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. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com