The Utah Inland Port Authority, by allowing public comment through board meetings or communications with board members, gives the illusion that they care. Please, UIPA — listen to these comments which express overwhelming concern for UIPA’s impact on the environment.
Last fall, I emailed Mona Smith, UIPA’s environmental and sustainability director, about environmental concerns. She replied saying she was happily ready to hear my questions and respond if I gave a list of questions.
My question list was as follows:
1) How does UIPA make certain that project areas don’t create significant environmental concerns either before or after construction?
2) What would you expect developers would do to minimize release of pollutants that may aggravate asthma?
3) Can you explain how the environmental mitigation tax credits work?
These simple questions should be easily answered by the BP-17 Wetlands policy document or the owner of the policy, Ms. Smith, herself. I received no response.
The BP-17 Wetlands document reads not as a policy but as a suggestion because of its lack of mandates. It reeks of greenwashing and the public has been commenting on the lack of mandates for years now. What’s more? UIPA has built a road through wetlands in Tooele.
How can developers be expected to protect such wetlands if they don’t follow their own policy?
The lack of response by the UIPA board shows UIPA thinks of the public as a nuisance, not people to work alongside with for both economic and environmental stewardship.
I appreciate the acknowledgment of the environment, but it is meaningless without real, tangible action. My appreciation is directly proportional to that real tangible action that ensures protection for decades to come, nothing less. BP-17, which is undergoing annual review, should mandate wetland protection. Even one developer (UIPA included) getting off scot-free is unacceptable.
Allison Barton, Murray