The question raised by a proposal to strip-mine coal in Kane County is this: Are the temporary mining jobs worth the potential environmental damage and the possible loss of tourism that would linger after those jobs disappear?

Some people believe they are. Others, including environmental groups and people whose long-term livelihoods depend on their ability to lure visitors to the region's redrock parks and monuments, believe otherwise.

The Alton Coal Development company's plan to take surface coal from 635 acres of private land near the small town of Alton has received preliminary approval from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. But a cadre of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and the Sierra Club, is suing to stop it. They say they fear the mining process, which involves stripping the vegetation and soil from the land, then replacing it once the coal has been taken, would harm the water, air, wildlife and archaeological relics of the area.

The Kane County Council chairman doubts that it is concern for this particular place that's behind the effort to halt the plan, but rather an ideological aversion to all energy development.

What worries us is that in supporting the plan, the county may be acting against its residents' best interests. The mine would send hundreds of double-trailer coal trucks a day down U.S. Highway 89, a designated "scenic highway" used by millions of tourists who come to visit the region's recreation areas. It is ironic that Kane County claims those sites as its own on its Web site: "Kane County Utah offers access to more National Parks and Monuments than any other place," with Bryce Canyon and Zion national parks, the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area "right in our backyard."

The company estimates it would take three years to remove the coal from the 635-acre site, and if the state were to approve that mine, a 3,500-acre tract of public land could be dug next. Alton Coal has already applied for a Bureau of Land Management permit.

Kane's visitor guide cites tourism as its "primary industry" and calls Highway 89 "central to Southern Utah's national parks." Transporting coal from the public land would extend traffic on 89 for years. Does the county really want to crowd that valuable artery with heavy trucks for a decade?

The state, the BLM and the County Council should all consider carefully the economic as well as the environmental costs of these proposals.