
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"Marc Mulay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fred... > Statements like; "California, which is preparing to pave over its most > fertile cropland...", give one the impression that you are a paranoid > shut-in with a pyschiatric disorder of some kind. I have driven over California's most fertile croplands a number of times in a number of different directions. California has already plowed under (not paved over) the Owens valley to suck up the water for LA, but this happened around 40 years ago at least. Most of the rest of the fertile crop land is so vast that you would find it hard to dig up enough pavement to pave even a significant part of it, so dry you would only have to pump the water down to ravenous LA to destroy it, and in any case, is not even close to any city of any size (does the name weed ring a bell?), so what on earth would you pave it for? This kind of comment would have applied to the region of Kent, south of Seattle, perhaps 30 years ago, but today the paving is mostly finished and all the farms moved out to the desert. It turns out to be easier to turn desert into fertile cropland far from the city, if you have water, than to hang on in the face of the strong demand for decent housing. So I agree Marc, this statement by the other Fred does sound a bit off kilter.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |