Luster’s staff alleged last week that he’s been spending between 30-70% of his time these past few years solely dedicated to the HB Poseidon Project…huh? Now isn’t that scientific, a 30-70% spread? Not on average but a data gap width you could drive your career & CalPers through. One project justifies that kind of work load demand?

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”
— Philip K. Dick

With the false assumptions of density independent survivals of larval fish hidden in the mathematics of the models and survival assumptions being arbitrary, they calculated the Impact that Mr. Luster and the CCC wanted, which provided tens of millions of dollars in Mitigation Funds for them to play with at the expense of the electric rate-payers (aka citizens). Advocacy science is good business, even when it is false.

His latest demand was for a billion dollar sub-sand intake for a desalinization plant to save 80 million fish larva per year. As many species of fish/shrimp larva are bought and sold around the world at prices between 100 and 1000 dollars per million, it appears that the California Coastal Commission has gone officially institutionally insane by even suggesting/demanding a billion dollar solution to an 80 thousand dollar problem. The definition of institutional insanity is a disconnection from reality.

In trying to force this insane solution to a minor problem (that many larva are produced by the one-day catch of a very small commercial fishing boat: less than a ton of mature fish), Mr. Luster had to magically assume that the ecology on that filter surface wouldn’t adapt to eating all those larval fish concentrating on the sand surface with the flow of the water into the filter (same thing that feeds sand crabs in the surf area: water flowing into the sand). Those organisms on the filter surface would just eat the larva and all Mr. Luster would have accomplished with his billion dollars of the citizens money would have been to hide the loss of that small amount of larva.

JAP:
“Ocean forcing” isn’t mumbo-jumbo nor that difficult to understand.
It’s about the major causal stress factors, the true elements forcing change.

You could use FORCING for economics, climate, any subject……They can be examples of or due to natural or un-natural (human in origin) elements.

And really, you think scientists aren’t supposed to use state of the art terms in a study published then peer-reviewed?

What I’ve encouraged Watchdog to look into are the $$$ impacts up to this point, In layman’s terms? How much $$$ have all of these utility corporations been FORCED to spend, how much $$$ did they then raise their rates accordingly?

How much $$$ has Mr. & Mrs. Ratepayer over-paid, out of pocket FORCED to spend because of those rate hikes? Is the State going to reimburse the utilities, then the courts direct utilities to refund? Gotta be in the millions if not billions.

This is a consumer scandal, a fiasco that is a class action cluster screw. Maybe you, JAP, have been ripped off for nothing, at the tail end of a phony food chain that never needed to occur?

Desalination ocean intakes is only a portion of the cancer.

I challenged MSM, especially self-described watchdog orgs, to investigate further, give us in the enviro-NGO community more info but also elaborate, possibly provide the ramifications, the consequences.

As a land use, regulatory compliance and construction services advisor, I am totally confused by Mr. Luster’s response.

It is in fact what the world-renowned scientists said: They were mystified by HIS remarks regarding their studies, made at a December Deal Conference in Ventura?

So Steve, who IS on first? And exactly what IS on second (next)? And will California ever GET to third base, resolve conflicting science conclusions?

Mr. Luster’s quote seems clueless in light of their December letter I viewed. I interpreted it as an strong ACADEMIC CEASE & DESIST, on UCSD stationary letterhead no less. They cited him as 180 degrees off.

Sound science is critical, and the CCC doesn’t appear to have supporting evidence.

Frankly, I try to provide my clients with worst case scenarios: In this instance, IMHO, it’ll be a miracle if those who’ve spent millions of dollars trying to fulfill possibly false/bogus expectations don’t litigate.
And what about all of the lost time over the past 5 years or so, since the CCC staff telegraphed “Don’t even try to submit an open ocean intake”????

Probably won’t end up in court because the proponents will need to go before the Commission.

Roger E. Bütow
Founder & Executive Director
Clean Water Now