This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Most Utahns oppose investing $53 million of public money into an Oakland, Calif., deep-water port to help sell and ship Utah coal abroad.

That's according to a UtahPolicy.com poll by Dan Jones & Associates released Friday. It said 51 percent opposed the coal-port plan, 24 percent support it and 25 percent don't know.

It came a day after four rural counties withdrew their original application for the $53 million from Utah's Permanent Community Impact Board (CIB). But they described that as a technical move and said they are still evaluating whether to proceed.

"We'll continue to look at our options and be prepared to move forward," Carbon County Commissioner Jae Potter said Thursday about plans by Carbon, Emery, Sevier and Sanpete counties.

He said the counties withdrew their original application from the CIB because it was made moot by a fund-swapping scheme passed this year by the Legislature, which created a "Throughput Infrastructure Fund."

Potter said the counties would need to apply to that fund in the future for any money for a port, and they will decide whether to do that during the coming year.

The legislation, which took effect July 1, authorizes swapping $53 million in state sales-tax revenue earmarked for transportation projects for an equal amount of mineral royalties from the CIB. That aimed to remedy concerns raised by environmental groups that CIB funds could not legally be spent out of state.

CIB money typically is used for local projects such as roads, water systems or parks to help reduce impacts on communities from mining, but the board created controversy last year by approving investing in the Oakland port to help local coal mining — which is still a major employer in the four counties involved.

Two months ago, the Oakland City Council unanimously voted to ban coal handling and storage in its jurisdiction. Potter said that creates an obstacle that developer Phil Tagami must overcome before the counties invest in the project.

"For us to move forward, that is the No. 1 issue that must be resolved," possibly through a legal challenge, Potter said.

"We do have nine months' to a year's worth of work in due diligence, vetting the project, contracts that would have to be entered into," before an investment or new application for the money, Potter said.

The project has been controversial not just because it could spend state money for an out-of-state project, but because of environmental concerns and the steep decline in the global coal market.

"Investing in a coal terminal is like building a stateroom on the Titanic after it hits the iceberg," Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at the Seattle-based think tank Sightline Institution, said amid debates at the Utah Legislature this year.

The new poll surveyed 858 Utahns from July 18 to Aug. 4. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.