The Overwatering Myth

[Bradley Anderson]

I'm getting really tired of the superintendent bashing on this site with respect to overwatering.

I know that I am going to take some heat on here for taking this position, but I think that good superintendents know that overwatering produces poor playing conditions and patholoy issues. Good superintendents DO NOT overwater. Even beginning superintendents do no overwater; if anything they are more inclined to err on the conservative side.

There are no doubt, design issues in the field that dictate that water has to be applied to many golf courses in volumes that are not necessary for good golf, but the superintendent did not design those issues, he is merely maintaining them.

There are also courses where organic matter has built up over time into thatch layers. The superintendents who have inherited these issues must use more water than necessary to keep the grass alive in those areas, but they are also aerifying and topdressing those areas to mitigate those issues.

There are old irrigation systems out there still that do not provide uniform coverage. I used to have a single row system that applied twice as much water in the center of the fairway as it did on the edges. There was just no way around it, the center of the fairways would get more water than they needed in order to keep the edges alive. I tried pulling roller bases on the edges in the day time but golfer complained about the ball getting hung up in the hoses,and getting wet from the sprinklers. Plus it was hardly efficient use of water to irrigate in the day time.

I also worked at a club with unirrigated bluegrass fairways. It was awesome from the F&F standpoint, but they were cut at 1 inch for the rest of the year and today's players simply will not stand for those kinds of conditions. In a dry spell they were so cool, but for the rest of the year they sucked.

Going brown is not the answer guys, unless you are willing to go without carts. Carts + brown = dead.

You have to be able to apply water judisciously and uniformly to your golf course. That measn an expensive system. You need to be able to remove and dilute excess organic matter below the surface. That means manpower and equipment. You need a sensible design without frigging moonscaping and ridiculous mounding all over the place. You need to keep carts off the fairways when they are stressed, but that's never going happen. Hell if the economy really gets bad you will have to increase carts and increase the amount of rounds from idiots who shouldn't even be on your course!!!

I'll rant more on this later. I have been provoked.

I know of no superintendents who intentionally over water their golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bradley,

I am with you!  Most supers can't overwater if they wanted to, because they are:

Sstuck with old, low volume systems.....
Pay for water and its expensive@!
Have water rations imposed on them

For that matter, most supers can't cut water to wet areas because they are stuck with old systems with too little control. BTW, for those who think that ultra green equals over watering, when was the last time you saw a ball plug at Augusta National during the Masters, the ultimate in green?

The turf needs what it need in terms of water.  Any super knows that putting on too much is as bad as putting on too little.  Green is as much a function of N as it is H2O.  Actually, for a long time, whenever I saw an overwatered course, it turned out to be that the super hadn't figured out how to work his/her computer controls, rather than some intentional decision to overwater.

Of course, my experience isn't universa and as always, I could be wrong........  But I do agree with Bradley that most of the posts on here about over watered courses come from mythical examples, like college stories where "a friend of a friend saw this happen......"

[TEPaul]

Brad:

That settles it then---when you come here to Philly it is Scott Anderson of HVGC you need to speak with. He has what can only be considered a really dry and F&F course and has been that for over 20 years and he also has a really old single row irrigation system and it seems he likes it and does not want to consider a new one to get the appropriate water to different spots.

He once drew me a little schematic of how he even things out with his old system but I must say I never really understood it?

But logically I must admit it may be easier for him to do since his golf course is routed through a real valley and I don't see that water would ever collect and puddle on any of his fairways.

An interesting subject indeed though, that just proves that nothing is as simple as most think, I guess.

As to the general subject of over-watering, though, it was and is a reality, in my opinion, on some courses. My course used to put about 15 million gallons a year down and now we put down a bit more than one third of that amount. (At least we did in the last few years until some of the members freaked out! ).

[Craig Sweet]

I agree with Bradley....over watering is a bit of a myth.

I was thinking about this the other morning while noticing that I see the same golfers everyday, at the same time....and those that play in the very early morning play a wetter, and sometimes slower, course than those that play in the afternoon...I bet the early morning golfer thinks the course is over watered....

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Is it my imagination, or are you under wording your posts lately!  Your "firm and fast" posts are a great improvement!

I looked it up - in Philly, the average rainfall from May to October is 19.3" and your EVT (demand) averages 24.9" for a net demand of about 5.1" Over 100 acres of turf, your course would typically need about 13.8 Million gallons a year for total water replacement.  With some inefficiencies in the irrigation system that would rise 10% to about 15 Million gallons.

Technically, most turf plants can survive on as little as 1/3 of its field capacity (water holding ability.)  If your combination of soils, turf, etc. has a field capacity of 3", and you lose 0.2" per night to Evapotranspiration, then in theory, your water needs might be reduced by 50-66%.  So, it appears that at 5 Million gallons a year, if last year was "average" your super is running it right on the edge of the balance between turf health and firm and fast.  He/she is also watering with 100% efficiency!  Or, it might have been just a little wetter than average. 

It is more complicated.  Watering should be accomplished by the "checkbook" method - i.e. replacing water when the balance gets near 0, much like you would replenish your checking account. 

I know some supers set their irrigation system to replace the full EVT and in some climates its necessary. If EVT is 0.25" they set the system to replace that.  Rain appears to be fairly constant in Philly compared to some areas, which would help the F and F cause.  I believe in your area, they could go 75% of need, counting on fairly typical rainfall to replenish the turf fairly regularly.  Even in July and August, using the above example, you could probably go 7-10 days between waterings before turf dies on the fw and rough.

In reality, wilting might occur at 50% of field capacity reducing the practical watering cycle to 7-8 days.  I guess you could give it a bath once a week whether it needs it or not in philly!  Something closer to 8 Million Gallons sounds more practical.

[Adam Clayman]

Bradley, I guarantee good supers have never been bashed on this website. btw, I love your lunar analogy and request.

However, there are a lot of courses out there, and, there's a bunch who do over water. Over is the key word in the statement. I define over situationally. i.e. When it rains an inch the day/night before and the course still gets it's morning run. That's over. When balls plug in fairways in the afternoon, that's over. Some are super heroes for providing great conditions with inferior systems. While still others have the latest and greatest systems and must justify it by over using 'em.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Brauer:

Interesting info. I'll print it out and show it to our super and get back to you. As you know our water usage is monitored, and has been.

One factor just might be our super claims his far more comprehensive use of a "wetting agent" is basically making our irrigation output a whole lot more effective than it used to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

The culprit in overwatering can reside in several rooms.

The Green committee room.
The Board Room
The general membership meeting room
The Manager's office
The Superintendent's office
A combination of the above.

I've seen examples where overwatering provides camoflage hiding less than acceptable maintainance practices.

I've seen Green Chairman give a Superintendent a direct order, that he wants the Super to produce Emerald Green, lush conditions.

I've seen Boards give the same marching orders.

I've seen memberships demand the conditions seen on TV

And, I've seen Managers do the same.

Each club has its own dynamic.
Sometimes the culture of the club encourages and produces overwatering.

Those who focus on the Super to the exclusion of all others aren't examing the issue in a global sense.

That's not to say that some Supers don't make the elective decision to  overwater, but, in many instances, they're just carrying out their marching orders, the responsibility for overwatering lies elsewhere.

[Bill_McBride]

Our "overwatering problem" is not overwatering, it's lack of runoff from areas where the slope is insufficient.  I don't know what a super can do about that.  It's irritating to hit a pitch shot to a short par 4 with the pin tight to the front, land the ball where you wanted about five yards short, and see the ball plug.     I don't think that's an overwatering issue, I think it's a sloping issue.

[Bradley Anderson]

Every golf course has different watering requirements  and situations.

Wetting agents are very effective at reducing water usage, but to treat fairways for an entire year you can spend over $10,000. There are some clubs where a superintendent doesn't have that kind of money to spend in his budget. So is this guy less of an irrigation manager than the guy who has wetting agents in his budget?

There are different water sources. Wells that are high in sodium of bicarbonates provide a water that, if you don't get some timely rains to flush the profiles, you have to put out ridiculous amounts of water to flush the system. So is the guy who has high sodium or bicarbonate water a poor irrigation manager on the night when he has to run the sprinklers for an hour to flush his greens?

Then there are golf courses that are so snady in nature that even if you did overwater it, no one would know because it all drains so well.

What about the guy who has shade on one half of a single row fairway system and full sun on the other half of the several acres of fairway?

Several weeks ago there was thread about a resort area where the golf courses were all wet. I know that many of those golf course have had their budgets reduced because the golf economy in that area is really hurting. So I just know that those superintendents do not have enough manpower to handwater, or take proper care of their sprinklers. Those guys propbably have to water heavier than they want to.

The point I am trying to make is I have a lot of respect for my peers, and believe me we all talk about ways to make our golf courses drier and firmer. I guess there may be guys out there who don't care, but I don't know any of them. I also have never heard of a green chairman or a general manager forcing a superintendent to water his golf course more than he knows best. I can't believe that that really even happens but I guess anything is possible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I'd disagree with you on that.

Surely, and especially on olde courses, surface drainage was an important, if not the critical consideration when designing and constructing the hole.

While low lying areas can experience the conditions you cite, they shouldn't exist on holes that aren't in low lying areas.

If you're hitting a ball 5 yards short of a green and it PLUGS, that area is being overwatered, or possibly, sits in a very low area of the golf course.

Did you see the thread about soft/wet approaches fronting greens ?

[Tom_Doak]

Bradley:

Are you really saying that no superintendent ever turns on the water (even though he doesn't think the grass needs it) because of pressure from the green committee / club management?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I'd disagree with you on that.

Surely, and especially on olde courses, surface drainage was an important, if not the critical consideration when designing and constructing the hole.

While low lying areas can experience the conditions you cite, they shouldn't exist on holes that aren't in low lying areas.

If you're hitting a ball 5 yards short of a green and it PLUGS, that area is being overwatered, or possibly, sits in a very low area of the golf course.

Did you see the thread about soft/wet approaches fronting greens ?

Patrick, this on a golf course that was opened in late 2006 after a post-Ivan rebuild.  There are several approaches that are just too flat in front; the water sits there and won't run off. Ten feet away where there is a good slope, it's dry.  I think it's just undersloped in the design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I have said this before, but the "minimum" slope I use in fw and around greens keeps going up over the years.  It used to be 2% (sometimes stretched thin to less than that) to 2.5% to 3%. Now I use 4-6% in approaches because of this problem.  Of course, if we want to allow the run up game, its hard to build them much steeper than 10%. Even on 10% slopes, I have seen lots of old men 3 woods(or young men fanned shots) stop on dry ground just due to the sloope.

Certainly, with irrigation, the "ground level" green is becoming more difficult to build. 

[Steve Burrows]

I am not even sure it's a matter of overwatering for fear of making a course play soft and/or slow.  Most superintendents will water as little as is necessary on account of the various diseases and fungi associated with stagnant, latent water on the leaf blade.  Overwatering in order to keep a course green is simply a mistake for so many other reasons than some ideal notion of playability, and I would imagine that more superintendents have lost their jobs because of disease rather than because of dry, brown grass.   They will keep it dry to stave off the disease.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

I have said this before, but the "minimum" slope I use in fw and around greens keeps going up over the years.  It used to be 2% (sometimes stretched thin to less than that) to 2.5% to 3%. Now I use 4-6% in approaches because of this problem.  Of course, if we want to allow the run up game, its hard to build them much steeper than 10%. Even on 10% slopes, I have seen lots of old men 3 woods(or young men fanned shots) stop on dry ground just due to the sloope.

Certainly, with irrigation, the "ground level" green is becoming more difficult to build. 

The two holes where we have problems are a short par 4 with a semi-blind approach over a cross bunker and a short par 5.  When the pins are in front of those greens, I would like to be able to land my pitch shot about 5 yards short and run up onto the green.  Its just about impossible now as it stays mucky in front almost no matter what the weather.  I guess some regrading is the only answer...

[Dan Herrmann]

Bradley,
I'm one that I admit you're talking about, and on the advice of a wise fellow board member, I've stopped bashing.

So please don't consider this bashing - I'm only going to provide facts here.

We just passed our 10 million gallon mark last week (2nd week of October).  Our golf course is the healthiest it's ever been.   Greens have excellent roots, they're fantastic to putt on, and are firm and smooth.

[Steve Curry]

I firmly agree that carts and fast and firm are a bad mix and most of the great fast and firm courses I have seen of late get next to no cart traffic. 

That said a very diligent and intuitive superintendent can water just enough to have healthy and firm conditions, which by the way will be green.  Regardless carts detract from the appearance of turf and will cause damage on wilted turf.

I must add that I have seen over watered conditions.  There is a very fine line between meeting requirements and going over the top.  Riding that line necessitates hand work and perfection to provide a flawless stand.

Steve

[Jason Topp]

I played two courses last weekend.  On one, the greens has almost no ballmarks and were in perfect condition.  On the other, the greens had a ton of ballmarks all over the place. 

The clientele for both courses is similar.  The layouts of both courses were similar enough that I would not expect that to be a major difference.  The climate for both courses would be nearly identical.  Finally, they were built at about the same time so construction techniques were most likely similar. I assumed the difference was due primarily to the greens on the 2nd course being overwatered.  Am I wrong?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Where were the cousres? 

In DFW I have seen some overwatered bent greens that mark up.  In reality, the problem isn't that they want to overwater.  Sometimes, members are strong enough to prevent dreaded aerification, which really is necessary.  Then, the roots don't go down past the thatch build up, and you have to water them like nuts to keep them alive, because the roots are less than an inch deep.

So, Pat M is right in some regards - the decisions made in the boardroom and forced on the super can have unintended consequences and lead to over watering.

[Greg Chambers]

Jason,

You could very well have played one course towards the end of it's irrigation cycle, while you may have played the other course the day after irrigation.  To say it was overwatered would not necessarily be true.  We water our greens once every 3 to 4 days, and yes, they are usually softer the day after irrigation.  Too many factors involved such as amount of play, events, tournaments, etc to say that greens that have more ball marks are over watered.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Jason...it might be that they seeded with different varieties of grass on the greens...some are more prevalent to ball marks

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

Where were the cousres? 

Des Moines - but I do not think the particular courses are that important.  I usually assume greens are overwatwered when they are full of ball marks.   It sounds like I could be wrong.

Jason,

You could very well have played one course towards the end of it's irrigation cycle, while you may have played the other course the day after irrigation.  To say it was overwatered would not necessarily be true.  We water our greens once every 3 to 4 days, and yes, they are usually softer the day after irrigation.  Too many factors involved such as amount of play, events, tournaments, etc to say that greens that have more ball marks are over watered.

Greg - no doubt there could be different factors but I doubt the irrigation cycles were the difference.  The ballmarks had been made over a period of time.  In fact - the greens were not soft when we played them.  

[Jason Topp]

Hey Jason...it might be that they seeded with different varieties of grass on the greens...some are more prevalent to ball marks

I'm no expert but I think both courses were primarily bent and I am sure they have some poa mixed in.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:

Are you really saying that no superintendent ever turns on the water (even though he doesn't think the grass needs it) because of pressure from the green committee / club management?

Tom,

Honestly I have never once heard a superintendent say that he was forced to overwater his golf course.  Not that I have spoken to every superintendent. I have however heard superintendents talk about the pressure to provide fast greens, to cut down on overtime, spray weeds when they are busy with other playability issues.

I don't mean to backpeddle here, but from re-reading what I have written on this subject I see that I have made some very broad generalizations that obvioulsy do not apply acorss the board. But may I say that I do not feel that it is fair to characterize greenkeeping in these times as being irresponsible with the water applied to golf courses.