We urge state officials and lawmakers to think carefully before creating an agency to oversee mine safety. It may be a waste of time and money; it could even endanger the miners it intends to protect.

The office seemingly would act in tandem with the MSHA -- as part liaison, part watchdog. It's understandable why this idea has some appeal. The Crandall Canyon mine disaster and other accidents have put the spotlight on MSHA.

Critics have said a state agency would merely duplicate what MSHA does. That would be a waste of taxpayers' money. It also could take jobs away from Utahns if red tape hampers the industry.

Supporters of the idea say the state agency would support federal efforts, not duplicate them. Perhaps. But we suspect a state agency would dilute, or even interfere with, mine safety.

First, the federal Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 took several steps to make mines safer. But the law is still being implemented. For example, one provision gives the industry three years to develop wireless two-way communications and electronic tracking systems. Overcoming the steep technical challenges takes time.

Then more time must elapse before such reforms can be evaluated. Perhaps the law will eliminate the need for a state office. Or, perhaps the problems will require a stronger response from the state of Utah than what the mine panel envisioned. For these reasons, it would be better for Utah to give the federal effort time to work, then re-evaluate.

Another argument against starting a state agency is that responsibility for mining is already fragmented. MSHA, the Bureau of Land Management, the Utah Department of Natural Resources and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining all play some part in mining. Adding a fifth agency would only worsen the odds that responsibility will be shifted from one body to another.

And that is a significant concern: with divided responsibility, there's a chance that something will fall through the cracks. And then finger-pointing takes precedence over problem-solving. In cases like this, the feds say it's the state's jurisdiction, the state blames the feds, and so it goes, back and forth, while problems fester.

Another problem could be a clash between agencies. The state agency is meant to work with MSHA, but what if there is a genuine disagreement? Who decides? Again, the bureaucracies may become bogged down in turf wars just when action is most needed.

It is not that we have vast faith in MSHA. When the agency investigates a mine disaster, it must scrutinize its own performance. This builds a conflict of interest into the system.

We strongly support the development of an independent federal agency to investigate mine accidents and make judgments on mine safety. Checks and balances are a vital part of any government function, especially in this one, where lives are at stake. At the same time, state and federal lawmakers must keep up the pressure on the federal government to improve oversight of this dangerous but vital industry.

We generally prefer for problems to be addressed as close to the local level as possible. If there were already a state mining agency, we'd be leery of calls for a federal one. But as there already is a federal office inspecting mines, it is better for that agency to be reformed rather than create a new state office to jump in and confuse matters.

Let's not divert attention or resources from making mines safer, and right now that means focusing on the federal agency that already exists.