SITLA is supposed to operate for the benefit of Utah schools and students. That means more than just generating revenues in the short term.
Utah's air quality has already deteriorated significantly — and not just along the urban Wasatch Front. And much of that deterioration is due to drilling, mining, fracking and the overall burning of fossil fuels. Most Utah kids and teachers understand that, even if their public officials and SITLA board members may not.
It’s not a choice of schoolchildren vs. hunters. It’s a choice of schoolchildren vs. the growing pollution and deterioration of our state.
The Deseret News ran an article the other day which included, “It’s no secret that the world will have to make the transition from fossil fuels to something more sustainable” ("The ethanol strategy," Aug. 13).
Why doesn’t SITLA take the lead — in the interests of all Utah residents — and manage the lands for renewable, sustainable, minimally polluting, minimally degrading activities — even if it means the "return" might be a little less.
Salt Lake City
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- My view: Chaffetz named ‘politician of...
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas tax?...
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the family put...
- Disputes over specialized license plates...
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws of war
- Letter: Wood burning an easy target
- Letter: Bring the prison here
- Charles Krauthammer: Democrats use... 78
- In our opinion: Police training should... 44
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 43
- In our opinion: Wood burning ban... 37
- Robert Bennett: More political... 36
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Paul Mero: Reasonable solution to... 30
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 28