Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: Yay for California!!!
Message-ID: <1136@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 20:40:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.1136
Posted: Fri Sep 27 20:40:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 07:17:21 EDT
References: <445@othervax.UUCP> <500@cepu.UUCP> <934@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.flame:12129 net.politics:11275

In article <5584@fortune.UUCP> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes:
>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.

So where are your suggestions for alleviating the problem? It sounds to me
as if you just want to ignore the problem because you falsely equate all of
Southern California with Beverly Hills.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com