Water Costs

[Bob_Huntley]

Does anyone on the DG have an idea what the cost of water is on their local golf courses. In California, where whisky is for drinking and water is to fight over, it is getting pretty expensive. I know of one club with two courses that is preparing for a something like $1.8 million in the coming year.

Firm and fast will come to all of golf at these rates.

Bob

[hhuffines]

Bob,

We use city water here in Raleigh, NC and I believe our budget has run up to $250k annually.  We are digging wells and a new irrigation pond to mitigate the cost increases.  I can't imagine how we would deal with the amount you stated... Ouch!

[Jim_Kennedy]

A course in Az. had a 20 year contract for water at $172.00 per acre foot (325,851 gals.) and presently the facility uses 425 ac.ft. per year which equals 138,486,675 gals., or about 380,000 gals per day. It cost them $73,100 per year($200.00 per day) for the water, but the town now wants to charge them about 2 ½ times more for it as their costs have skyrocketed.
Probably not going to be an unusual situation going forward.

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/arizona_city_independent/sports/water-standoff-for-eloy-golf-course-rates-too-high-club/article_2646fd48-f6d7-11e1-9db1-0019bb2963f4.html

[James Bennett]

Bob

My club in Adelaide has a couple of large dams built 50 years ago.  One of the dam walls needed rebuilding the other year, at a cost of about $80,000.  It provides perhaps three weeks water for the course.  The main dam provides perhaps seven weeks water.  This is in an area with heavy winter ainfall, but also in an area where it might not rain at all for a couple of months at all, and irrigation is needed for six months of every year no matter what.

The main water source is bores, which probably involves about $10,000 a year in relining costs, plus about $15,000 in electricity for water extraction costs.  The Government has talked about charging for capture of surface water in the dams, and for extracting the bore water, but it hasn't happened yet.  The club is limited with the water quantities that are extracted, but this is adequate for responsible irrigation of the whole course.

Water access has been the key asset for this particluar regular club, and has differentiated it from its neighbouring competitors for membership and in course set-up.  Pre 2000, it was a very wet course!

The wtare bills you are talking about exceed the annual income of my club!

James B

[Lynn_Shackelford]

That is easily the highest cost for water, by far, that I have ever heard of.  Me thinks the water district doesn't much care for golf.  I think you shuoud check what the local public courses are paying.  If it is from the same water company then you can compare apples to apples.  Though make sure the local publics are not using treated water.
In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

[Jim_Kennedy]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Jim, that program is for both private and public courses.

[Jim Nelson]

In Las Vegas, water is the single most expensive budget item.  I have heard from the Superintendent that our course spends over 1 million on water every year.  We also probably have the most turf in the area.  Most courses here overseed in the fall which I'm thinking adds a great deal to the water usage.  A few, like TPC Summerlin, go with bermuda all year which has to be much more efficient but browns out in the winter. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Jim, that program is for both private and public courses.

That's what I was getting at Lynn, that the private clubs who you say are looked upon unfavorably and whose wealthy members are considered to be evil are treated in the same way as public courses, in essence they are both being subsidized   by the state to help conserve water. That doesn't sound like unfavorable treatment to me, at least in the area of water management.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anyone on the DG have an idea what the cost of water is on their local golf courses. In California, where whisky is for drinking and water is to fight over, it is getting pretty expensive. I know of one club with two courses that is preparing for a something like $1.8 million in the coming year.

Firm and fast will come to all of golf at these rates.

Bob,

Water is one of the newest municipal or county taxes levied upon clubs, especially in resort areas where most members are non-residents.

At a number of clubs in South Florida, they were mandated to convert to effluent water.

Initially the cost was low, but, it's escalating.

In addition, contaminents caused many clubs to add additional filtering.

The cost will only go UP

[Dan Byrnes]

Presently my club and the adjoining to the Normans Kill (stream or small river) can take as much water as we want for no cost out of the Kill.  I can imagine one day the New York State will finding a way to get something for it.  The state used to ignore the entire situation but several years ago began keeping tabs on how much we took.  So to me the writing is on the wall that one day it won't be free.

The courses in my area wouldn't be here with 7 figure water bills, perhaps even 6 figure ones.

Dan

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

Even though you seem to have an unlimited supply, are you sure that NY State doesn't meter your consumption ?

[Dan Byrnes]

Dan,

Even though you seem to have an unlimited supply, are you sure that NY State doesn't meter your consumption ?

I mentioned that in my post, perhaps not very clearly.   A few years ago we had to begin reporting how much water we pumped from the kill.

Dan

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have a question about the favorable/unfavorable treatment of public and private clubs. In 2012 a noted club in Scarsdale NY took in 7.31 million dollars in tax free dollars from its members due to its status as a private club, and that's a 'perc' not given to any of the publics in the area.

How much of their water bill vs that of the publics in their area are offset by not having to pay federal income tax.  

 

[Jon Wiggett]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Why pay clubs to not irrigate? Would it not be logical to simply restrict the amount of area they can irrigate?

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Why pay clubs to not irrigate? Would it not be logical to simply restrict the amount of area they can irrigate?

During severe drought conditions it wasn't unusual for mandates to be issued that clubs could only water tees and greens.
That was before metering.

Now, rather than micro manage, why not just provide a gallon limit, with penalties for exceeding it, and let the superintendent decide what needs to be watered, and by how much.

That's the way it works today at most MET area clubs.

Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

In California, private clubs are looked unfavorably upon by governement entities.  Wealthy people are evil you know.

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Why pay clubs to not irrigate? Would it not be logical to simply restrict the amount of area they can irrigate?

During severe drought conditions it wasn't unusual for mandates to be issued that clubs could only water tees and greens.
That was before metering.

Now, rather than micro manage, why not just provide a gallon limit, with penalties for exceeding it, and let the superintendent decide what needs to be watered, and by how much.

That's the way it works today at most MET area clubs.

Jon

Patrick,

I agree with your take on this but it still does not answer my question of why are they paying clubs not to water?

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I don't understand your question, who would pay these clubs NOT to water ?

And, doesn't that strategy come into conflict with the desired results that the superintendent is trying to achieve?

[Brandon Urban]

Here's what's going on in Lawrence, KS with the two private clubs and water. The article below will give you a good idea about water costs in America's Heartland along with what happens when it is not measured or managed correctly.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/20/city-country-clubs-still-dispute-billing/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brandon,

In NJ, the state monitors water use.

Water use has become nothing more than a tax and the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Every week you seem to read about some poor individual who receives a bill for thousands of dollars from the electric or water company and the effort to correct the carrier's error is Herculian.

Ditto government agencies.

There were a number of incidents where homeowners were billed enormous amounts due to the new "remote reading" system put in place.

Until the technology is perfect, I like manual readings, they seem far more reliable.

Don't these clubs have their own wells ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anyone on the DG have an idea what the cost of water is on their local golf courses. In California, where whisky is for drinking and water is to fight over, it is getting pretty expensive. I know of one club with two courses that is preparing for a something like $1.8 million in the coming year.

Firm and fast will come to all of golf at these rates.

Bob,

I predicted that economics would be the catalyst in driving clubs to F&F and that the forward looking clubs would begin the conversion process sooner, rather than later.

Clubs that don't dial back their water use today, are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

What these clubs don't realize is that you just can't shut off the spigot, it takes years to accomplish a smooth, non-disruptive transition.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.

Patrick,

according to the above quote money is being paid to effectively not irrigate.

Jon

[Brandon Urban]

Patrick,

Surprisingly they don't have their own wells. The type of soil/rock/other geological stuff I know nothing about makes it difficult to drill a well that will provide any kind of sustained source of water.

Lawrence Country Club has since built their own irrigation ponds which has greatly reduced their water usage. In the mean time they have assessed the membership a certain dollar amount to cover future water bills which they expect to be higher than originally estimated.

Thankfully, our supertintendent is down with brown and started dialling back the usage a few years ago. Unfortunately, the bent grass fairways seem to need a little more water than some of the other grasses out there.

I agree that manual readings are the way to go. There are way too many things that can go wrong when a guy is driving by in his truck sticking a remote meter reader out of the window.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That doesn't seem to be the case in LA where private clubs (like Woodland Hills and others) can take advantage of a program established by the LADWP that gives them money to eliminate irrigated turf (I've read that it's $1.00 per square foot in one turf publication), offers free water saving nozzles to clubs as long as they pick up the labor cost of installing them, throws in rebates on new control systems, and sweetens the deal with reduced water rates for clubs who invove themselves in their program.


OK, I understand.

They're paying what seems like a one time bounty to reduce the acreage under irrigation.

Many clubs have initiated letting the non-playing areas to go natural, reducing the acreage under irrigation.

L.A. Has some unique water issues

Patrick,

according to the above quote money is being paid to effectively not irrigate.

Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

Does anyone on the DG have an idea what the cost of water is on their local golf courses?

Here in north-west England water is free.

It falls out of the sky.

Constantly...


Seriously though, the cost is so low it doesn't even feature in our last club accounts. We do have the advantage of a bloody great river running through the middle of the course, however.