Comment EI-31175
Received or sent (printed as 2/11/2021)
Let me start by saying we purchased property in Argyle canyon over 20 years ago, so I could have something to show for the inheritance I received when I lost my parents within seven weeks of each other. So I am sure you can understand how much our little piece of heaven means to us. We lost a lot of it in the Church camp fire over 8 years ago and the thought of trains going through and the possibility of more fires being sparked makes me sad and angry. We also worked and saved so we could have a cabin which we got occupancy on from Duchesne county about 3 years ago. I have no problem with the basin having the means to get ahead and improve their situation. My problem is that too much of it has been politically motivated for more counties gain. Why is money being put to send the commodities/oil further southwest when the refineries the oil will be refined in are southeast of the basin? It makes no logical sense to destroy our canyon when there is a route with less mountainous area going in an eastern direction to those eastern refineries, which would have less impact on the environment, than the 85 miles of destruction to our lands. What it does reflect is a political move to increase political pockets at the expense of the taxpayers that will be hit with the bill. I am one of those taxpayers who will be hit twice; first, with the destruction of our area and second, with the waste in taxpayers money to send it 85 miles in the wrong direction. Sadly common sense doesn’t seem to be as common as it used to be. Please use our taxpayer money wisely, that’s all we can ask. Thank you for letting us voice our concerns. Sincerely, Eileen K. Woffinden
Submitted by: Eileen Woffinden · West Jordan, UT
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-36284/comment/EI-31175 · back to the docket sheet