Common sense dictates that these departements go hand in hand and both should be under one management. They should be coridnated department that share and evaluate all information as a whole. That was their intended purpose when established and what good is the information on air quality when health is ignored? It should be on department reporting and sharing information. This group of concerned citizens are right and should not be ignored. And why are they called activist? The news media makes them sound like a bunch of rabble rousers acting like troublemakers. Is this what speaking out as a concerned citizen is called now, and activist? It berates a citizens rights to ask for accountable and responsible government actions.

These groups sometimes can't be trusted. (Although, I except Sen. Pat Jones, as I don't know her).

The Sierra Club, UPHE, and HEAL all use a politically biased approach to understanding pollution and health issues that is reactionary, inflammatory, and leftist while often being deficient in good science, statistics, or thoroughness.

The HEAL troops told us we would all be killed in our sleep by the Army's chemical weapons incinerator facility in Rush Valley. Instead, it has safely processed almost all the munitions out there.

The Sierra Club and UPHE have carefully ignored the high NOx pollution dumped into our air by UTA's fleet of diesel swilling buses and (3,600-horsepower) commuter-rail locomotives. In fact, UTA now emits over 450 tons more NOx a year than it prevents. But, with the opening of South Commuter-rail, that will jump to nearly 700 tons extra NOx annually. (Refer to the bus-versus-TRAX NOx analysis in the January 2008 Legislative Audit. Also, refer to my submission to the FRontrunner FESR).

NOx and other diesel-pollutants are the main culprits in lung-damaging diseases.

These groups have pushed the spending of $20 billion for transit even though UTA cynically and intentionally worsens the worst pollution!

I found this article and individuals claiming that we at DEQ are not mindful of the public health, totally wrong and false. I work for the Division of Water Quality as a Environmental Scientist. I help administer the program for Large Underground Wastewater Disposal Systems.
With a degree in Environmental Health, I took numerous public health classes to fulfill the requirement of my degree. Past employment, I�ve worked in a public health lab with nurses and physician assistants; was the environmental program contact for the epidemiological team, and would accompany a nurse to investigate various water and food borne illness complaints. In all the environmental programs that I've work in, the main theme has been having environmental regulations, rules, polices all with the thought of protecting the public from deleterious health effects. I am currently in the process of presenting to fellow health professionals, a revision to underground wastewater disposal systems. Foremost and behind these changes is this theme of public health protection by having sound environmental controls and rules to accomplish this.

We have many individuals on board here at DEQ, besides myself, that have protection of public health as the foremost interest in their duties of their jobs.

This article should be titled "Activists want less common sense and science in public health decisions" because that's essentially what they are demanding.

It was an unpleasant surprise to read Tuesday that Rick Sprott is retiring. I have been very glad to see that he maintains the commitment to stakeholder processes that Dianne Nielson displayed. He has also been a leader in the Governor's climate change efforts.

Stakeholder processes use the expertise of diverse viewpoints to arrive at good durable decisions. I hope any candidate the Governor chooses to replace Mr Sprott will have wide experience and commitment to the stakeholder process for developing policy, rules and innovative solutions to our problems.

Citizens are increasingly aware of the human health impacts of our environment, and sometimes feel skeptical of regulatory efforts to protect our families. The best candidate to replace Rick Sprott would be someone with health credentials along with the technical and administrative skills needed to manage the large Department of Environmental Quality and be the Governors main environmental advisor as well as Cabinet member.

Appropriate public purposes may well be served by having some representation by environmental advocates in whatever search process the Governor undertakes in finding the best possible replacement for Mr Sprott. This is an important decision and the public is wise to pay attention.