Ponzi: Ouch! Below the belt. Best, Don Bauder

Duhh, I don' git it. Some kinda inside joke or is my irony detector on the Frietz?

Manchester's retread is a Russian immigrant who was a (never confirmed) "mail-order bride." She is from Siberia. Manchester is the second of her U.S. citizen husbands. She is less that half of Manchester's age. (Trophy wife!). So, yeah. That could be an inside joke. My Siberia comment was to bait a comment about "papa doug's" Russian bride.

Ponzi: Yes, I have never confirmed that she was a mail order bride. I could not reach her first U.S. husband. I talked with his lawyer, who wouldn't reveal anything. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Ponzi was referring to Manchester's bride, who came to the U.S. from Siberia. Best, Don Bauder

aardvark: Another low blow. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Since corporations are people, we are told, it won't get crowded. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Is that a nine-hole course or an18-hole course? Best, Don Bauder

don bauder It's a nine hole course. However, many years ago, back in the 80's or 90's I think, the course was redesigned accommodate additional tees of varying lengths, making it possible to play 18 holes. I once read that one of the guys who helped with the renovation figured out that found over 150 golf holes that could be played by using different tee and green combinations.

danfogel: You see what ownership of the Daily Racing Form will do. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder Yes I am aware that DRF was once owned by Annenber's father's publishing company and later by Annenberg. That has been discussed in the Reader previously, in regard to your opinions of Moses Annenberg's organized crime connections I don't know however, what the meaning of your comment is. Please explicate.

danfogel: Those connected with horse racing have bucks. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder Owning a publishing company that produces a paper with info on horse racing is a tangential connection at best. It makes money because people buy it and most of the people that buy it as an aid for their wagers do not have bucks, and decidedly so.

danfogel: Moses Annenberg was indicted for criminal tax fraud in 1939. He made a deal with the government, which then dropped similar charges against his son, Walter Annenberg. Moses pleaded guilty, paid the government $9.5 million in back taxes, and went to prison.

Chicago mobsters worked for Moses Annenberg when he ran a racing wire service that provided information to bookies. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder Yes I am aware of this. As I said it has been discussed here before. The charges against the son were for aiding and abetting. When Walter Annenberg took over the family businesses after the death of his father, Triangle Publications made its money off the DRF because people bought it. And I will stand by my assertion that most of the people that buy it as an aid for their wagers do not have bucks. Feel free to disagree.

danfogel: Isn't horse racing the sport of kings? Or is that some other sport? Polo, maybe? After John Moores fleeced San Diego, he went into the horse breeding business. Those folks have bucks. Best, Don Bauder

Jay Allen Sanford: Wow! I wonder how a big a staff is required. Maybe as many as David Copley had on his yacht. Best, Don Bauder

You mean a staff of low wage workers who get benefits from the taxpayer?

AlexClarke:Yes, among other things. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Sounds true to form. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Since La Jolla excluded Jewish persons in the 1950s, I would hardly be surprised if a lot of country clubs and golf courses did so also, and may still have restrictions. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder I don't believe this happened in the 1950's. It's well known that Annenberg commissioned the design of the course 1963, construction began in 1964 and was finished in 1965, though parts of the course opened for play in 1964, even before the Annenbergs’ house was finished.

danfogel: I am sure Twister will appreciate that information. Best, Don Bauder

Yes, Dan, I do appreciate that information. I did my consulting work in 1965, if I recall correctly.

Hence the building of Heritage Hills Country Club in Rancho Santa Fe (Jewish owned) back in the 1990's. Until the RTC acquired the property and sold for pennies on the dollar to Allen and Madeline Paulson (Gulfstream) and renamed Del Mar Country Club. Madeline is/was known as the wife of T. Boone Pickens. She has done well.

Twister: Could be. It should soak up a lot of water. Best, Don Bauder

Based on a study I read several years ago, the annual irrigation water use for an 18 hole course in the Coachella Valley is 550 acre feet. That is about 180 million gallon, for an 18 hole course. Sunnylands is a 9 hole course, so you can do the math. Additional, last year I read a story citing a USGA report that said in the southwest region, during the hottest months of the year, it takes about a million gallons a week to properly maintain an 18 hole course. In the past few years, about 60 of the 120 acres of turf grass were replaced with meadow grass and mulch to reduce water use and the course's irrigation system has been upgraded for efficiency, including the necessary work to connect to to the reclaimed water system once the pipeline to the estate is finished. BTW the estate is owned by the Annenberg Trust at Sunnylands.

danfogel: Some of Imperial water goes to Coachella Valley, as well as San Diego. I wonder if Imperial water gets to the plutocrats' golf courses. Best, Don Bauder

Some may still come from wells, which might not be on meters. The whole desert area has been sucking out geologic water deposits for about a century--at an ever-increasing rate over time. When I was there in the late fifties, I did some consulting for Harold Hicks, who owned the water company. He was rich as Croesus. But probably not as rich as Annenberg. He was one of the few who had desert for landscaping. A very Zen kinda guy.

Twister: That is an interesting story in itself. Best, Don Bauder

Twister: Do you think management of the golf course will tell the truth? Best, Don Bauder

I just saw a flight of pigs fly over! Certainly--such managers are pure as the driven snow, and they don't even leave any tracks . . .

Twister: And one would never call those managers pigs. Best, Don Bauder

Especially if they have pilot's licenses--but I drone on . . .

I have no idea what the intention of your "equation" is. Yes, rounded off, 52 million gallons is 6,951,872 cubic feet. And yes, 6,951872 cubic feet is 160 acre feet. Though I must confess that I have no idea of the relevance of the "160 acre feet ÷ 16 acre feet per acre = about ten acres." All you've done is restate 52 million gallons in different metrics. Since you agree that 180 million gallons sounds about right, how do you reconcile your statement that Sunnylands "is likely to "consume" well over 600 million gallons per year"? How about explaining the method used to derive your "estimate" of 600 million gallons per year. That would represent a usage equivalent of 1,643,835 gallons per day. Now, with all of that being said, I did find some more recent data, from last year. According to the CVWD, the average 18 hole course within it's boundaries uses an average of about 300 million gallons of water annually, about 2/3 more than the previous data I used,which I believe was from 2010. Nevertheless, that updated figure off 300 million gallons, for an 18 hole course, is far, far less that your "estimate" of 600 million gallons of usage by Sunnyland. And I would have to guess that if the CVWD is giving the figures, it would come from the actual metered useage. Believe it, don't believe it. I don't really care. It is what it is and just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.

Dear Dan:

This is getting kinda convoluted, but to recap: The annual evapotranspiration (ETo) rate for the desert is around 6 feet, or 6 acre-feet (see http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/App_Themes/images/etozonemap.jpg ). That's the minimum required to keep grass green there in an average year. For ever acre (43,560 square feet) that's 6 x 43,560 = 261,360 cubic feet per acre x 7.48 gallons per cubic foot = 1,954,973 (pretty close to two million) gallons per acre per year. Multiply that times the number of acres of grass and you will get the MINIMUM required to keep the grass green. Pick any multiplier you want to account for the waste/over-irrigation factor. I have used 2.5 which I recall from studies I read over 40 years ago, so there's no link that I know of, but I'm willing to stand corrected regarding the waste factor on the basis of any new scientific data or actual measurements. However, any claim of significantly less than a couple of million gallons per acre per year would be suspect, as those figures are right out of the CIMIS website and the relationship of the volumes that are standard measures. If, for example, an "average" golf course was, say 200 acres, the annual MINIMUM (with a zero waste or over-irrigation factor) would be around 390,994,560 gallons per 200 acres per year. With a waste or over-irrigation factor of 2.5, that 200 acres would require 977,486,400 (pretty close to a billion) gallons per year. I use this example, because you haven't said how big or small the golf course you cite is.

The 16 includes the error or over-irrigation factor of 2.5. Actually 2.5 x 6 = 15, so I stand corrected. I had once read that 16 feet was a common rate of application for typical landscaping of the day (1960's or '70's) and I used 2.5 to be conservative.

Please refute any of the above and correct me with a clear comparison of the bad figures and the good figures. I think the annual basis is more fair than the daily basis, and is more standard practice, because there is some variation in ETo from day to day, season to season. Unless the maintenance people never change their irrigation controllers (which happens a lot). Again, the devil is in the details, but these are the basics with which any analysis must start.

Twister: Both of you should run for political office. You have the deftness to smother an opponent's argument with recondite mathematical formulae. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder I don't do math. I think I drew the line at advanced calculus and that was probably 35 plus years ago. Neither do I do politics. One of my oldest friends is a mayor in a southwestern city and that's as close as I care to get, apart from voting, of course.

danfogel: You and Twister left me in the dust -- or should I say sand trap -- several entries ago. Best, Don Bauder

We're not deserting you, Don.

And it ain't rocket science, just simple arithmetic. A cubic foot of water (1/100th of the hcf [hundred cubic feet on your water bill) is the same as 7.48 gallons. An acre is 43,560 square feet, so an acre-foot is 43,560 cubic feet. In the desert, the amount of water required to barely keep alive and acre of grass is about 6 acre feet. Those are the basic facts. There's always a little wiggle-room around figures like the amount of water required because of variables like hotter or windier years, months, or days, so one might say only 5 acre feet would be the minimum requirement, and some data might indicate more than 6, but 7 or 9, while reported, are in the realm of needing verification.

Anybody claiming "usage" in the realm of perfection invites scrutiny and calls for real data and serious questioning. No need, however, to jump to conclusions either way, just examine the facts.

In San Diego where the annual ETo is around four feet, I use about 1.3 feet on the average (range: about 1 to 1.5), but if it was all grass, I would be using well over four feet. Now this claim is suspect, right away, right? IF I had lawn, but I don't. Most of it goes to fruit trees.

All anybody has to do is read their water bill and figure it out. Fear not; it's easy. The water company now provides some useful information right on the bill.

Now, as to your "fairly old research out of Israel", how about providing a link so that we all can read it. I can only go own personal experience. I have been playing golf for decades on courses irrigated by reclaimed water. I have been in recreational areas of all sports that are irrigated by reclaimed water. Neither my wife, our daughter nor myself have ever experienced any health issues directly or indirectly related to the use of reclaimed water for irrigation.

Dear Dan:

There were no links in those days; I had to get it from the library. It might as well have been in Alexandria. But if I happen to find any comparable research via the Internet, I'll try to remember to post it. They found that the virus particles and bacteria hitched a ride on the ultra-giant aerosols produced by trickling filters and sprinklers and rode the wind for some pretty significant distances, but I don't remember how far.

I certainly hope the "reclaimed" water you and your family have been exposed to did not contain anything harmful. And I hope that there is never a breakdown in the treatment process in the future at any time or that some damned fool doesn't press the wrong button or go to sleep at his console. I would be inconsolate, especially if I was drinking the stuff.

Twister: I certainly hope you are not drinking reclaimed water on the golf course. We need you on this blog. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder Don't worry. No one would ever accuse Twister of "drinking the water"!!

As Twain (you've met him, right?) said, "Whisky's for drinkin'--water's for fightin' over."

Twister: W.C. Fields was offered a glass of water. He shouted: "Water? Fish [fornicate] in it!!" Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: The three of you do not constitute a large statistical sample. Best, Don Bauder

I remember contacting a building supervisor (ca 50 years of age) because one of his men was spraying chlordane around the building (for ants). That stuff won't hurt you (sissy); I been doing it all my life and I ain't dead yet. Next year he was. Cause of death unknown.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't all commercial and domestic use of chlordane in the U.S. banned by the EPA many years ago, like back in the 1980's?

This happened in the 70's.

Twister: A penny for the old guy. Best, Don Bauder

Here's one among many: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4268/944.short

Again, I wish you and your family happiness and good health!

Twister: Bottoms up! Best, Don Bauder

sdsocialdiary: Margo comes through with a howler. Best, Don Bauder

Don ** relook at my message...

danfogel: It is now Twister's turn to tee off. One of you will have to take a penalty for hitting into the water. Best, Don Bau8der

continued from previous post:

more "drought tolerant." But give them more water and they will come--they will grow bigger and denser depending upon the kind of management they get. They may or may not be well-enough adapted to the conditions that define the Lower Sonoran Desert, but I trust that the experts will have researched this and even tried test plots before deciding to launch a major project in hopes of saving water. Those experts should, however, be able to explain the basis of their recommendations.

Plants do have physiological adaptations to persist under less wet conditions than, say, “turfgrass,” such as reducing their rate of growth, having the ability to dry up without dying, and a lot of other technical stuff I won’t bother to go into unless requested to do so, such as stomatal closure, leaf-rolling, and the cubic volume and depth of soil occupied by the root system.

Appeal to authority is simply not equivalent to addressing the facts. “Trust but verify,” as President Reagan so wisely put it. Generalizations also need backing up. Without that, I would only have faith in their omnipotence upon which to rely. Doubt is not the same as disbelief, but belief leaves no room for reason.

"And in my opinion, making estimates of water usage, with those same calculations, but without know the size of the area being irrigated is pure folly."

I agree. No sizes were given, so I estimated the size of the Annenberg Estate from the map at about 120 acres (x 6 acre feet ETo =720 acre feet x 43,560 cubic feet per acre-foot = 31,363,200 cubic feet for 120 acres x 7.48 gallons per cubic foot = 234,596,736 gallons to minimally provide enough water to keep that much grass alive x (the actual amount of excess water applied) = the total number of gallons used by a 120-acre plot of grass. I used an excess irrigation factor of 2.5, or 250 percent of minimum and arrive at 586,491,840 gallons of ESTIMATED ACTUAL WATER CONSUMPTION. The ONLY way to change that is to change the excess irrigation factor, which, for any given case, can only be determined by the actual amount of water consumed, or by applying additional factors such as reduced application to subsets like sand traps, but that can't be hidden from the actual volume of water applied data.

I continue to invite corrections, but frankly, I just don't give a damn about anybody's opinion, including mine. I am always skeptical of everything "officials" have to say. "Appeal to Authority" is a widely-recognized fallacy. Only the facts count, and that depends upon the truth of each case.

Best, Twister

Twister: Finally, someone who doesn't give a damn about his own opinion. Pass that message to Donald Trump. Best, Don Bauder

What I mean is, ALL of my "opinions" are provisional--subject to change. It's a helluva lot easier than living in a dream world wherein I am faced with the difficult-to-impossible task of defending a "position" that is indefensible.

Naturally, I consider ALL opinions provisional, but I limit my energies to changing my own--that keeps me busy enough without trying to change those of others. However, just as I am willing to consider the foundations of others' conclusions, I am willing to subject my own to the scrutiny of others. But that is far different, in my view, from head-butting over opinions. And, I don't give a rat's ass what any "expert's" opinion is either, especially when she or he might have better public relations (I don't have any--that's why nobody pays any attention to what I say). The show-biz dicta hold true in this culture at large: "You are what your publicity says you are." "There's no such thing as bad publicity." (Those principles are pretty hard to trump). And, of course, I ignore trumped-up charges--I don't even get pumped up about them. Non carborundum bastardi EST (as in Erhard Seminars Training [sic], which still is practiced by a large segment of the population, especially some of those who were in their teens and twenties in the seventies).

Well, Dan, old man, let us examine this more closely then.

"The fact that you have included a waste/over-irrigation factor of 2.5, from studies you read over 40 yrs ago, is, in my opinion, irrelevant."

I can understand your point, but as Robert Ruark would say, when you take something away, you must replace it with something else, preferably something superior. If that factor is irrelevant, with what shall replace it? Please remember that I left this door wide open, and it's still open. 2.5 would apply only to those cases in which two and a half as much water is needed was used--or, if it was the average for a population under consideration. I contend that most people with lawns irrigate at far higher rates than the minimum, and that most people have no idea of the principles of optimal irrigation. Gardeners as a class are burdened with a significant sub-population of casual "waterers" that are so extremely stubborn that one might suspect that they might suffer from hydrocephaly. Such folks are not interested in learning the principles of "The Water Relations of Plants and Soils" (by Kramer, __) which book can be purchased today. My neighbor's "professional" gardener is a member of that sub-population, and the neighbor's property continuously drains, subsurface, onto my property, causing a swamp near the property line. This is unfortunate, because many other gardeners are well-meaning enough to sacrifice their lawns and gardens upon the altar of the spin-meisters who blame the water shortage on the drought rather than the waste fraction.

"During that renovation, 60 acres of turf grass were replaced with 28-acres of native meadow grasses and 32-acres of mulch, all to help to reduce water use; I have read that they put in Purple Three Awn, Sideoats Grama and Blue Grama, which alone could reduce water usage in those areas planted by as much as 50 percent."

It takes about the same amount of water to produce a unit of biomass (dry weight of production), regardless of the species. If the replacement species produce as much biomass as the "turf" species, their water requirement would be about the same. If they are managed differently, i.e., irrigated less, then the area so managed would use less water, and thus produce less biomass. The western Great Basin grass species you mentioned do grow in areas that receive somewhat lower rainfall than the central and eastern portions in the rain shadow of the Rockies, as evidenced by their lower stature (shortgrass prairie) and lower density, thus their lower biomass. They are, in that sense,

continued . . .

Twister and Dan Fogel: You folks have left me at the tee. I am taking a mulligan. Best, Don Bauder

NEVER give up. Never, never, NEVER give up! --Winnie

Twister: Oh pooh. Best, Don Bauder

danfogel: I have been to horse races twice that I can remember. Both were sulky races. One was when I was in grade school. Even at that age I could tell the races were fixed. You could see the jockey yanking on the reins to make sure his horse didn't win. The second time I went was in college. I put my own money on races. I lost. Best, Don Bauder

[NOTE: Initial caps on proper names, fogel!]

My pappy was addicted to booze, gambling, and wimmen. I can't remember whether or not I ever bet on the ponies, but I put the "sport of kings" pretty close to bullfighting. Which is mighty close to shooting a lion with an arrow and killing him 40 hours later with a rifle. I wounded a deer once over 50 years ago and had to track him down, and I haven't been deer hunting since. But that wasn't for trophy, it was for meat--good meat.

The lottery didn't get my vote, nor a penny oughta me.

The way "professional" horse-race people treat their horses is criminal.

Best, Twister