Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: Yay for California!!!
Message-ID: <5584@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.5584
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Sep-85 06:33:17 EDT
References: <445@othervax.UUCP> <500@cepu.UUCP> <934@brl-tgr.ARPA> <502@cepu.UUCP> <514@lasspvax.UUCP> <234@kepler.UUCP> <3995@amdcad.UUCP> <1087@uscvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 14
Xref: watmath net.flame:12025 net.politics:11158

In article <1087@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
>Why must this little "rivalry" between No. and So. California get so
>nasty. This water rights in question are owned by So. California sources.
>It seems to me that they can do what they want with it. Do you really
>think that LA should become a desert again? That is a very unproductive
>attitude. Try helping by finding alternatives - not fault.

The water in the rivers of Northern California is owned by Southern California?
Seems odd, but Stephen thinks it is right.

Do I think that LA should return to the desert from which it sprang?  No!
Do I think that LA has the right to turn Northern California into a desert
so that they can water the lawns in Beverly Hills?  Also No!  If there must
be a choice made, leave the water where it belongs, in the river.