Thanks to Geoff for the new information. I had clipped an acreage comparison out of a magazine years ago, but it is now sadly outdated. However, its funny that people pick on golf course useage, thinking that cutting golf irrigation would solve all are water problems, when it totals 2% of area (which of course to some equals one whole state, like Delaware....) and less than that of the total water used for ground cover.
I can tell you that whenever we have evaluated a golf site that was agriculture, water useage for the course would be about 1/3 of the former ag use.
I have also read stories/stats that 80% of all fresh water useage in this country goes to agriculture, with 20% for all other urban uses, inlcuding baths (don't cut there, please!) and irrigation. As John says, home lawns - which could easily be things like Buffalograss here in Texas to reduce water use - typially recieve both more water than they need, and comprise a very large area.
At a recent Texas Turfgrass Conference, I saw an Texas A and M study showing how much of a lawns water use actually goes to trees - trees use water far more than turf, but you don't see the average citizen complaining about those, do you? In fact, most cities have tree ordinances requiring the vertical water guzzlers, and the hotter the city, the more they require, even as they put in turf water restrictions. The desire for shade is understandable, but this could be a good fact to use for those of you who favor fewer trees on the play corridors of your golf course!
I know that golf courses in the Philly area are limited to 16 million gallons a year. In Atlanta, the daily average use would be about 300,000 gallons, and in Texas about 400,000, with more in summer and less in winter. Many courses here do use 1 million gallons a day in August, but none in January undre normal conditions.
So, water use varies by climate. And perception varies inversely to the truth in many cases!