[Thomas Dai]

With golf having gone so 'green' over the last few decades there must be generations of golfers out there who don't know what it's like to play on 100% hardpan and dust. When the ground is so hard it's difficult to get a tee into the ground and even metal spikes won't bite into the earth. And when a well struck shot will bounce and bound over a green. Using a putter from 50 yds out. Wedges with thin flanges and not much bounce. Ah, those were the days!
Atb

[Brent Carlson]

nm

[Don Mahaffey]

While I do not know the details of this mandated cutback, I'm not a fan of an across the board cut of 25% because that favors the water wasters of yesterday. If you were a pro-active golf course and you upgraded your system and learned to maintain good conditions on less water, you are now punished for those efforts while the clubs that did not go down that road have more water available to them.
With today's technology and research data, we know how much water it should take to grow a grapefruit. If one farmer switched to a targeted approach like drip or bubblers, the 25% cut can kill him, while the flood irrigator can now install more advanced equipment and survive the cut.

Same with golf courses.   Cuts should be based on scientific data and it is easily determined. If you have an 90 acre golf course and 100% of ET replacement means you need 400 acre feet of water, you now have 75% or 300 acre ft. You can take out grass, or cut the water in the roughs, or course wide. But it based on scientific data not historical use.

[Brent Hutto]

Don,

That's the same point I was trying to make on the turf-reduction subsidy thread. It seems odd to me to cut 25% of the water available to a course that is already getting by on half of what it was using a decade ago then also cut 25% from a course that's being wasteful. Just  like it seemed odd to me to pay someone to eliminate turf whether or not it was really needed in the first place.

[Ryan McLaughlin]

While I do not know the details of this mandated cutback, I'm not a fan of an across the board cut of 25% because that favors the water wasters of yesterday. If you were a pro-active golf course and you upgraded your system and learned to maintain good conditions on less water, you are now punished for those efforts while the clubs that did not go down that road have more water available to them.
With today's technology and research data, we know how much water it should take to grow a grapefruit. If one farmer switched to a targeted approach like drip or bubblers, the 25% cut can kill him, while the flood irrigator can now install more advanced equipment and survive the cut.

Same with golf courses.   Cuts should be based on scientific data and it is easily determined. If you have an 90 acre golf course and 100% of ET replacement means you need 400 acre feet of water, you now have 75% or 300 acre ft. You can take out grass, or cut the water in the roughs, or course wide. But it based on scientific data not historical use.

Welcome to the great Golden State.  Golf Courses and golfers are not politically favored class.  It is still astonishing Sharp Park made it out alive.  Golf courses and golfers are an easy populist targets out here.  Brown has been somewhat (I use that term pretty lightly) about caving to the traditions CA special interests, but I dont trust any of the political class out here....or anywhere for that matter.

[Greg Chambers]

Don,

Your argument about the water wasters makes perfect sense....but you could also say that the guys that have been diligently transitioning away from using lots of water are better positioned to deal with the cuts....they're a lot more adapted to droughty conditions than the guy that's been watering the shit out of his poa and rye...

[Sean_A]

While I do not know the details of this mandated cutback, I'm not a fan of an across the board cut of 25% because that favors the water wasters of yesterday. If you were a pro-active golf course and you upgraded your system and learned to maintain good conditions on less water, you are now punished for those efforts while the clubs that did not go down that road have more water available to them.
With today's technology and research data, we know how much water it should take to grow a grapefruit. If one farmer switched to a targeted approach like drip or bubblers, the 25% cut can kill him, while the flood irrigator can now install more advanced equipment and survive the cut.

Same with golf courses.   Cuts should be based on scientific data and it is easily determined. If you have an 90 acre golf course and 100% of ET replacement means you need 400 acre feet of water, you now have 75% or 300 acre ft. You can take out grass, or cut the water in the roughs, or course wide. But it based on scientific data not historical use.

Who ya gonna pay to check each claim by a course?  No sorry, across the board mandate may not be fair, but it is expedient and that is what is important in times of crises.  Folks need to think outside the golf box to real life.  In any case, cutting water is its own reward in money savings so this isn't a punishment of any kind.  I may sound harsh, but I think most people looking objectively at this situation building for a lot of years will not come down favourably for golf.  My club spent a bomb to ensure its sustainable water source and create an efficient water delivery system...people need to wake up to the resource short realities of the 21st century or stop having sex   Even the use effluent for lollygagging is becoming a dodgy situation if water is that short in supply.  It costs money to clean, but its water.

Ciao

[Don Mahaffey]

Sean,Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

AZ has been using a system similar to what I mentioned for over 30 years.
CA has a network of weather stations, the state has up to date and historic ET data for every region.
Every well or water source has a meter, or will very soon.
Every club has the ability ( and is required in many areas) to submit a water use report.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard this phrase, "we need to use it or we will lose it". That thinking is a result of across the board percentage cuts.

It is a dumb and archaic way to conserve water for large water users.
We have the science and we have the ability to monitor and in most cases it is already in use.

[Colin Macqueen]

Sean,

I know of a golf course not very far from me,here in Oz, which sank a bore some years back and tapped slightly less than sweet water. The course currently uses effluent water from the nearby treatment plant over and above natural run off into course dams.

The rationale for the bore was that the expectation was (is) that in the future the government will prohibit the drilling of new bores but not the use of water from existing bores. The outlet has had electric power supplied to provide the ability to have a small desalination plant to convert this slightly sour source into sweet water.

So quite far-seeing of the Committee in this respect and as you say  "It costs money to clean, but it is water"

Cheers Colin

[jeffwarne]

Don when I read the thread it was the first thing I thought.
Even with the 25% cut, big users will have no incentive to use less than that via innoation because they're already thinking about the next cut.

There are solutions for all of these problems-the world is 73% water.
Hopefully the golf that survives the process is a leaner more fun variety.

[Sean_A]

Sure Don, keep telling yourself that golf courses are a great use of water...any kind of water...everything will turn out swimmingly   

Jeff - the incentive to use less water is to save money...what other reason does a business need?

Ciao

[Don Mahaffey]

Sure Don, keep telling yourself that golf courses are a great use of water...any kind of water...everything will turn out swimmingly   

Jeff - the incentive to use less water is to save money...what other reason does a business need?

Ciao

What on earth are you talking about? That is what you got from my post?  My point is you don't reward those who have not voluntarily been proactive. It's like saying the health nut needs to cut his diet because an obese person overeats.   A science based approach has positive long term impacts beyond the current drought.  An across the board cut encourages over use when the restrictions are lifted.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sure Don, keep telling yourself that golf courses are a great use of water...any kind of water...everything will turn out swimmingly   

Jeff - the incentive to use less water is to save money...what other reason does a business need?

Ciao

What on earth are you talking about? That is what you got from my post?  My point is you don't reward those who have not voluntarily been proactive. It's like saying the health nut needs to cut his diet because an obese person overeats.   A science based approach has positive long term impacts beyond the current drought.  An across the board cut encourages over use when the restrictions are lifted.

Makes sense to me too Don. I would have thought they would just say each course can use X gallons of water.

Jon

[Pete Lavallee]

Is the climate in CA suitable for Paspalum?

Yes, Morgan Run CC converted the fairways on all 27 holes to Paspalum here in San Diego. It plays beautifully, the balls sits up quite nicely and it is very green looking.

I believe the 25% reduction is for residential customers only, since golf courses have already been mandated to cut back water use they will only have to reduce by 5% from last year's usage.

[Pat Burke]

Don,
Keep in mind, we're talking government intervention.

Miss payments on your mortgage for a year...we have a program for you.
Struggle to make payments...sorry can't help.

The courses that have been proactive (whether financial or just getting ahead of the curve) in cutting back water
will likely have to cut even further, while the course that have blithely gone on wasting water, will get cut back,
and likely see an improvement in playing conditions

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

I'd agree that blanket, non-discriminatory across the board cuts aren't the most efficient method, but they're the simplest to communicate, politically.

As you indicated, almost every golf club has their water usage metered.

And almost every club has been allocated their annual quota.

Rather than crafting intelligent long range plans for prudent water usage, clubs took water usage for granted because it had been historically abundant.

Only two things could change that thinking.
1.  The increased cost of water
2.  The scarcity of water

Clubs need to re-evaluate their present and future water use needs such that future restrictions will have a minimal impact on playing conditions.
And, that rising water prices won't detract from playing conditions and burden budgets.

[Sean_A]

Sure Don, keep telling yourself that golf courses are a great use of water...any kind of water...everything will turn out swimmingly   

Jeff - the incentive to use less water is to save money...what other reason does a business need?

Ciao

What on earth are you talking about? That is what you got from my post?  My point is you don't reward those who have not voluntarily been proactive. It's like saying the health nut needs to cut his diet because an obese person overeats.   A science based approach has positive long term impacts beyond the current drought.  An across the board cut encourages over use when the restrictions are lifted.

Don

This is a drought, not a system of punishment and reward.  If clubs "feel" encouraged to waste water it is a cultural problem, not a government issue.  Clubs should be addressing the issue because its good for the environment and saves money.  What has governmnet to do with this? 

All I am saying is step outside the golf box and think of the situation as a person not connected with golf.  Its amazing there haven't been more and harsher restrictions on water use for golf.  Perception will always be at least as important as reality...and in this regard golf fails miserably in the public eye.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()