Water has led the way for the growth of California. Just add water, and you get a state with half its 38 million person population in its seven southernmost counties – the most arid part of our 100 million acres. Just add water, and you get an agricultural landscape that produces more than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables. This freedom to expand, to convert desert to both suburb and breadbasket, has been a hallmark of California’s growth and success. But freedom today doesn’t necessarily translate into freedom tomorrow – there’s no free lunch.

When I travel the Second Senate District, people constantly talk about water. They note that water is intertwined with our valuable vineyards, and is the lifeline for the people. They stress that water is key to our declining fisheries, and that the rains and water table feed our superlative forests. And they express their real fears that Southern California is still on the prowl for our rivers and valleys to quench the thirst of growing cities and established agriculture.

This need for water creates an everlasting drought in California. While we speak in terms of “average” rainfall, we hide the fact that two out of three years are “below average.” When we speak of “water needs” for agriculture and cities, we suggest that California can’t be as productive without endless diversion of water from the northern and Sierra rivers to the deserts of the state.

We must get beyond the concept that there is only so much water, and that the cities, farms and fish must fight it out. Rather than continue with this struggle, we must tap the well of ideas to find the abundance that we Californians are so lucky to have.

Cities and farms must support water conservation in their zoning, choice of plants, application methods and water sources. In agriculture, this may mean selecting plant varieties and rootstocks that are less thirsty, and monitoring the soil to restrict over-watering. In cities, this may mean giving up traditional lawn mixes for less water intensive grasses, and developing gardens that reflect the native ecosystem. Rain barrels, cisterns and thrifty appliances all help as well – provided that cities and counties allow them.

I have been concerned about water and growth for a long time. As an Assemblywoman, I introduced AB 2924 in 2002. That measure would have required local government approval before water could be shipped out of the Russian, Eel or other watersheds to the north. While that bill failed to become law, I subsequently introduced a new and improved bill, AB 858, requiring study of any proposed diversion of greater than 500 acre-feet per year, which was signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis.

The state still struggles to develop groundwater laws, following the lead of forward-thinking counties like Napa. While the state still is hesitant to suggest curbs to water use, the State Water Resources Control Board has placed a significant conservation goal in this drought year for the Sonoma County Water Agency. The state is still unsure about “fixing” the Delta with a peripheral canal, and rumors still persist that the Eel and other North Coast rivers are at the heart of plans to move yet more water south.

Why let our permanent drought achieve crisis status, when we know it will persist in California for the foreseeable future? Why do we cling to a landscape of lawns in the desert? Why can’t the use of water be rationally shared, rather than continued as a competition between old users, new users, groundwater users, and the state and federal governments fulfilling contracts written in a fog of abundance?

Where the state fails (generally due to veto), the counties need to act. Groundwater, water conservation and land use all may come under the purview of counties and local, special districts. Agricultural practices can be made more thrifty with help from University Extension and the farm advisor. Gardens can be more efficient with permission from cities and support from the community and master gardener network. And stream flows and the wildlife dependent on them can be protected by land trusts, parks, water districts and effective zoning.

Freedom is why people come to and stay in California. But we are not free to waste water, to take others’ resources or devastate the environment for personal or corporate convenience. And when others do that, it limits our own freedom. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to innovate – and that will be our solution.

Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of six counties: Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma. She chairs the legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

This is in response to your "Open Letter" regarding the prosecution of Bismark Dinius, posted and available to the public on the Lake County website as of Friday, July 17 (www.co.lake.ca.us/Assets/DistrictAttorney/Press+Releases/January+2008/July+17$!2c+2009+-+Dinius+Sailboat+Case+Open+Letter.pdf ). In that letter you claim to take your "responsibilities as District Attorney seriously." You claim to believe "in a system of justice that does not presume people to be guilty." You claim to "work tirelessly to find the truth." Let’s examine those claims.

The very first sentence of your letter asks "Why do so many people support drunken sailors on the lake at night with their running lights off?" Near the end of your letter you assert that Chief Deputy Perdock collided "with a sailboat operated by drunken sailors at night without their running lights." So much for the presumption of innocence.

A widespread perception of injustice has resulted in considerable public scrutiny of, and investigation into, the facts surrounding this case. Most of the information that has been turned up by the press and others directly contradicts the official version of the "facts" produced by Lake County law enforcement. You did not seek out, let alone turn up this information yourself. Indeed, for many months your office failed to turn over to Mr. Dinius’s lawyer exculpatory evidence that you did have. Now, rather than integrate all of the exculpatory evidence into an honest appraisal of the case, you simply dismiss that evidence as "wrong, false and misleading," or as "rumors and misinformation." You pick the bits of evidence you like and you belittle the rest. So much for your search for the truth.

That is one of the reasons that intelligent people around the world, recoil in astonishment and horror at what you are doing. In a country which holds itself out as having the finest and fairest justice system in history you, as representative of the legal and moral authority of the state, have never made an honest evaluation of the most fundamental legal and moral question at issue here. That question is, did Mr. Dinius cause Lynn Thorton’s death?

Your case, as you yourself describe it, boils down to this – that a drunk Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he put her in harm’s way. He put her in harm’s way, you contend, by (1)　failing to turn on his sailboat’s running lights, and (2) not maneuvering the sailboat out of the way of Chief Deputy Sheriff Perdock’s speedboat, both of which he would have done had he been sober. The intellectual dishonesty in your arguments is breathtaking.

As to the running lights, the eye-witness testimony is inconclusive, and you know it. What is significant, however, is testimony by some of the witnesses that law enforcement officers refused to take their statements that they saw the lights on. Those are the witnesses who became known as a result of public outcry and scrutiny. For the better part of three years you prosecuted this case on the false premise that with only favorable witnesses you could prove the running lights were off. And, of course, you ignore the evidence from the forensic investigator who examined the lights and concluded they were on when the collision occurred.

Even more significantly, you dismiss the undisputed testimony that the sailboat’s cabin lights were on. That, you argue,"does not satisfy the legal requirement for running lights." Of course, you have to make this technical argument because your case depends upon a drunk Mr. Dinius having failed to take some legally required action. But cabin lights, as you know full well, are far brighter and far more visible than running lights. Even assuming the sailboat's running lights were not on, and even assuming Mr. Dinius had a legal duty to turn them on but drunkenly failed to do so, how could running lights possibly have avoided a collision that the far more visible cabin lights did not prevent?

As to maneuvering out of the way, why do you contend it the responsibility of the sailboat driver to avoid the speedboat? You claim to have been "reading the law and the rules regarding water vessels." Surely you came across the very basic rule that a power boat (being more maneuverable) is obligated to stay clear of a sailboat. Is the rule different on Clear Lake? On Clear Lake does might make right of way?

Moreover, on what basis do you claim it was even possible for the sailboat to evade the speedboat? You assert that "everyone on the sailboat says it was under sail and moving." How fast was it moving? You yourself insist it is impossible to prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, and you say that despite Chief Deputy Perdock’s own admission that he was going 30 mph and his own admission that the speedometer needle was straight up (which would put his speed at 50 mph). Despite those admissions you maintain that as to Chief Deputy Perdock’s speed, "[a]ll we have are estimates, guesses and speculation." Yet, there is even less evidence as to how fast the sailboat was moving. How can you contend that the sailboat was moving fast enough to have been maneuvered out of the way of the racing speedboat, even by a stone-cold sober driver?

This brings me to another reason why intelligent observers around the world are aghast at your prosecution of Mr. Dinius. Assuming, as you insist, that Mr. Dinius did something to put Lynn Thorton in harm’s way, what about Chief Deputy Perdock? If, as you argue, it was reasonably foreseeable to the driver of a sailboat that speedboats would be racing about Clear Lake in the dark at grossly reckless speeds, was it not equally foreseeable to a speedboat operator (a high ranking law enforcement official, no less) that sailboats, even poorly lit or unlit sailboats, would be present on the lake? If illegal operation of powerboats is foreseeable to sailors, why is illegal operation of sailboats not equally foreseeable to powerboaters?

In short, your evidence and reasoning that Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he was drunk is flimsy at best. But if, flimsy as it is, it is sufficient to support your prosecution of Mr. Dinius, what credible explanation do you have for charging Mr. Dinius but not charging Chief Deputy Perdock? The excuse you have repeatedly given, that you can’t prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, just doesn’t pass the smell test. Whatever his exact speed, it was obviously and indisputably way too fast. It was recklessly fast. It was fatally fast. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

In your letter you state, "We have a serious problem in Lake County with boaters of all types operating while under the influence." Maybe so, but the evidence in this case is that the problems you have are motorboaters going too fast, and differening standards of justice for those who are in power and those are not. You express your hope that "this tragedy will cause boaters to think of the consequences and dangers of boating under the influence." What about the consequences and dangers of unsafe speed?

It is a fundamental precept of American justice that when the state brings its authority and resources to bear against an individual it must do so fairly and evenhandedly. It is fundamental that the integrity of our system requires avoidance of actual injustice. It is fundamental that continued respect for, and therefore the very survival of, our system compels the avoidance of even the appearance of injustice.

By any objective measure, the evidence supports the conclusion that Chief Deputy Perdock is at least as potentially culpable as Mr. Dinius, if not more. Yet, you chose to ignore Chief Deputy Perdock and to prosecute only Mr. Dinius. In the absence of equally serious charges against Chief Deputy Perdock, your prosecution of Mr. Dinius for the death of Ms. Thorton not only appears unjust, it is unjust.

You would have us believe that your search for truth led you to seek dismissal of the manslaughter charge against Mr. Dinius. Yet, you persist with a different charge that requires proof of essentially, if not exactly, all the same elements. Your continuation of this case on a lesser charge is nothing but a vindictive attempt to salvage whatever you can from three years of fundamentally dishonest prosecution.

Your handling of this case brings the Lake County judicial system, and by association the entire California judicial system, into worldwide disrepute.

Ryan Werner lives in San Francisco. He's a member of the California State Bar.

Good luck with that. Bankruptcy looks like the only growth industry among the few remaining media chains which own most of our news sources and are scrambling to see who can get rid of the most actual notebook-carrying reporters.

But the real problem for The Onion sale is that the actual news, as compared with the fake news, seems far less probable these days, and far more worthy of hysterical laughter.

A governor resigns, incoherently, 18 months before her term is up and her political party anoints her as a good candidate for president.

A city council announces it has no interest in televising its proceedings and the citizens don't start a recall, or at least loudly squeak in indignation.

Another governor admits, with gag-inducing greeting card sentimentality, to lying about an extramarital affair without offering to resign. His constituents don't question that.

A group of privileged white men question the integrity of a Latina judge candidate who acknowledges that life experiences have a role in shaping everyone.

A public employee uses on-duty time and public money for his commercial pilot flying lessons and no one in his department notices until he nearly crashes the helicopter.

Another governor, elected on campaign promises to straighten out the state's fiscal mess, apparently forgets that for six years until the middle of budget talks, when he demands top-to-bottom reforms before the budget can be settled.

How can satire compete with any of that?

Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne.

Artist John Trumbull's 12-foot by 18-foot oil on canvas of the Founding Fathers presenting the Declaration of Independence in Independence Hall, Philadelphia. The figures standing in the front of the room are members of the committee that drafted the declaration – including John Adams, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson (presenting the document) and Benjamin Franklin. They stand before John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress. Trumbull's painting was commissioned in 1817, purchased in 1819 and placed in the Capitol Rotunda in 1826. The same portrait appears on the back of the $2 bill. Courtesy of the Independence Hall Association.

Before we head out for barbecues and fireworks displays this weekend, let's pause to reread the Declaration of Independence.

In 2009, 233 years after it was drafted, the declaration still has much to teach us about our country's aspirations and the unique opportunities citizens of the United States are meant to enjoy.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The original Declaration of Independence is now exhibited in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in Washington, DC. It has faded badly, largely because of poor preservation techniques during the 19th century. The document measures 29 and 3/4 inches by 24 and 1/2 inches. Courtesy of the Independence Hall Association.