Protect our public lands

Re "Obama should confront GOP on water" (Editorial, June 12): The Bee lays out the radical Republican "war on our land, water and natural resources." Republicans have sadly lost their way.

In 1906, GOP President Teddy Roosevelt signed into law the Antiquities Act of 1906. Roosevelt protected Muir Woods, Lassen Peak and the Pinnacles.

Public lands of the Berryessa Snow Mountain region located west of Sacramento have been considered for protection under the Antiquities Act. Blue oak woodlands and serpentine soil plants are home for bald and golden eagles, tule elk, river otter, black bear, deer, Pacific fisher, newts and incredible wildflowers. Native Americans lived here 12,000 years ago.

These public lands belong to all of us, and it is our responsibility to ensure that areas of cultural, historical and scientific importance are protected to be enjoyed in a way that preserves the integrity of these areas for our children and grandchildren.

– Bob Schneider, Davis,

senior policy director, Tuleyome

GOP offers reassurance on water

In the editorial The Bee calls for a "balanced" approach on water issues. It then attacks House Republicans who are seeking to balance protecting our environment and restoring our economy.

The Bee's attack on HR 1837 illustrates the point. The issue is whether environmental extremists can continue to turn California's Central Valley into a dust bowl by diverting hundreds of billions of gallons of contracted water into the Pacific Ocean, destroying tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland with no significant improvement to the environment. As chairman of the House water and power subcommittee, I can assure The Bee that no bill will be passed if it in any way weakens local area of origin water rights or undermines senior water rights holders.

– U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock,

R-Elk Grove

How to end water wars

Re "Warring water agencies should tone down rhetoric" (Opinion, June 12): Stuart Leavenworth's commentary offered some important advice about the need for us to work constructively, not destructively. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was created 83 years ago because the region had no choice but to pool its resources and work together to create a reliable water system. This holds true today more than ever.

Metropolitan's democratic process (37 directors representing 26 member agencies, six counties, 19 million residents and a 5,200-square-mile service area) has healthy and sometimes heated policy discussions. The district (contrary to the commentary) does invest in lowering demand and increasing regional supplies to reduce reliance on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to meet future needs.

Only one member agency has chosen the courtroom and conflict. We encourage the San Diego County Water Authority to consider a collaborative approach instead.

– Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager, Metropolitan Water District

of Southern California

Foundation is agriculture

Re "Dredging ban steals property rights" (Another View, June 12): Ted Gaines, our state senator from the insurance industry, is pushing for unrestricted gold dredging in our California rivers and streams. He cites "the faulty claim of environmental damage" as an excuse for "the assault on private property rights," which is actually an "effort to kill off California's foundational industry."

Wrong. The "foundational industry" is agriculture – as someone who owns orchards, he should know this. Mining came much later and has historically generated less money. Gaines calls water protection an "attack on common Americans" who are just "chasing their dream." All this from a representative who hasn't brought in one dollar of relief or one new job in his district in the last decade.

– Reginald Bronner, Lincoln

Mental health system tried

Re "A journey into darkness" (Forum, June 12): Before anyone takes Dan Morain's piece seriously, one may wish to consider the following points: (1) "Help came only after they harmed someone else" contradicts Morain's statement that "He had been in and out of drug and psychiatric treatment facilities and jails more than 30 times." (2) Treatment, obviously successful, was derailed by its own success because, thanks to treatment, he no longer met the necessary legal criteria, and conservatorships necessary for long-term treatment could not be obtained. (3) At no point did the mental health/legal system do anything remotely resembling a "crime." (4) How tragic that this essay viciously and inaccurately attacks the very individuals who did all they could to manage a difficult problem, only to be repeatedly thwarted by the very recovery they were duty-bound to facilitate.

The mental health system did all that it could do under the law to stabilize and treat this man.

– Alfred P. French, Roseville

Laura's Law is crucial

In Dan Morain's excellent piece, he omitted the elephant in the room: the Supreme Court decision that requires California to release 33,000 prisoners, up to 30 percent of whom are mentally ill.

To help this group and keep the public safer, California should make Laura's Law mandatory in all counties and require mandatory evaluation of the released mentally ill prisoners for inclusion in it.

Research in New York shows this form of treatment reduces arrest for violent crime eightfold. To fund this, California should require Mental Health Services Act money be limited to helping those with the most serious mental illness and specifically Laura's Law participants.

The seriously mentally ill should be sent to the front of the line, not the back. These two steps would do more to help the mentally ill, keep the public safer and save money than any other solution.

– D.J. Jaffe, New York, founder of Mental Illness Policy Org

Readers respond to last Sunday's Conversation on treating the mentally ill and the question: Should state law be changed to make it easier to compel treatment for those who are severely mentally ill?

From The Bee's Facebook page

On the East Coast they closed up all (mental hospitals) years ago and put the needy in the streets to group homes, etc. These hospitals need to be reopened!

– Connie Paciga

Yes, why do we allow them to wander, hurting themselves and others? Most (are) living on the streets.

– Darlene Mann Jordan

I agree, people like Brian need a LOT of help. But I worry that even mental institutions would not be enough. I don't know what the solution is.

– Amanda Stonehouse

From The Bee's online Conversation

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 2009 there were 32,000 individuals with severe and persistent mental illness in prison at any one time; another 25,000 were on probation. In 2008-2009, according to statistics of the state Department of Mental Health, just about 190,000 individuals received mental health treatment one or more times in county jails. A decade ago, our four state hospitals housed up to 6,000 people with the most severe symptoms of mental illness, 80-85% of whom came from community settings. Today, with a census of not quite 6,000 individuals in state hospitals, less than 10% are from the community, the remaining 90% are from the criminal justice system. By contrast in 2008-2009, county mental health treatment systems treated something on the order of 442,000 individuals. The costs of arresting, adjudicating and incarcerating people with a mental illness was calculated in 1997 at $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion. In 2010 the prison system alone spent about $1.6 billion to house, feed and treat people with severe and persistent mental illness. That does not include the costs in local jails, courts, or in the state hospital system.

– Randall Hagar, Sacramento

Since the passage of the LPS Act, California has limited its involuntary civil commitment to only extreme examples of danger or for those individuals who are so ill they will no longer eat, shelter or dress themselves even if that food is provided to them. Brian did not show that level of severity until after his danger spiraled into a violent act. Twenty years ago my sister-in-law also qualified for treatment simultaneously to committing a criminal act when she, without warning, murdered her 78-year-old mother. The state has now paid approximately $3 million dollars to lock her away in a state hospital. Had our family been able to get her treatment when we knew she needed it but she – due to brain dysfunction – did not, the maximum cost for preventative treatment in the community over those 20 years would have been $200,000. Few people with mental illness show the severity of illness my sister-in-law and Brian displayed. Instead, daily thousands more in California are untreated, on our streets, in our jails or suffering in their parents' back bedrooms. Waiting for danger is too late. The LPS Act was a social experiment that has proven itself too costly in terms of both fiscal sanity and basic humanity.

– Carla Jacobs

ONLINE

To read the Conversation online, go to www.sacbee.com/conversation

To connect with us on Facebook, go to www.facebook.com/sacramentobee

WRITE US A LETTER

Include: Name, mailing address and phone number.

Length: 150 words or less.

BEST WAY TO SUBMIT

Online form: www.sacbee.com/sendletter

E-mail: letters@sacbee.com Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.