Doug Manchester's new Rhode Island digs
  • Doug Manchester's new Rhode Island digs
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Manchester Financial Group, a limited partnership belonging to former Union-Tribune owner Papa Doug Manchester, has purchased an historic home on the ocean in Newport, Rhode Island, for $15 million, according to the Providence Journal.

The estate, named Fairholme, was sold by a third generation member of the publishing Annenberg family. That family published TV Guide, Seventeen Magazine, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Daily Racing Form. The racing publication brought controversy to the founding family.

It is not known now whether Manchester bought the home as an investment, or as one of the homes he will occupy at times.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Ponzi July 28, 2015 @ 9:31 a.m.

I've heard the winters there can get as cold as Siberia.

0

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:45 p.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:40 p.m.

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

0

Ponzi Aug. 1, 2015 @ 11:18 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:30 a.m.

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

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:27 a.m.

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

0

aardvark July 28, 2015 @ 11:02 a.m.

How long will it be before he changes the name to the Manchester Fairholme?

0

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:45 p.m.

aardvark: Another low blow. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister July 28, 2015 @ 6:42 p.m.

Just how does a corporation, an individual, occupy such a modest dwelling? Ain't it gonna get crowded when the entire corp moves in?

0

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:48 p.m.

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

0

Twister July 28, 2015 @ 6:52 p.m.

Back in the sixties, I did some consulting for Annenberg at his sand-dune paradise in the Coachella Valley (Palm Springs, ad nauseam). Take a look at it today, https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7774328,-116.4108127,312m/data=!3m1!1e3 zoom out, and see where 3-5 million gallons per acre per year are going. Then send a picture of your own lawn in to the TV station's "ugliest lawn" contest. Compare what los ricos are paying for their playpens and what you are paying because you are conserving water.

Ha, ha, he, he, haw, haw, HAW!

1

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:51 p.m.

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

0

danfogel July 30, 2015 @ 7:16 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2015 @ 6:31 a.m.

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

0

danfogel July 31, 2015 @ 6:47 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 1, 2015 @ 7:20 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 1, 2015 @ 2:02 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:48 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 2, 2015 @ 9:28 a.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 7:55 a.m.

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

0

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:54 p.m.

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

0

AlexClarke July 31, 2015 @ 5:59 a.m.

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

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2015 @ 6:32 a.m.

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

0

Don Bauder July 30, 2015 @ 4:55 p.m.

Patrick Lael: It looks well-nigh indestructible to me. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister July 30, 2015 @ 6:59 p.m.

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

Pretty sure it was 18. Been too long ago to remember. I do remember that several contractors were used to build the mansion, so that no one person would know the layout (secret rooms, etc. Bomb shelter? I don't know). I also remember that he had banks of TV monitors to monitor his far-flung operations--VERY high-tech in those days. I was escorted in by security, which stood by during the whole visit, and was escorted out.

The story was that Annenberg was refused entry to Thunderbird Country Club nearby, because he was Jewish. He is rumored to say, "fuc# you." I'll build my own goddamned golf course and none of you sonsabitches will be allowed to play there. I think that was in the fifties--don't remember exactly.

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2015 @ 6:35 a.m.

Twister: Sounds true to form. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister July 31, 2015 @ 10:08 a.m.

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

CORRECTIONS:

It appears that Dan Fogel is right--9 holes.

I might have been wrong about the course he tried to play, but my foggy memory dredged up Thunderbird. It might have been Tamarisk, almost "next door." Which, if true, would add to the bonk on the noggin served up by Wally building a bigger, better one on their doorstep.

Anybody know which courses in the '50's kept out Jews? Do I presume correctly that they are now open to everybody, including dark-skinned non-WASPS, or are there some de facto exclusionary situations persisting?

In Sackcloth and Ashes, Twister

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2015 @ 1:05 p.m.

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

0

danfogel July 31, 2015 @ 4:18 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 1, 2015 @ 7:24 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:29 p.m.

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

0

rmj Aug. 7, 2015 @ 8:43 a.m.

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.

0

Twister July 31, 2015 @ 10:18 a.m.

By the way, I estimate that the Annenberg course (anybody know who the current owner is?) is likely to "consume" well over 600 million gallons per year, much of which is pure waste.

0

Don Bauder July 31, 2015 @ 1:24 p.m.

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

0

danfogel July 31, 2015 @ 4:12 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 1, 2015 @ 7:29 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:27 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:51 a.m.

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

0

Twister July 31, 2015 @ 10:39 p.m.

I have inserted my responses to Dan Fogel’s post [thus—Twister] within a copy of his text, below:

danfogel July 31, 2015 @ 4:12 p.m. 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, [That’s about right--that’s enough for about 34 acres at an irrigation rate of about 2.5 x perfect efficiency. Evapotranspiration is about 6 feet for that area--Twister] 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. [A million gallons per week x 52 = 52,000,000 gallons per year ÷ 7.48 gallons per cubic foot = 6,951,872 cubic feet ÷ 43,560 cubic feet per acre (one acre-foot) = 160 acre feet ÷ 16 acre feet per acre = about ten acres (plus/minus any adjustment for lower usage during the cooler months or weeks). I must have miscalculated! Please explain where I went wrong!!! However, water meters don’t (usually) lie, so rather than to take my word for it or USGA, we should just ask the golf course how much water they actually use and go by that. We also should ask them to tell us all of their sources of water—I trust we can trust the Trust. A while back I figured about a billion gallons for a 200 acre course, but again, I await being proven wrong—Twister]

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. [Again, the actual usage rate in units/unit time would be needed to get at the real truth of the matter, including the source of the “reclaimed” water and how disease-free it is. I posted some information recently about some fairly old research out of Israel that showed the presence of viruses and bacteria in reclaimed water as well as epidemiological studies showing greater incidence of disease in Kibbutzim downwind of irrigated areas.]

Best, Twister

0

Don Bauder Aug. 1, 2015 @ 7:31 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:20 p.m.

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 . . .

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:53 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 3, 2015 @ 9:59 p.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 1, 2015 @ 1:29 p.m.

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.

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:02 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:59 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 2, 2015 @ 9:12 a.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 7:55 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 2, 2015 @ 3:21 p.m.

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.

0

danfogel Aug. 1, 2015 @ 1:40 p.m.

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.

0

Twister Aug. 1, 2015 @ 10:13 p.m.

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.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 3, 2015 @ 7:09 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 3, 2015 @ 10:29 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 3, 2015 @ 9:37 p.m.

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

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 7:59 a.m.

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

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 8:01 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 2, 2015 @ 3:25 p.m.

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.

0

danfogel Aug. 3, 2015 @ 10:26 a.m.

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?

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 8:01 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 3, 2015 @ 10:07 p.m.

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!

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 8:02 a.m.

Twister: Bottoms up! Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 8:02 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 2, 2015 @ 9:17 a.m.

twister, well first off, I'm not going to try and refute or correct your "calculations". I don't have the background that you do,so any attempts on my part to either prove or disprove them would be futile. I didn't even turn 9 years old until late in 1965.

According to the National Golf Foundation and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, an average 18-hole golf course takes up about 150 acres of land, including acreage in lakes, ponds, out-of-play areas and hard structure. So, based on the calculation that you provided, that the minimum required to keep grass green in an average year is pretty close to two million gallons per acre per year times the number of acres of grass, then about 150 acres of maintained turf would, at 2 million gallons per year per acre would be a minimum of 300 million gallons per year, without factoring in the lower water usage necessary for the extra acreage in lakes, ponds, out-of-play areas and hard structure. 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. Irrigation and water conservation techniques are so vastly different from those of 40 yrs ago, I believe that any such figure from 40 yrs ago would be meaningless today. Based on your own statements, on what basis do make the claim that Sunnylands "is likely to "consume" well over 600 million gallons per year", if you don't even know how large the course is? As I noted in my comments, Sunnylands is a nine-hole course and prior to the recent 2010 renovation, it had 120 acres of maintained turf grass. 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. The renovation also included an irrigation system upgrade that included a state-of-the-art IC system from Rain Bird, probably much more efficient than those of 1965. For me, there is no convolution. As I said, facts and figures from studies over 40 years ago are not relevant now. 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’m not going to argue with you over estimates and calculations, evapotranspiration rates, waste/over-irrigation factor or any of that crap. You can continue to believe what you want. The bottom line for me is the fact that the CVWD says the courses on average use about 300 million gallons of water annually. That is good enough for me. Information direct from the source, you might say. Believe it, don’t believe, it matters not to me. Unlike some people here, I’m not skeptical of everything an official might say.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 1:11 p.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 2, 2015 @ 4:46 p.m.

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

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 8:04 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 4, 2015 @ 9:23 a.m.

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).

0

Twister Aug. 2, 2015 @ 4:44 p.m.

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 . . .

0

Ponzi Aug. 2, 2015 @ 9:17 a.m.

It looks like a very nice home. My thoughts are if he's buying it as a getaway or for its historical value (or of course, both). Other than his Texas hotel venture in Austin, I have not heard of Manchester exploring other communities away from San Diego. Maybe the over development of San Diego is even sending "Papa Doug: scurrying for more tranquil grounds.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 2, 2015 @ 1:15 p.m.

Ponzi: Vacation getaway -- or permanent getaway? Best, Don Bauder

0

danfogel Aug. 3, 2015 @ 10:17 a.m.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that reported use of water by golf courses serviced by the CVWD is 300 million gallons per yer. And the reported TOTAL use of water by all courses in the Coachella Valley is 37 billion gallons.

Please feel free to make your "estimates" based on whatever suppositions it is you want to base them on.

Until some evidence is produced that indicates a different amount of usage, I have no reason to be skeptical of these reported figures.That is good enough for me. Information direct from the source, you might say. Believe it, don’t believe, it matters not to me. Unlike some people here, I’m not skeptical of everything an official might say.

0

Twister Aug. 3, 2015 @ 8:41 p.m.

300,000,000 gallons per year would be enough, at near-perfect irrigation management, to irrigate about 150 acres of grass in the desert. That doesn't include subtractions for sand traps, golf cart paths, open desert, buildings, etc., which would make the apparent efficiency suffer. That means near-zero over-irrigation, a quality extremely difficult to achieve--but if it truly is, they should be given some kind of award. Torrey Pines and other coastal golf courses should use about half of that. But until we know the actual water usage and the size of the irrigated areas, we won't know exactly how much any golf course uses. Golf courses in rainier climates (like Rhode Island?) might not to irrigate at all, except in times of drought (how's that for irony?).

Maybe Dougie-boy is moving to a wetter clime for springs, summers, and falls, whilst wintering in San Diego? Maybe he wants to build a golf course for himself but is too smart to build one in the middle of a sand dune--speaking of utter absurdities.

Anybodies what thinks the middle of a desert sand dune system is the best place for a golf course--or anything else except lizards and snakes (if they can stand the heat and dryness), I got some bridges to sell them. If we gotta sacrifice acres and acres for overgrown babies to play with their balls in, maybe we should consider building their grassy sandboxes in a grassland region, and leave the arid areas for others to whiz around in circles on. We could convert the dried-up golf courses to motocross courses. YAHOO!!

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 8:07 a.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 4, 2015 @ 9:31 a.m.

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

0

danfogel Aug. 4, 2015 @ 8:54 a.m.

reply to Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 7:55 a.m don bauder, Some people like horse racing. I don't I have never attended a horse race. I have never wagered on a horse race. While I may have seen a horse race on television when I was a kid, since I began living on my own when I was seventeen, I have not watched a horse race on television,. I bypass stories about horse racing in the sports pages and ignore them on TV sports reports. I'm sure you get the point.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 4, 2015 @ 1:55 p.m.

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

0

Twister Aug. 4, 2015 @ 3:13 p.m.

[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

0

Sign in to comment