Bee readers respond to Elk Grove homelessness, California water audit, wildfire prevention

Elk Grove kudos

“‘Where do you want me to go?’ What’s next as Elk Grove clamps down on homeless camps,” (sacbee.com, July 27)

Bravo, Elk Grove. Finally, a city takes a firm approach to dealing with people who choose to camp on our streets and recreation areas. Homeless enablers — The Bee included — would have us believe that these unfortunates are too sick or too addicted to be held accountable, or that they are normal people like you and me who have been priced out of the rental market. Plenty of “here’s what they need” without any solutions.

Oh, and by the way, resources are available to them if they want them. And the whole what-about-my-dog excuse is getting annoying. Camping in the streets and food-deprived is no way for an animal to live.

So what’s the answer? Shelters that they refuse to live in and mental health and addiction programs that they have a right to refuse. Ask the enablers.

Monica Donnelly

Carmichael

Support water bill

“California too slow to help Valley communities with tainted drinking water, auditor says,” (sacbee.com, July 26)

Especially in a drought-prone state, the last thing we need is state leaders dragging their feet over providing communities with clean drinking water. California’s state auditor found that nearly a million Californians receive unsafe drinking water and has concluded that the State Water Resources Control Board “demonstrated a lack of urgency” in providing assistance.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only way that California lags in addressing water contamination. Across California, water systems have been performing partial replacements of water service lines, meaning only replacing part of a line and leaving components in the ground that can continue to leach toxic lead into customers drinking water.

Assembly Bill 1931, by Assemblywoman Luz Rivas, will make much-needed improvements to California’s lead line replacement process and direct the state water board to use federal funds to help communities properly get the lead out. The state Senate should approve this important legislation.

Jenn Engstrom

Sacramento

Pheasants matter

“Why murdering overgrown swamp rats is the environmental success California deserves,” (sacbee.com, July 24”)

There has been more than $10 million spent so far to eradicate nutria, a swamp rodent. There are a few of us still around who remember what hunting wild pheasant in the Central Valley was like in the old days. It may have been among the best in the nation. Today, just seeing a wild pheasant is a thrill because their numbers have plummeted to an all-time low, and not a penny was spent to save them.

Instead, we continue to lose prime habitat and turn a blind eye to this magnificent bird’s demise. Had this been a meadowlark, a scrub jay or our local sparrowhawk, the state would have broken the bank to save it. I doubt pheasant numbers will ever return without the state’s help because it will never be a priority. What a loss it truly is.

Are swamp rats any good to eat?

W.S. Westlake

Sacramento

Pronoun choices

“A Sacramento County official pointedly refused to identify his pronouns. But why?” (sacbee.com, July 21)

This appears to be another example of opting out of a situation that you never were allowed to opt into. And, if you choose not to participate, then there must be some underlying nefarious reason, right? If you show some type of unconscious bias against whatever the subject might be, then there is something inherently wrong with you for whatever reason.

In this time of “my body, my choice,” why can’t Sacramento County Mental Health Board member William Cho have his right to “my pronouns, my choice” without being pilloried by the purveyors of political correctness or deemed a bad person because of it?

Joan Bach

Sacramento

Questionable thinning

“Yosemite’s giant sequoias were saved by forest-thinning. Here’s why some want it stopped,” (sacbee.com, July 17)

The photo supporting the Yosemite forest-thinning story shows a firefighter suppressing fire within a sequoia grove. The public has been witnessing large-scale thinning efforts within Yosemite: The removed trees would be Christmas trees for giants. Stump sizes speak volumes. Firsthand accounts from reporters visiting forests with published scientists — on both sides of the debate — would better inform the discussion.

The idea of a growing scientific consensus favoring forest thinning is questionable. Well over 200 scientists have agreed that commercial thinning is destructive; wildfires continue to progress quickly and dangerously through thinned forests. There are thousands of ways to thin forests. Commercial thinning, as the term implies, is interested in the largest trees. It’s heartening to see comments on scientific literature, but pro-thinning scientists are supported by industrial interests.

Maya R. Khosla

Rohnert Park

Questionable experts

“Sacramento Bee readers react to forest thinning, Uvalde report, Newsom’s Florida ads” (sacbee.com, July 24)

Multiple letters objecting to the need to trim forests referenced a letter by 200 forest environmentalists. There is no such profession. Most of the 200 have spent none of their career in forest management, and are mostly those who believe, erroneously, that forests need to be preserved. On the other hand, professionals who recommended thinning of forests were mostly forest managers. The letters falsely said maintaining dense forests prevent fires. If true California would not have lost 2.6 million acres to fire in 2021. Since 1990 logging in the state has has been reduced to 20% of prior levels. The number of saw mills has gone from over 100 to about 20 now. That reduction reflects government’s dumbheaded policy of allowing forests to get too dense, leaving almost no meadows. Now forest fires abound.

Joe Dobrowolski

Fair Oaks