I think the land is pretty good?
Water.
Plus lots of ranch/farm lands that owners won't sell. That's even the case on 99, agriculture is worth more than selling to developers locally more often than not. The main difference with the corridor of 99 is that the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific established numerous sidings that grew into towns before all that land became so valuable.
Interestingly I am kind of surprised that I-5 didn't really become a center of development around Kettleman City and the Kettleman Hills given the oil resources. Most commuters to the oil fields live mostly in Coalinga, Lemoore, Huron, or Hanford.
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
Lack of population centers unlike SR-99.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2020, 05:12:13 PM
Lack of population centers unlike SR-99.
Hence what I said above about them being established as sidings on corridor of 99 before the agricultural industry took hold. The overwhelming majority of settlements in the Central Valley were once attached to a railroad of some kind as a siding facility.
Kettleman City existed as an agricultural and supply center long before I-5 (or LRN 238 before that) was a reality; it's about the only settlement along the way that wasn't either established or expanded as a result of the freeway's presence. All-new small commerce centers have cropped up specifically as service facilities, such as the frontage-road area at the present CA 58 junction east of Buttonwillow, the cluster at Santa Nella (when I first heard that location's name back in the '60's, I thought the name was "Centinela", like the street in L.A. Metro), and the Lost Hills motel/coffee shop "row". But that's about it -- as Max states above, much of the land traversed by I-5 is the property of huge "agribusinesses", particularly cotton and (more recently) almond growers. "Specialty" crops, like Rainier cherries, also dot the area. But I am just a little surprised more commerce hasn't developed at the 5/198 junction NE of Coalinga; perhaps Harris Ranch, which owns most of that property, doesn't really want competition or even incursions by outside businesses (maybe a good thing when the wind shifts to north-to-south -- if you've ever been on 5, especially during the summer, you'll understand! But the plain truth is that the freeway itself is the attractant, not the sparsely populated surrounding region -- and its attractiveness is purely transactional -- that region could be referred to as
"drive-over country"; I-5 is there because it's the closest thing to a flat & straight line between the two major CA metro areas -- period.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
While not Wisconsin, the Valley gets fucking cold in the heart of winter -- the reason for "smudgepots" and circulating fans for the winter orange crop around Visalia. But then this country's ag distribution moguls have tapped Mexico and Chile (with its reverse seasons) as the go-to winter produce suppliers, augmenting CA production, especially when severe weather conditions (like the spring '97 floods) disrupt the supply chain.
I won't bring up winter tule fog -- it's just too depressing!
^^^
I had to explain to a neighbor (who just moved to the area) what the helicopter noise they kept hearing at night was. Usually once you're outside an urban area the temperature overnight commonly dips into the high 20s through much of San Joaquin Valley, especially sinks like the Tulare Lake Basin. Of note though; so far this year has largely been fog free despite two major rainy days thus far.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2020, 05:12:13 PM
Lack of population centers unlike SR-99.
And a lack of jobs. Housing affordability notwithstanding, most people try to live somewhat close to where they work. Seems like most crops in the western SJ valley are relatively highly-mechanized or animal grazing, meaning you don't need a lot of labor to grow and harvest compared with crops like strawberries or grapes. Except for some of the exurb-effect places like Tracy or Patterson where a long-existing town provides housing for (somewhat) proximate urban areas and/or develops a job base on its own, there is no reason for people to randomly locate along the I-5 corridor unless they are in nearby ag or oil business, or businesses supporting highway users. And no developer is going to invest in building a subdivision or new town without assurances that will pencil out (people will want to live there). And, as mentioned above, there is the water rights issue.
Quotea center of development around Kettleman City and the Kettleman Hills
Because it's Kettleman City, blech. Who wants to live/work there unless you have to? It's barely better than Firebaugh or Alpaugh.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 01, 2020, 10:37:12 PM
Quotea center of development around Kettleman City and the Kettleman Hills
Because it's Kettleman City, blech. Who wants to live/work there unless you have to? It's barely better than Firebaugh or Alpaugh.
Hence what I said about; Lemoore, Hanford, Coalinga, and Huron being more or less bedroom communities for those oil fields. Out of those Lemoore and Hanford are the most normalized/modernized due to the presence of modern amenities courtesy having attachment to a military base.
This might be just me and the fact that my wife is from Firebaugh but it definitely isn't in the same league as Alpaugh. Mendota and Dos Palos are more akin to what one would expect from Alpaugh. Firebaugh at minimum doesn't feel like a CDP or a prison community (Mendota) facade. Firebaugh actually has some nice places to eat, fish on the San Joaquin River, and even some decent city parks.
The land in the bottomlands of the Central Valley is excellent. But I-5 is on the western edge, starting to get into foothills. The land is not as good, and as previously pointed out the irrigation is concentrated on the flatlands along CA 99. I-5 is on the western edge to provide a slightly shorter route from LA to SF, and it's a bonus that it's a little less prone to tule fog.
Back in the late '70's and '80's Caltrans, in a joint effort with the state department of agriculture, erected signage along the I-5 fence lines identifying the types of crops grown in the adjoining fields. Most of those signs have long since gone by the wayside -- but since almond growers had acquired much of that land, particularly between Lost Hills and Kettleman City, the usage had changed in any case and the signs were becoming inaccurate. Besides, they had to "stretch" a bit to identify the dominant crop in some areas, seeming to default to "hay" more often than not. But cotton was a crop that got repeated signage, particularly in the areas now dominated by almonds as well as farther north near Coalinga. My ex, a Fresno native, was pretty cynical about the reasons the signage was erected -- she always thought it was a PR ploy by the area's largest landholders to publicize the fact that they were actually growing something out in the middle of nowhere rather than just letting it sit fallow (lotsa criticism to that effect in the '60's, especially from Cesar Chavez, who was always attempting to drum up steady work for his union members). Regardless of the rationale, the signage did, in a small way, break up the monotony of driving I-5!
Quote from: sparker on December 02, 2020, 12:08:07 AM
Back in the late '70's and '80's Caltrans, in a joint effort with the state department of agriculture, erected signage along the I-5 fence lines identifying the types of crops grown in the adjoining fields. Most of those signs have long since gone by the wayside -- but since almond growers had acquired much of that land, particularly between Lost Hills and Kettleman City, the usage had changed in any case and the signs were becoming inaccurate. Besides, they had to "stretch" a bit to identify the dominant crop in some areas, seeming to default to "hay" more often than not. But cotton was a crop that got repeated signage, particularly in the areas now dominated by almonds as well as farther north near Coalinga. My ex, a Fresno native, was pretty cynical about the reasons the signage was erected -- she always thought it was a PR ploy by the area's largest landholders to publicize the fact that they were actually growing something out in the middle of nowhere rather than just letting it sit fallow (lotsa criticism to that effect in the '60's, especially from Cesar Chavez, who was always attempting to drum up steady work for his union members). Regardless of the rationale, the signage did, in a small way, break up the monotony of driving I-5!
I wonder if that was the instigator for the Fresno County Blossom Trail (which first appeared in 1988). Fresno County and Simeon Farms pretty much did the same thing but turned into a touring route of the lands mostly east of CA 99.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Would there be a map available of said "Blossom Trail"? The dynamics of the agricultural crops east of 99 are quite different than west of there. Most of the western ag development is B2B stuff -- almonds being now used for vastly more than mixed-nut snacking -- and cotton is still there but just not the dominant South Valley enterprise it was 30 years ago. Produce (citrus and deciduous fruits as well as consumer vegetables are primarily grown in the eastern Valley, with citrus actually ascending the lower alluvials into the Sierra foothills) tends to be associated with the eastern valley -- and a bit more familiar and appealing to those tourists who venture into the region. Nevertheless, I for one would like to see what driving the "blossom trail" entailed!
Quote from: sparker on December 02, 2020, 12:46:04 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Would there be a map available of said "Blossom Trail"? The dynamics of the agricultural crops east of 99 are quite different than west of there. Most of the western ag development is B2B stuff -- almonds being now used for vastly more than mixed-nut snacking -- and cotton is still there but just not the dominant South Valley enterprise it was 30 years ago. Produce (citrus and deciduous fruits as well as consumer vegetables are primarily grown in the eastern Valley, with citrus actually ascending the lower alluvials into the Sierra foothills) tends to be associated with the eastern valley -- and a bit more familiar and appealing to those tourists who venture into the region. Nevertheless, I for one would like to see what driving the "blossom trail" entailed!
They actually have a fairly substantial webpage and accompanying map:
https://goblossomtrail.com/
I'll actually be interested to see how the 33rd Blossom Trail will have to be altered now that CA 180 bypasses Minkler and Centerville.
If you are wondering why development is not popping up on I-5 at least between Elk Grove, CA to Lodi its because of protecting the Sacramento Delta and also the water rights issue that's taking place at the south end of the Sacramento River.
Quote from: bing101 on December 10, 2020, 11:01:45 AM
If you are wondering why development pop up on I-5 at least between Elk Grove, CA to Lodi its because of protecting the Sacramento Delta and also the water rights issue that's taking place at the south end of the Sacramento River.
The Consumnes River-fed sloughs immediately south of Elk Grove pretty much mark the southern boundary of effective development; at that point heading south on I-5 the road traverses the same bottomland that gave the contractors fits during the construction process (the berms and ballasts would sink), causing the full I-5 opening to be delayed more than four years after its original estimated completion time. Also, only a few miles south of there is the Mokelumne River "mini-delta" that empties into the Sacramento River near Walnut Grove; if anything,
that was worse than the Consumnes issues. It's unlikely any development save agricultural will occupy the territory between the rivers. South of there -- nearer CA 12 -- the freeway swerves a bit east onto more stable land; some Lodi-area development is occurring near that area. The major reason more land hasn't been developed in the Lodi area is its value as functioning farmland -- particularly in regard to wine growing & production; i.e., the land is producing substantial income as it is, and there's scant incentive to sell it to housing/business developers. Since Lodi was declared a specific
terroir, or major growing area for certain varietals (particularly that old CA standby, Zinfandel), property values in the area have steadily increased. But north of the Mokelumne channels, it's practically a swamp on both sides of I-5; south of there most of the land to the east is purposed for agriculture (with a few housing tracts that have worked their way west near Kettleman Lane/CA 12). But don't expect high levels of development along I-5 between the north end of Stockton and Elk Grove. And the previous post's assessment of I-5's role as a dividing line between protected Delta area and the land area to the east is correct north of the Mokelumne; one will notice that Elk Grove development ends at the freeway's east edge; to the west it has been left to agricultural use -- for crops that flourish when mostly waterlogged. Farther south, in the vicinity of CA 12, where I-5 has veered east away from the Delta, farmlands flank both sides of the highway, but Delta protections begin near Terminous west along 12. Barring some mass migration to the Lodi area, it's difficult to see much in the way of significant development occurring along I-5 between Stockton and Elk Grove, and only on the east side of the road heading north from there into Sacramento.
Co(n)sumnes. That's a good name for it. :sombrero:
All that valuable farm land is why Sacramento is mostly growing eastward towards the Sierra Foothills via US 50 and I-80. The same phenomenon happens in Fresno and Bakersfield where most of the growth east away from the profitable farm parcels. In the Central Valley as a whole the agricultural market really has contained urban sprawl and likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 11, 2020, 04:39:28 AM
Co(n)sumnes. That's a good name for it. :sombrero:
Right -- seeing as how it
consumed vast amounts of fill dirt during the I-5 construction process.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 11, 2020, 11:35:14 AM
All that valuable farm land is why Sacramento is mostly growing eastward towards the Sierra Foothills via US 50 and I-80. The same phenomenon happens in Fresno and Bakersfield where most of the growth east away from the profitable farm parcels. In the Central Valley as a whole the agricultural market really has contained urban sprawl and likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Since the original SP line that also became the basic US 99 alignment was deployed to avoid the low-lying areas that would flood during late winter and early spring (including the late Tulare Lake) by staying slightly "upslope", it became by default the delineation between the exceptionally rich bottomland soils of the valley and the more rugged areas to the east. Large-scale corporate agricultural operations thus commenced to the west, while smaller "specialty" crops, such as fruits and table vegetables, dominated the east side, particularly north of Fresno -- the citrus-growing sector centered around Visalia was itself certainly well represented in the corporate food world! Much of that smaller-scale production area was and still is lined up along multi-county route J7 northwest of Merced, also served by the parallel BNSF main line.
^^^
Even now it still feels weird how quickly Fresno dissipates from downtown immediately west of south of 99 (99 is also lined but by the Union Pacific for those that don't know). The Railroad survey takers from the Central Pacific certainly did a masterful job at plotting out a course through San Joaquin Valley. The previous Stockton-Los Angeles Road swung way east where narrower river crossings could be assured. The fact that such a large inland wetland used to exist so close me is fascinating to ponder over.
For those not aware the Stockton-Los Angeles Road in San Joaquin Valley essentially is carried by modern analog in the form of the Southern Segment of CA 65 and the unbuilt segment south of Stockton. The advantage to the corridor aside from flood control would that it would provide another alternative route that climbs above much of the Tule Fog line in addition to giving Foothills communities a direct link to each other. As far as Central Valley transportation wants go, not having a completed CA 65 is probably the biggest miss.
^^^^^^^^^
The deletion of the CA 65 routing around the east side of Sacramento County, functionally severing the connection to the existing northern section of CA 65, was essentially the death knell for the overall East Side CA 65 project. Except for the section from CA 198 north to where the CA 65 alignment was to cross CA 41, which would have served the growing east side of metro Fresno, the projected traffic levels dropped off precipitously. Except for some rumblings emanating from the Fresno area around the turn of the century, there hasn't been much in the way of impetus for even an alignment adoption, much less completion, of the 65 corridor -- it's not seen as providing much value to the area it traverses, particularly from CA 41 northward. It was interesting to note that the Fresno "plans" called for a direct segue onto the "line on a map" eastward extension of CA 152 -- which intersected the projected CA 65 trajectory a bit northwest of the CA 41 crossing -- essentially providing an eastern "arc" around Fresno, more or less along the east side of Clovis. But the 2000-02 "tech" recession and the housing crisis five years later proved too much for even the "SIU"-type plans for eastern Fresno; AFAIK the concept is dead at the state level -- no CA 65 alignment has ever been adopted between CA 198 and CA 16. It remains to be seen if it will ever be revived -- the northern segment could conceivably serve as a "relief route" if CA 99 traffic is increasingly augmented by long-distance Bay Area commuters.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
The northern border of California is at 42 degrees north, which is roughly the same latitude as Detroit, Chicago, and southern New England. Yet the latter locations get winters that are A LOT colder and snowier than the same latitude in California (excluding the mountains).
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2020, 04:46:33 AM
But the 2000-02 "tech" recession and the housing crisis five years later proved too much for even the "SIU"-type plans for eastern Fresno;
What's SIU stand for?
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 14, 2020, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
The northern border of California is at 42 degrees north, which is roughly the same latitude as Detroit, Chicago, and southern New England. Yet the latter locations get winters that are A LOT colder and snowier than the same latitude in California (excluding the mountains).
Much of the reason for the Midwest/Eastern chill are the Arctic storms coming down across the Canadian Shield; even worse is the snow-heavy stuff that shoots directly down mountain-range free through west-central Canada and into the Dakotas and south beyond. I've encountered this "heavy shit" as far south as I-20 near Big Spring. As far as far-north CA is concerned, the flatlands east of US 97 get much colder than the canyons and the valleys in the more mountainous western area; winter crops such as horseradish are growing staples there. Part of the reason for that chilly zone is the fact that while eastern OR features a lot of hilly areas that are a PITA to drive through, those hills just aren't that high, rarely exceeding 5K feet between US 97 and US 395 -- it's easy for Canadian-origin storms to barrel south through eastern Washington (famous for winter wheat!) and across OR into NE CA. Once there, the mountains to the south break up the storm patterns and mix them with fronts coming in from the ocean. But right up on the state line it's like a Midwest plain!
Quote from: kkt on December 14, 2020, 02:08:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2020, 04:46:33 AM
But the 2000-02 "tech" recession and the housing crisis five years later proved too much for even the "SIU"-type plans for eastern Fresno;
What's SIU stand for?
SIU =
Section of Independent Utility; in this case, it would refer to the portion of the proposed CA 65 corridor that skirts the Fresno metro area to the east and would make a nice eastern bypass of the developed region. South of there -- roughly from CA 198 north to CA 180 -- it passes through the Valley's (and currently the state's, due to many SoCal areas being supplanted by housing!) premier citrus-growing area; its value would be as egress for shipping out of there -- particularly if the segue onto CA 152 had materialized. North of CA 41 and/or 152, not so much; its proposed trajectory headed for less-developed and more "foothill" areas rather than down in the principal agricultural production zone.
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 14, 2020, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
The northern border of California is at 42 degrees north, which is roughly the same latitude as Detroit, Chicago, and southern New England. Yet the latter locations get winters that are A LOT colder and snowier than the same latitude in California (excluding the mountains).
Roughly the same latitude as Barcelona which has palm trees.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 12, 2020, 12:37:21 PM
^^^
Even now it still feels weird how quickly Fresno dissipates from downtown immediately west of south of 99 (99 is also lined but by the Union Pacific for those that don't know). The Railroad survey takers from the Central Pacific certainly did a masterful job at plotting out a course through San Joaquin Valley. The previous Stockton-Los Angeles Road swung way east where narrower river crossings could be assured. The fact that such a large inland wetland used to exist so close me is fascinating to ponder over.
For those not aware the Stockton-Los Angeles Road in San Joaquin Valley essentially is carried by modern analog in the form of the Southern Segment of CA 65 and the unbuilt segment south of Stockton. The advantage to the corridor aside from flood control would that it would provide another alternative route that climbs above much of the Tule Fog line in addition to giving Foothills communities a direct link to each other. As far as Central Valley transportation wants go, not having a completed CA 65 is probably the biggest miss.
What do you think the traffic counts would be like on CA-65 had it been built all the way to Sacramento?
I would expect the traffic counts for the 3 Central Valley freeways be I-5 < CA-65 < CA-99
Quote from: SeriesE on December 14, 2020, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 12, 2020, 12:37:21 PM
^^^
Even now it still feels weird how quickly Fresno dissipates from downtown immediately west of south of 99 (99 is also lined but by the Union Pacific for those that don't know). The Railroad survey takers from the Central Pacific certainly did a masterful job at plotting out a course through San Joaquin Valley. The previous Stockton-Los Angeles Road swung way east where narrower river crossings could be assured. The fact that such a large inland wetland used to exist so close me is fascinating to ponder over.
For those not aware the Stockton-Los Angeles Road in San Joaquin Valley essentially is carried by modern analog in the form of the Southern Segment of CA 65 and the unbuilt segment south of Stockton. The advantage to the corridor aside from flood control would that it would provide another alternative route that climbs above much of the Tule Fog line in addition to giving Foothills communities a direct link to each other. As far as Central Valley transportation wants go, not having a completed CA 65 is probably the biggest miss.
What do you think the traffic counts would be like on CA-65 had it been built all the way to Sacramento?
I would expect the traffic counts for the 3 Central Valley freeways be I-5 < CA-65 < CA-99
Definitely far behind 99 and 5 but nonetheless probably well high to justify a full freeway. If anything it would probably pull some traffic from 99. Porterville and Roseville come to mind as places on even present 65 which have significant traffic volumes. I do think they 198 north to 152 would get some heavy usage from Visalia and Fresno but taper considerably north of there.
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2020, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on December 14, 2020, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 30, 2020, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 30, 2020, 04:43:31 PM
Because the country needs someplace to source fresh produce during the cold half of the year... :bigass: :poke:
Which feels strange once you realize how much of northern latitudes San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley are located at.
The northern border of California is at 42 degrees north, which is roughly the same latitude as Detroit, Chicago, and southern New England. Yet the latter locations get winters that are A LOT colder and snowier than the same latitude in California (excluding the mountains).
Much of the reason for the Midwest/Eastern chill are the Arctic storms coming down across the Canadian Shield; even worse is the snow-heavy stuff that shoots directly down mountain-range free through west-central Canada and into the Dakotas and south beyond. I've encountered this "heavy shit" as far south as I-20 near Big Spring. As far as far-north CA is concerned, the flatlands east of US 97 get much colder than the canyons and the valleys in the more mountainous western area; winter crops such as horseradish are growing staples there. Part of the reason for that chilly zone is the fact that while eastern OR features a lot of hilly areas that are a PITA to drive through, those hills just aren't that high, rarely exceeding 5K feet between US 97 and US 395 -- it's easy for Canadian-origin storms to barrel south through eastern Washington (famous for winter wheat!) and across OR into NE CA. Once there, the mountains to the south break up the storm patterns and mix them with fronts coming in from the ocean. But right up on the state line it's like a Midwest plain!
California (and Oregon and Washington) west of the Cascades and Sierras also benefit from the moderating effects of marine air coming off the Pacific under normal jet stream patterns. Places further inland don't benefit from the resulting higher winter humidity which limits extreme cold temperatures. There are certainly cold snaps that occur when the jet stream shifts pushing colder, drier air out of the north but it is still not even close to a good ol' Chicago winter freeze with some lake effect snow thrown in for good measure.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can relate to that -- came through Chicago (on Amtrak trip) on December 30, 2001. Was going to hit a couple of jazz clubs but when I pulled in it was 9 below zero with a wind chill subtracting another 12 degrees. Holed up in the hotel that night and was only too glad to get out of town on the Southwest Chief to L.A. the next day! Even though L.A. (actually, the Fullerton depot) was itself cold & clammy when I pulled in, it sure didn't freeze my ass off!
Kettleman City did get use as a freeway accessible toxic waste dump. That probably has arrested residential development more than anything else. https://timeline.com/this-poor-hispanic-town-in-california-has-been-fighting-a-local-toxic-waste-dump-for-35-years-8f6f20f89f9d
Quote from: fungus on January 26, 2021, 12:55:13 PM
Kettleman City did get use as a freeway accessible toxic waste dump. That probably has arrested residential development more than anything else. https://timeline.com/this-poor-hispanic-town-in-california-has-been-fighting-a-local-toxic-waste-dump-for-35-years-8f6f20f89f9d
Except as a potential site for a few housing tracts, likely for Avenal prison personnel, there's little in Kettleman City to serve as an impetus for continued growth with or without the waste dump. 40-odd years ago during the oil crisis there was talk of tapping the Kettleman Hills, which were considered very likely to yield enough petroleum deposits to make such activity worthwhile -- but that time has passed, and the likelihood of doing so today is essentially nonexistent. Yet placing a waste dump so close to an existing city -- especially one that found a partial "second life" as a service stop for I-5 -- was a faulty idea from the get-go; but it was likely that much of the actual valley floor was practically off-limits, that area being dominated by huge agribusiness concerns. Putting it up in the hills would have been considered a way to effectively "sweep it under the rug", so to speak; making it easy to get to from I-5 would have been part of the overall plan, cynical or not. Unfortunately, the old saying "money talks" has historically prevailed in CA as well as virtually every other venue at one point or another.