Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
No county for retirees
Yes, they are. I ended up in a beautiful little Spanish village by the sea that catches good swells pretty much all year long and has been home to porn stars, Playmates, athletes, actors and a President, among others.— September 5, 2014 2:04 p.m.
How dry is it?
don bauder it's called humorous sarcasm, or at least attempted humorous sarcasm. I'll try harder next time, or at least pretend to. LOL— September 5, 2014 1:55 p.m.
No county for retirees
don bauder, as I said, it had nothing to do with being too expensive. For me. it was strictly quality of life, which does encompass the things you mentioned, infrastructure issues, overcrowding, politics to name a few. Thanks but no thanks.— September 5, 2014 1:03 p.m.
How dry is it?
don bauder, unfortunately, since the violin would not be invented for another 1500 yrs, Nero could not have fiddled while Rome was burning. It's most likely that he was playing a lyre.— September 5, 2014 12:56 p.m.
How dry is it?
don bauder you are talking about San Diego, I am talking about the real world, of which San Diego does not appear to be a part. And in any case, the California Aqueduct, the subject of the articles I provided links to, is under jurisdiction of the State of California. As far as I am aware, there are no relevant aqueducts or canals over which the San Diego County Water Authority has control or jurisdiction.— September 5, 2014 12:51 p.m.
No county for retirees
Not to offend anyone living in or moving to San Diego, but I have a different point of view. I lived there for almost 20 yrs, from a teenager until I was almost 40. When I came back down south about 11/2 yrs go, I was going to move to San Diego. And after a few visits, I decided not to. I can pretty much live wherever I choose, and I chose not to live in San Diego, for many of the reasons to are talked about in the reader every day.— September 5, 2014 11:41 a.m.
How dry is it?
Don BAuder, It always boils down to money; how much and who pays for it. Try this. Take a look at a map of the US and draw an imaginary line from that ideal Eastern state willing to sell the Southwest its excess water to California. How many states, counties, cities, townships etc, etc, etc, does that line go thru. Each and every one will want their piece of the pie. Maybe it will be water, maybe it will be money for access. Who knows. But every foot that such a canal or aqueduct would cross is owned by someone, and as my grandaddy used to say, you ain't gonna get nuthin' worth havin' for free. And that doesn't even include the arguments in that state over who the water really belongs to. I commented in an earlier thread that there are something like 9 states in the Mississippi watershed. Imagine if Minnesota wanted to start taking water from the Mississippi and selling it to another state, OH MY GOD can you even imagine the legal battles. Look don't get me wrong. California needs either more water, less consumption or less people consuming it. But I don't think bringing in water via canal from either the Mississippi or points east is the answer. First, the will NEVER be $150-200BILLION, at least, to pay for it. And secondly, can we afford the 15-20 maybe even 30 yrs it would take. We need it sooner than that. It's like saying I need some lumber to fix my roof, so I'm gonna plant this tree and wait for it to grow. What about in the mean time.— September 5, 2014 11:35 a.m.
How dry is it?
captd/founder. In terms of cost vs recovery, the loss thru evaporation in lined canals is negligible. Studies have put it at 5% or less. The rate of evap in the CAP is 4.4%. Before construction and again during, feasibility studies were done on covering the canal to reduce evap. It was determined that covering the canal would quadruple the construction cost. But there is also another problem, routine maintenance, inspections and repairs become exponentially more difficult and thereby more expensive, prohibitively so. Here is a good article on evap.: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2013/world/… As for solar, it's cost and cost vs benefit. Here are some articles will give you a good idea, IF you can look at them objectively, that is. http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/photovoltai… http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/could-t… http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/business/energy… There was a project in India a couple of yrs ago. I believe that it was at a cost of $3 million per Mw, with .5Mw of capacity per mile. But because of where these canals are, and there small size, there are very little infrastructure costs, which, depending on location of the canal, could range from very expensive to exorbitant. The Idea of covering the canals and aqueducts in Southern Cal has been around for a long time and I can remember hearing of ideas or suggestions for solar over the canals and aqueducts before my wife and I moved to the PNW, so at least 10 yrs. Seems to me that if it were feasible, something would at least be in the works.— September 5, 2014 11:17 a.m.
How dry is it?
anniej, It cost around $10 billion, in 1970's dollars, to build the 800 mile TransAlaska Pipeline. That's about $45 billion in today's dollars. It's a 48" pipe that is supposed to be able to handle 2 millions bbls per day. That's about 84 million gallons or about 250 acre fee. That's less than 100k acre feet per year. That's a drop in the bucket. You can't supply enough water in a pipeline, you need a canal. The Central Arizona project does that in Arizona. It's 330 miles long, cost $4 billion, in 1970's dollars, and at full capacity, could deliver approximately 2.2 million acre feet per year, more than 25 times the capacity of the pipeline. So here are the questions to ask. First, where is that abundance of water going to come from, what part of the country has has extra water to ship across the country, on consistent and pretty much perpetual basis. Second,How long do you think it would take? A 48" pipeline, 800 miles long, took three years. The CAP took 20 yrs to go 330 miles. Third, How much are you willing to pay. The CAP cost over $12 million PER MILE when it was built. How much would it cost now? Finally and most importantly, who is going to pay for it. And those are just the basics. There are so many other things involved that could, or probably would, keep this from ever even getting on the drawing board. We need to look for better alternatives that a "canal to nowhere".— September 4, 2014 7:57 p.m.
PG&E to pony up big for San Bruno explosion
don bauder, well Wall Street's greed and recklessness actually did kill a few people, but I'm not going to debate over who committed the worse evils. I'll just say that if someone was ruined financially, they might have the chance to come back. But, at least the last time I checked, with one exception, when you are dead, you are dead, at least in this life.— September 2, 2014 9:59 p.m.