The Sunday editorial "Greens hope to block flood control" did one thing right: continue focus on the dilemma of development within floodplains and other naturally unstable areas. The risk of disaster is present whenever storms linger.

Review-Journal opinion writers didn't contact the Center for Biological Diversity for perspective and obviously didn't bother to fully read the letter sent to the Department of the Interior by the organization, nor the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Let us address some facts. The Center for Biological Diversity recently heard from some of our Southern Nevada members about the city of Mesquite bulldozing the Virgin River, home to six endangered species and critical habitat.

We called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Nevada. That office's concerns are listed in a Jan. 21 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saying the city's river channelization "is not necessary to support any immediate recovery actions ... (e.g., imminent threat to property, road reconstruction, etc.)." The Fish and Wildlife Service added in the letter that "These actions may be violating the (Endangered Species) Act by adversely affecting listed species and modifying critical habitat."

We talked with the Bureau of Land Management, and they had similar concerns, including city damage to public lands. We talked to the Army Corps, and they were also concerned. We called Mesquite Mayor Bill Nicholes to get the city's take, but his office did not return calls.

It is not just the center's opinion that Mesquite's river bulldozing went too far, it is also the opinion of public natural resource and wildlife managers. The center simply stepped in to protect the national public interest and support the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM in ensuring that future management of the Virgin River followed the law to consider critical habitat conservation and endangered species recovery.

The Fish and Wildlife Service clearly stated concerns about river channelization that the city conducted after the flood without authorization. The city's bulldozing has now put all downstream communities at risk of more intense flooding and disaster. Had the city of Mesquite followed the law and consulted with biologists, hydrologists and other proper authorities, much of the habitat destruction and further threats to lives and property could have been avoided.

The center does not now, nor did we ever oppose Mesquite's emergency response during the flooding. But the subsequent city work that devastated the Virgin River had to stop and truly never should have commenced without proper consultation in the first place.

We are urging a conservative, inclusive, science-based plan to manage river habitat. We understand the need to protect life and property. We also understand that the city of Mesquite may have been taking advantage of the flood to bulldoze and channelize the river in harmful ways that may be illegal and would otherwise not be allowed. The center is not suing to block any flood control, but we did file a notice saying we would move the matter to court if the law is not followed.

The current inaction from the Army Corps, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM and the dismissal of fines shows likely political interference from anti-environmental Bush appointees in Washington, D.C., not common sense.

Nevertheless, we are pleased that Mesquite, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM are moving toward a different course and are planning restoration and mitigation work to try to rebuild the river habitat that has been destroyed. We will be watching their progress.

Thank you for your Sunday editorial regarding the Virgin River flood control in Mesquite and the actions taken to protect the life and property of the residents.

As you point out, the threat of a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity is only one of multiple lawsuits against property owners and government agencies living with the Endangered Species Act. Interesting to note, the individuals and groups threatening lawsuits are not living with the land, but they are succeeding in controlling the land, private and public, through lawsuits.

Of course, the cost of the legal action is paid by the taxpayers. We can only hope that taxpayers will tire of the cost and put pressure on the politicians to revise the Endangered Species Act. Your editorial may help to bring public attention to the legal costs imposed on all of us by a few.

Many of us may be diametrically opposed to the notion of the death penalty on both moral and legal grounds, but our arguments against state-sanctioned murder lose steam when a random, thrill-kill murder to establish "street cred" jolts us back to reality ("Police: Suspects 'looking for someone to shoot,' " Thursday).

As a result, John A. McCoy will never get to see his cherished daughter grow up because a light was red instead of green. It could have been any one of us. Even if the men accused of killing Mr. McCoy are sentenced to death, chances are high they will never be executed and merely adapt to an acceptable prison life, family visits included, on the state's dime. Meanwhile, dozens of lives have been devastated, especially that of an innocent 10-year-old who today is looking for answers she may never find.

A death penalty with no teeth will never be a deterrent. Somehow, using tax dollars to feed and house these men in between visits from their family for the next 50 years leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If the death penalty is the verdict, as it should be, then use it as intended. Make it a penalty of death in a reasonable time. Otherwise, abolish it.

Mr. McCoy was a hardworking, devoted father and husband who was in a very wrong place at a very wrong time. Clark County Sheriff Bill Young is a good man, and he has the best intentions for our community, but he needs help from the courts and juries.

Some of you reading this will be on that jury. Do the right thing.

What is it about Social Security reform that has the Democratic Party so worried? Could it be there will be less to steal for their special interests?

I welcome the change, and so should all working men and women who want a decent life after retirement.