attempt to compare the two items. The closing of the Lodge simply has nothing to do with the wilderness proposal. Secondly, you supported the Chamber of Commerce because of concerns in the area of flood control. Before supporting the Chamber's position, we think that you should have investigated both sides of the flood control issue. The Chamber contends that a potential for flood control may exist in the lower amphitheater area of the Breaks. According to the Soil Conservation Con-servation Service, though, it is not feasible to erect a dam on Coal Creek since it would not meet longevity requirements. If constructed, such a dam would silt up in a relatively short time and therefore would not serve as a deterrent to floods. We think there are several misconceptions miscon-ceptions about just what the proposed wilderness designation entails. In this connection we would like to suggest that those concerned about the proposal take the time to read the final environmental statement for Cedar Breaks National Monument which is available to the public at the Federal Building. This, we believe, will provide more objective information than the rhetoric of the Chamber of Commerce; 1.-U :.. WJ "St . Your editorial failed to mention that then 'boundary of the proposed wilderness area extends from the rim west to include the amphitheater area of the Monument. Thus, wilderness designation would not in any way limit travel by vehicle or snowmobile over the present highway. Those of us who are impressed with the unique beauty of Cedar Breaks feel that we have a responsibility to preserve at least the most fragile portion of the area in its primeval beauty. Southern Utah has the opportunity to have the first wilderness wilder-ness area in the state of Utah. Perhaps the Chamber of Commerce should consider the positive effect this would have on tourism in our area. Signed James Dunaway Stephen K. Harmon Robert G. Young Cedar City Dear Editor: December 5 is the final day that the Park Service will accept testimony regarding the proposed wilderness designation in Cedar Breaks National Monument. I hope that residents of the area will take it upon themselves to write to the Cedar Breaks Offices located in Cedar City and to their congressional representatives regarding this issue. In a recent telephone conversation with former resident, Milt Jolley, now with the State of Utah Tourist and Publicity Council I suggested that they get v." " on the stick and oppose the wilderness designation for Cedar Breaks. I can just see the publicity now from the Tourist Council and in the Chamber of Commerce borchures. "Stop in Cedar City and take time out to visit the wilderness area 19 miles just off Utah Highway 14." That should really turn the tourist on and encourage him to stop here don't you think? ' Radio broadcasts during the past week have indicated that nothing is being changed by the proposal. If that is the case then why go through all the trouble to designate the major portion of the park as Wilderness area. No change in the Monument and its operation would not require wilderness designation. If the designation has no significance then it is not worthy of consideration. Let's not let the environmentalist run our parks and control what is done in our tack yard. Let's truly keep Cedar Breaks "the way t is - with no changes." Express your opposition to the proposed wilderness Jesignation of over 70 percent of Cedar 3reaks National Monument. Let s not let the Park Service do with vilderness designation like they did with n park services with the removal of the jodge cabins. Let's speak out, but remember, you nust do it before December 5. James Hoyle, Jr. Dear Editor: On November 10, the Record ran stories quoting Carl Palmer, associated with Southern Utah Citizens for Fair Power, as saying: "Utah Power and Light has power running out of their ears." I would like to assure your readers that Utah Power & Light does not have power running out of its ears. New generation is very, very expensive, and UP&L would obviously not be in business if it built ahead of demand. UP&L builds only enough generation to meet the needs of its customers. That soaring inflation has indeed had a profound negative effect on utilities earnings, and the days of cheap and abundant electricity are over is readily apparent. Historically, utilities have been able to keep electric prices low due primarily to the fact that new capacity used to cost less than older capacity. By contrast, when UP&L built the last Naughton unit in 1970, it did so at a cost of some $160 per kilowatt. Compare this to the $650 cost per kilowatt in our Emery first unit now under construction and to be operational in 1978. The dramatic increase in the cost of generation is due primarily to higher labor, construction and financing costs. And also there is the increasing requirement to invest more money in ncnrevenue-producing pollution control Facilities. Grant G. Pendleton Pub. Information Supervisor Utah Power & Light Co. |