Open Season on Whistleblowers–in NYC and Santa Cruz

NOTES BY NORSE:   The right-wing City Council “Public Safety” Committee  and the Parks & Recreation Commission forwarded to the Santa Cruz City Council a bill that created a new crime:
“Any person who by his or her conduct, or by threatening, or abusive, Continue reading

Nevada’s Therapy of Choice: Patient Dumping?

NOTE BY NORSE:   A  favorite Santa Cruz homeless-hostile comment by those who want to restrict the highly-limited homeless services available, intensify anti-homeless laws, and “crackdown” on homeless survival camps is that other cities in the country bus their homeless to Santa Cruz because of its “wonderfully permissible” and “enabling” policies.   In the two dozen years I’ve been an activist here, interviewing several thousand  homeless people since 1988, I’ve never had a homeless person volunteer that information about themselves.  If anyone has had that experience, please e-mail me at rnorse3@hotmail.com .

Nevada buses hundreds of mentally ill patients to cities around country

By Cynthia Hubert, Phillip Reese and Jim Sanders
chubert@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Apr. 14, 2013 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Sunday, Apr. 14, 2013 – 7:58 am
Over the past five years, Nevada’s primary state psychiatric hospital has put hundreds of mentally ill patients on Greyhound buses and sent them to cities and towns across America.

Since July 2008, Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas has transported more than 1,500 patients to other cities via Greyhound bus, sending at least one person to every state in the continental United States, according to a Bee review of bus receipts kept by Nevada’s mental health division.

About a third of those patients were dispatched to California, including more than 200 to Los Angeles County, about 70 to San Diego County and 19 to the city of Sacramento.

In recent years, as Nevada has slashed funding for mental health services, the number of mentally ill patients being bused out of southern Nevada has steadily risen, growing 66 percent from 2009 to 2012.

During that same period, the hospital has dispersed those patients to an ever-increasing number of states.

By last year, Rawson-Neal bused out patients at a pace of well over one per day, shipping nearly 400 patients to a total of 176 cities and 45 states across the nation.

Nevada’s approach to dispatching mentally ill patients has come under scrutiny since one of its clients turned up suicidal and confused at a Sacramento homeless services complex. James Flavy Coy Brown, who is 48 and suffers from a variety of mood disorders including schizophrenia, was discharged in February from Rawson-Neal to a Greyhound bus for Sacramento, a place he had never visited and where he knew no one.

The hospital sent him on the 15-hour bus ride without making arrangements for his treatment or housing in California; he arrived in Sacramento out of medication and without identification or access to his Social Security payments. He wound up in the UC Davis Medical Center’s emergency room, where he lingered for three days until social workers were able to find him temporary housing.

Nevada mental health officials have acknowledged making mistakes in Brown’s case, but have made no apologies for their policy of busing patients out of state. Las Vegas is an international destination and patients who become ill while in the city have a right to return home if they desire, the state’s health officer, Dr. Tracey Green, told Nevada lawmakers during a hearing last month.

She and others insist that the vast majority of patients they are discharging to the Main Street bus station are mentally stable and have family members, treatment programs or both waiting for them at the end of their rides.

That was not true in Brown’s case. His papers from Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services read: “Discharge to Greyhound bus station by taxi with 3 day supply of medication” and provided a vague suggestion for further treatment: “Follow up with medical doctor in California.” Brown said staff at Rawson-Neal advised him to call 911 when he arrived in Sacramento.

Nevada Health and Human Services Director Michael Willden told lawmakers last month that while health officials “blew it” in their handling of Brown, an internal investigation found no pattern of misconduct.

But an investigation by the Nevada State Health Division documented several other instances from a small sampling of cases in February in which the state hospital violated written rules for safely discharging mentally ill patients.

Other apparent violations surfaced during The Bee’s investigation.

At least two patients from the Nevada system arrived in San Francisco during the past year “without a plan, without a relative,” said Jo Robinson, director of that city’s Behavioral Health Services department.

“We’re fine with taking people if they call and we make arrangements and make sure that everything is OK for the individual,” Robinson said. “But a bus ticket with no contact, no clinic receptor, anything, it’s really not appropriate.”

Robinson said she viewed the practice as “patient dumping,” and has reported it to federal authorities. “It’s offensive to me that they would show this lack of care for a client,” she said.

Practice called risky

Nevada mental health officials did not respond to repeated requests for phone interviews for this story, nor would they address a list of emailed questions about the origins of the busing policy and the safety protocols in place.

Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, the agency that oversees Rawson-Neal, maintains detailed written policies for transporting patients “to their home communities,” with the stated goal of providing more appropriate care by the most economical means possible.

The policy includes a special section on “Travel Nourishment Protocol,” specifying the number of bottles of Ensure nutritional supplement the patient should receive for the bus trip – essentially six per day.

Staff members are supposed to fill out a “Client Transportation Request” form, which includes questions about whether the patient is willing to go, whether housing or shelter has been verified, and the cost of the trip.

The written policy calls for staff to confirm that a patient has housing or shelter available “and a support system to meet client at destination.” They are to provide information about “mental health services available in the home community.”

Interviews with health officials in California and numerous other states indicate Nevada’s practices are unusual. None of the 10 state mental health agencies contacted by The Bee said that placing a psychiatric patient on a bus without support would be permissible. And none recalled being contacted by Rawson-Neal to make arrangements for a patient coming from Nevada.

In California, where most public mental health treatment is overseen at the county level, agencies contacted by The Bee said they rarely bus patients and that Nevada’s practices seem out of step with the standard of care.

Several described the practice as risky, even if patients have someone waiting for them at the end of their journeys.

“Putting someone whose mental illness makes them unable to care for themselves alone on a bus for a long period of time could be absolutely disastrous,” said Dorian Kittrell, executive director of the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.

Patients could suffer relapses during their trips and potentially harm themselves or other people, said Kittrell and others. They could become lost to the streets or commit crimes that land them in jail.

“The risk is just too great,” said Dr. Marye Thomas, chief of behavioral health for Alameda County.
Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services has had an ongoing contract with Greyhound since July 2009, said bus company spokesman Timothy Stokes.

Stokes said he was unaware of any serious incidents involving mentally ill patients from Nevada. He said Greyhound has contracts with “a number” of hospitals around the country, but declined to identify them.

“We take it on good faith that the organization is going to make certain that patients are not a risk to themselves or others,” he said.

Still, officials in several of California’s largest counties said they rarely, if ever, bus patients out of state.
“We don’t do it, we never will do it, and we haven’t done it in recent memory, meaning at least 20 years,” said David Wert, public information officer for San Bernardino County. Rawson-Neal has bused more than 40 patients to that county since July 2008.

Los Angeles County officials said they have not bused a single patient out of state during the past year, and when they have done so in the past they have supplied chaperones. In the past five years, L.A. County has received 213 people from the Nevada hospital, according to The Bee’s review, more than any place in the country.

Likewise, in Riverside County, sending patients out of state “happens very infrequently upon request of the family,” said Jerry Wengerd, head of the county’s Department of Mental Health. “A staff member accompanies the client and it is usually by air.” Nevada bused 20 patients to Riverside in the period reviewed.

Sacramento County bought bus tickets for five patients during the past year, Kittrell said. In all cases, he said, facility staff confirmed before patients departed that a family member or friend would meet them at their destinations, and provided referrals for treatment.

Organizations that advocate for mentally ill people said Nevada’s busing numbers seem unjustifiably high.
DJ Jaffe, executive director of Mental Illness Policy Org., a nonprofit think tank, said his group often hears anecdotally about patients being “dumped” from one county to another.

“Discharging severely mentally ill patients inappropriately is policy in this country,” Jaffe said. “But getting rid of them altogether by busing them out of state is, I think, rare. I am shocked by these figures. It seems to be almost routine in Nevada.”

After California, Arizona has received the most patients by bus from Nevada, at more than 100 over the five years.

But Cory Nelson, acting deputy director for the Arizona Department of Health, cautioned against drawing conclusions about Nevada’s practices based solely on number of bus tickets issued. In many cases, Nelson said, relatives could have agreed to house patients or made treatment arrangements before the clients left Las Vegas.

In rare cases, Nelson said, a hospital can find itself in a Catch-22 situation when a patient no longer needs to be in a hospital but refuses to cooperate with a discharge plan. “It kind of leaves a hospital in a tough situation,” he said.

Still, the sheer number of patients bused from the Nevada hospital “does seem pretty high,” he said.

‘A tsunami situation’

Several people interviewed said the numbers might be explained in part by the unusual nature of Las Vegas.

“As the whole country no doubt knows, Vegas is a pretty unique place,” said Dr. Lorin Scher, an emergency room psychiatrist with UC Davis Health System.

The city’s entertainment and casino culture draws people from all over the world, Scher noted, including the mentally ill.

“Many bipolar patients impulsively fly across the country to Vegas during their manic phases and go on gambling binges,” he said. “Vegas probably attracts more wandering schizophrenic people” who are attracted to the warm weather, lights and action, he added.

“I am by no means defending their practices,” he said. “It certainly gives cause for concern. But it’s one possible explanation.”

Stuart Ghertner, former director of Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, cited other possible reasons.

He said Rawson-Neal has been under siege for years because of state budget cuts, a steady increase in poor people needing mental health services in the Las Vegas area and a revolving door of administrators.
He noted the city had a disproportionate number of people displaced by the housing and mortgage meltdown of a few years ago.

“The casino boom was over, people were losing their jobs and their homes. They were stressed and they wound up in a mental health crisis,” Ghertner said.

Between 2009 and 2012, Nevada slashed spending on mental health services by 28 percent to address budget deficits, according to data collected by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Even before those cuts, Nevada fell well below the national average in spending on mental health services: In 2009, it spent $64 per capita on such services compared with a national average of about $123, according to the study.

“You’re looking at a tsunami situation,” said Ghertner, a psychologist who resigned last year after five years as agency director. “There is more pressure to turn patients over faster, and fewer programs (in which) to place them. Perhaps busing them became the easier solution.”

It also is cheaper, he noted. Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services spent a total of $205,000 putting patients on Greyhound buses during the past five years, according to The Bee analysis. The state hospital admits about 4,000 patients a year to its inpatient unit, and inpatient care runs around $500 per day per client, Ghertner said.

He said he was aware during his tenure that Rawson-Neal was busing patients out of state but that he thought the practice was rare.

At the time, “I had 800 employees and a $106 million budget,” he said. Ghertner regularly reviewed numbers pertaining to admissions, length of stay and other issues at the hospital, but patient busing was never on his radar, he said.

“I’m embarrassed to say that this practice was going on to this degree under my leadership,” he said. “I had no idea. It just never came up.”

Ghertner said the state mental hospital has been under stress since it opened in 2006, turning over five hospital directors since that time. That instability has taken a toll, he said.

“This busing issue is a symptom that reflects that the care there is not quality care,” he said. “Things clearly are being missed.”

Willden, Nevada’s Health and Human Services director, said during last month’s legislative hearing that policies have been tightened and disciplinary actions taken to ensure that patients are discharged only after the hospital confirms care and treatment at their planned destinations. The hospital administrator, Chelsea Szklany, now must approve all bus discharges ordered by medical staff, he said.

“Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services is committed to providing quality mental health services to its patients,” said spokeswoman Mary Woods in an emailed statement.

But investigations continue into the agency’s practices.

Rawson-Neal could lose vital federal funding pending an ongoing probe by the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. California state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg has written a letter expressing outrage to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

The hospital’s discharge practices also have prompted a call for action by a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Commissioner David Kladney called for a broad investigation by Nevada’s governor and Legislature.

“As a Nevadan, I am ashamed that my state is failing in its duty toward the neediest residents,” Kladney said. Nevada, he said, appears to be “simply hoping that other states will shoulder the responsibility.”


Call The Bee’s Cynthia Hubert, (916) 321-1082. Follow her on Twitter @cynthia_hubert. Bee researcher Pete Basofin contributed to this report.


For more links and comments: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/14/5340078/nevada-buses-hundreds-of-mentally.html#.UWuvi8Wb-cQ.facebook#storylink=cpy

A Tale of Two Cities: Denver and Santa Cruz

Report from the StreetSurvey finds law criminalizes activities necessary for homeless survival without providing alternatives.

By Chris Casey | University of Colorado Denver, University Communications
DENVER – Denver’s controversial “camping ban” has left the homeless no place to sleep outdoors safely and legally at night, forcing them into hidden spots or to seek indoor options that don’t exist, according to a report written by a University of Colorado Denver political science professor.
In collaboration with the Denver Homeless Out Loud (DHOL) community group, Associate Professor Tony Robinson, Ph.D., compiled survey results of 512 homeless individuals regarding the Unauthorized Camping Ban. The 80-page report details the background of the ban, survey results and policy recommendations in the wake of one of the nation’s most severe laws against public homelessness.

The Denver City Council passed the ordinance in May 2012 under pressure from members of the downtown business community who argued that the growing number of homeless camping on the 16th Street Mall and Civic Center Park was impacting business and harming the perception of Denver.
Robinson and DHOL presented their study to the Denver Homeless Commission and held a press conference at 10 a.m. Wednesday in Denver.

Among the survey’s findings:

  • 59 percent of respondents said it has become more necessary to avoid police after the ban; 4 percent report police being more helpful.
  • 53 percent said they feel less safe in Denver since the ban; 6 percent feel more safe.
  • 79 percent who used to sleep downtown regularly now avoid the area far more; 69 percent said they now seek more hidden places to sleep at night.
  • 50 percent their sleeping habits have been negatively affected.
  • Though there has been a reduction in outdoors sleeping, the decline is minor. Before the ban, 72 percent of survey respondents said they sometimes or always slept outside in Denver, as compared to 64 percent reporting outdoor sleeping after the ban.
  • No arrests have yet taken place under the ordinance, though citing and arresting people for other code violations and moving homeless people along through oral and written warnings are very common.

The statistics reveal a deteriorating quality of life for most of Denver’s homeless since the ban passed. “That’s a key finding,” Robinson said. “There was a reason people were sleeping on 16th Street before (the law). It was safe, well lit and patrolled by police. This law has changed all that.”

Camping ban supporters said the ban would improve the quality of life for the homeless by connecting them with health alternatives. Ban enforcement follows a series of steps: 1) determining if there are other violations that the camper should be cited for; 2) issuing the violator an oral warning to quit covering themselves, and/or to “move along”; 3) issuing a written warning; 4) attempting to connect the homeless person to services before arrest.

However, the latter step of intervention rarely occurs, the study found. Instead, the ordinance criminalizes activities necessary for survival, without providing alternatives.

“They’re just spending their time in constant motion,” Robinson said of the homeless. “Some of them are trying to get into shelters, but 75 percent say they’ve been turned away frequently because of lack of space.”

A shortage of shelter space is especially acute for homeless members of the LGBT community, couples without children, fathers without children and the mentally ill, Robinson said. “We’re 48th in the nation

for not having enough service beds to care for mentally ill homeless persons.”

The report recommends four actions:

  • Space should be designated in Denver that guarantees homeless individuals safe, outdoor places to sleep and engage in other survival activities. This space should be well-lit and accessible to homeless services downtown.
  • Increased funding should be developed for programs that address homelessness, ranging from rapid response services for homeless people in crisis to the development of permanent low-income housing units.
  • Dedicate new revenue streams to the “most under-served unsheltered populations” and to the “most effective” programs in reducing homelessness.
  • Change the camping ban enforcement protocol to emphasize provision of services rather than oral and written warnings to desist from “camping” or to “move along.”

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has singled out these types of law as being cruel and counterproductive, Robinson said.

“We know there will be hundreds of homeless out there tonight, so we either turn our heads and pretend they’re not there — being forced to make the impossible choice between shelter or criminality — or we admit the reality and find a clean, safe place where our residents can live with us,” he said.


Read or download the full report:
The Denver Camping Ban: A Report from the Streets


View Dr. Tony Robinson’s Presentation to the Denver Homeless Commission on April 2, 2013:
Report from the Streets to the Denver Homeless Commission


Councilmembers Speak at Report Release on April 3, 2013:
Councilwoman Susan Shepherd (District 1) and Councilman Paul López (District 3)


Contact Us:
info@denverhomelessoutloud.org

Homelessness Up For Discussion or Diversion? 7-9 PM Tonight–Monica Martinez & Don Lane

NOTE FROM NORSE:   Tonight Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom hosts a talk at the Quaker Meeting House, 225 Rooney St., east of Morrissey Blvd., in Santa Cruz (next to the freeway) 7-9 PM.Speaking are former Mayor and Board President of the Homeless Services Center (which some of us call the Homeless Lack of Services Center) Don Lane and Monica Martinez, its Executive Director.Their topic is “the current state of homelessness in Santa Cruz and calling for action in support of the 180/180 Initiative which provides permanent supportive housing for the most at-risk and vulnerable of our homeless citizens.”The 180/180 program seeks to raise government and private funds to house a fraction of the most costly homeless folks (i.e. those who scare the merchants most) with  no provision for the rest of the community and no let-up in the criminalization of the other 95%.  It seems to be a successor program to the Housing First! program and the Continuum of Care (“End Homelessness in Ten Years” shuck and jive) that got federal funding for the last decade and a half.

It’s not that providing housing and supportive services for 180 people in Santa Cruz county is a bad idea.  Obviously it’s not.  But focusing all attention and energy on a fanciful grant-magnet 180/180 program is done at the expense of immediate shelter and human rights needs.  It seems largely a self-justifying project for bureaucrats.  Meanwhile the same leaders (Lane and Martinez) counsel colluding with police and courts in their campaign to drive away and criminalize a whole class of people.  Focusing exclusively on 180/180 diverts the public’s attention from the recent smear campaign of anti-homeless warriors on the right led by Councilmembers Comstock and Robinson.  The massive “needles = homeless = illegal camps = crime” rage given unjustified credibility were recently echoed by the Mayor of the City (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22606878/hilary-bryant-public-safety-is-our-top-priority ).

Unfortunately Santa Cruz has several thousand homeless people (Santa Cruz County even more)–currently under rabid attack by vigilantes, police, sheriffs, rangers, security guards, city council, hired clean-up crews as well as courts and D.A.’s.   It is illegal to sleep in Santa Cruz after 11 PM at night, illegal to set up a survival camp site at any time.  The City Council (with Lane voting in favor and Martinez silent) has made “unattended” camping tickets into misdemeanors punishable by a year in jail and $1000 fine.

A prior “Homelessness Summit” on December 1st out at Cabrillo College, masterminded by the backers of the 180/180 program completely sidelined the real issue of the need for immediate shelter, campsites, legal support now and has resulted in no further action.

These “feel good” psuedo-positive initiatives sacrifice human dignity and human lives for what some politicians seem to consider the “politically possible”.  Fresno and D.C. are apparently experiencing similar problems as the stories below seem to indicate.

Fresno Activist Mike Rhodes writes:
This is from a Washington Post article published last Friday.  It is painfully obvious that the local government (both the city and county of Fresno) has had many of the same problems.  But, that does not stop them from continuing to push one program after another, even though they are doomed to fail. 
The current plan to build housing (The Renaissance project) houses a small percent (perhaps 5%) of the homeless population, with the vast majority of people left to fend completely for themselves. 
The city and county won’t even provide them with drinking water, portable toilets, or trash pick up.  I believe the reason they (city and county officials) do this is to give people (in the broader community) the illusion that they have a plan to end homelessness, but the bureaucrats in their cynical hearts, know what they are doing is not going to work.  Unfortunately, people who are not paying close attention have the hope that something is being done to solve the problem, when in fact they are being mislead.  In the meantime, the vast majority of homeless people are the ones who suffer, while the bureaucrats collect their fat salaries.
Why does D.C. still have so many homeless?By Colbert I. King, Published: February 15

More than 900 people, including 600 children, crammed into a makeshift D.C. homeless shelter? Things weren’t supposed to turn out this way. By now, we were told, homelessness in our nation’s capital would be a thing of the past. Let’s take a trip down memory lane.
In 1993, the Clinton administration persuaded Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly to enter into a partnership, called the D.C. Initiative, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The idea, hatched under HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and Assistant Secretary Andrew Cuomo, was to make the District a national model for local governments on ending homelessness.
To get the city’s buy-in, HUD dangled a $20 million grant and other federal bucks, provided that the District kicked in some of its own funds for homeless services.
After weeks of meetings stretched into months, the cash-strapped District signed an agreement in 1994 transferring the city’s responsibility to an entity known as the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness.
In 1994, according to city estimates, approximately 3,400 single adults used the District’s shelter system. They represented about 60 percent of the people in the system.
It was thought that 1,200 to 1,500 of those 3,400 lived on city streets and used the shelters or public space intermittently or interchangeably.
About a fifth of shelter residents were families who turned to the system repeatedly because of their precarious and unstable situations.
Some had drug addictions or major health problems; some were victims of domestic violence.
The D.C. Initiative’s solution? Transition from a shelter-based system to a “continuum of care” approach that entailed creating a community network of agencies and programs to tackle not only housing needs but also the root causes of homelessness.
Over time, The Post ran a series of cautious editorials about the feds’ push for the initiative.
The District had been used before as a federal test case — with city officials often left holding the short end of the stick.
Vincent C. Gray, the director of the D.C. Department of Human Services under Mayor Kelly, testified before the House subcommittee on housing and community development on Oct. 26, 1993, as to the D.C. Initiative’s goal.
Yes, Gray has been at this for a long time.
He promised Congress that with HUD money the District would try “to create real, permanent, enduring solutions for families and singles who are homeless . . . and make a contribution to . . . the Nation in how to resolve, once and for all, the problem of homelessness in this Nation.” That was nearly 20 years ago.
The Post tracked the D.C. Initiative through the departure of Cisneros and Cuomo from the Clinton administration, and through Pratt’s leave-taking from the District government.
By 2000, the D.C. Initiative was over and done. But the homeless were still here.
In June 2004, Mayor Anthony A. Williams presented with fanfare: “Homeless No More: A Strategy for Ending Homelessness in Washington, D.C. by 2014.” He billed it as a “client centered” approach focused on bringing to the table all the key service providers to create a system that prevents and ends, rather than maintains, the problem of homelessness.
Williams left office. The homeless remained.
In April 2008 Mayor Adrian M. Fenty introduced the “Housing First” fund. “What we are proposing is a new approach to serving our chronically homeless neighbors,” Fenty said. “The systems of the past have not brought us closer to ending this humanitarian crisis.”
Fenty proposed moving chronically homeless people from the streets and shelters to housing where they could be provided comprehensive services to solve the problems that contributed to their homelessness.
Sound familiar?
Fast-forward to 2013.
Today, millions of dollars later and after years upon years of government, nonprofit and private-sector efforts, homeless families are still in the defunct D.C. General hospital shelter, in motels or on the streets.
Is it a question of funding or underfunding, management or mismanagement, commitment or lack of concern? Does part of the problem also rest with those without roofs over their heads? Is the answer some or all of the above?
The Post’s Annie Gowen reported this week that Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), chairman of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Human Services, said he would conduct hearings on conditions at the hospital shelter. That’s too limited a focus.
There is no better time to take a sober look at the persistent problem of homelessness in our nation’s capital, its causes, what has worked and failed, and what can realistically be done to get people beyond their plight to greater independence.
That may be a better D.C. initiative.

US Attorney Warns Calif. Farmers Against Pot Grows

Don Thompson

Associated Press, 2-29-2012

Sacramento, Calif. — The top federal prosecutor in the Central Valley said Tuesday that he plans a tour this week to tell agricultural landowners they could lose their property or be prosecuted if they permit large marijuana plantations on their land.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner will visit the Fresno County Farm Bureau on Thursday and the Kern County Sherriff’s Department on Friday to warn of the federal crackdown.

Investigators have found large marijuana fields primarily in the southern part of the valley, from Stanislaus County to Kern County, Wagner said in an address to the Sacramento Press Club. The crackdown targets landowners who allow their properties to be used for marijuana cultivation.

 

Wagner called the large-scale operations “a hazard to people in those farming communities.”

 

Ryan Jacobsen of the Fresno County Farm Bureau welcomed the news. He said residents are endangered by the marijuana grows, which often are operated by absentee landowners.

 

“It looks like it’s mostly outsiders. It’s not most of the mainstream farmers and ranchers who have been there for generations,” Jacobsen said. “A lot of this is not necessarily being grown for California medicinal marijuana use. A lot of it’s being exported to other states.”

 

He and Wagner said the marijuana plots are often on the scale of industrial farming.

 

“We’re not talking about backyard size. One bust was 55 acres. There’s many, many 20-acre parcels down here that are being fully grown with marijuana. It’s probably on a scale much, much larger than most people are familiar with,” Jacobsen said. “There’s guard towers that have gone up in the middle of ag lands to protect the grows.”

 

California narcotics officers said they found millions fewer pot plants on remote public lands last summer, largely because they believe growers have shifted to growing in plain sight with the hope that California’s medical marijuana law would make prosecution by state district attorneys more difficult.

 

Investigators said growers frequently lease the land, though some growers are small farmers supplementing their incomes. Other crops may be grown to hide the growing marijuana plants.

 

“Those farmers who plant large crops of marijuana or who lease their land to people who do are risking forfeiture of their lands or, in the egregious cases, criminal prosecution,” Wagner said.

 

He was met with criticism before and during his speech from those who said the federal government should not interfere, given California’s liberal medical marijuana law.

 

California law permits the drug to be cultivated and supplied to sick people on a nonprofit basis. Federal officials say many clinics profit under the pretense they are helping the sick.

 

Wagner said investigators have found that some medical marijuana dispensaries were generating $10,000 to $50,000 in profits each day, selling marijuana for twice what they paid for it.

 

“That’s not about sick people. That’s about money,” he said.