Can someone please explain how architects out west preserve water?

[Pat Brockwell]

Tom,
A couple of seasons back Pinon Hills in Farmington NM replaced all of the old impact sprinklers with the new gear driven rotors and really improved their playing conditions, according to the Super and Adam Clayman.  Adam told me they eliminated the wet spots and the Super said they eliminated the dry spots.  I bet they use about the same amount, but get a better bang for the gallon.  Let me state somthing obvious, irrigation systems don't consume water, plants do.  A better irrigation system will deliver water more uniformly with better control.  Beyond that it comes down to the guy with a finger on the button.  I'm with Mike Nuzzo on the sensor thing, I had a sensor salesman ask me if I had moisture sensors and I pointed to my assistant.  They don't come any better than an astute human who can see a weather forecast.  As far as spacing goes I am favoring the 60 to 62 foot range for the next project, but layout is key as is almost constant tweaking of the irrigation program.  

Wetting agents aren't that expensive, I use some pricey stuff on my greens (3 acres) and some cheap stuff on the whole course (80 acres) via irrigation injection.  Total bill is around  3K I think.

Organics help with soil structure, not so much for plant nutrition.  The plant doesn't know the difference between the nitrogen that was applied in an organic form vs the conventional N.  With better soil structure I think I get better utilization of conventional fert and can cut nutrient application, reduce water consumption, mowing, and pesticides.  Organic 5% N @ $20/bag vs Urea N 46% @ $8.60/bag. Do the math for 3 to 6 pounds N/1000 sq ft/year and it would be ungodly expensive, but that's not how it works.  High protien organics are made from plant and animal residues and byproducts, they cost more but have more energy (microbe food) than manures, which have had the nutrient value extracted by the critter that made the manure.  I've been using a poultry waste product  at 200#/acre twice a year, $500/ton, total 16 tons, $8000.  Then I use cheap bulk soluble or liquid nitrogen  to make up the rest of the N requirement and bring me to 3#N/1000.  That is applied via injection with wetting agent and some enzyme, kelp, bacteria, and micro nutrients.  I save a bunch by not spending on fancy slow release granulars because I can slow release my N with my fertigation, and I don't get the growth spurt thing right after a big fert application. The point is that it is organics for the soil, then use less of the conventional fert for the plant, and save on everything all along.  

To answer the original question, though, architects can waste water more easily than they can save it, mostly on amount of acres irrigated.  I will also opine that 55 acres (fairways too narrow) that is unplayable and underplayed is 55 acres of irrigation wasted. Eighty acres of heavily used playing surface can be more cost and water effective than a smaller unused track. If we're considering the use of a valuable resource shouldn't we apply a ROI equation?  How about $/gallon return and put golf up against other users and see what makes the most sense. Water fountain designers and alfalfa growers won't like it. Architects are one part of the equation, but the Super has much more responsibility over time when it comes to saving water.  

As far as the big picture goes, golf has the most efficient systems and best tools for being efficient with water, period.  Other agricultural users lag far behind.  They are making progress with  laser levelling and drip, but when you consider the vast acreage of ag crops, golf is a fraction of a percent of water use for irrigation, industry or residential.  Next time you fly over someplace with those big center pivot, round ag fields consider that a big one, quarter section, is equivalent to two new golf courses.  Then count the round fields compared to the golf courses, you see what I'm saying.  The best way for gca's to conserve water (along with the rest of us) is to quit eating hamburgers.  How about some Tofurkey at the turn next time out.  I think soy enhances the sixth sense too.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Thanks for the reply.  Certainly you know way more about this subject than a lowly architect.

My only issue is that I see a lot of courses that may be saving water in the fairways but then are watering much more acreage of roughs than ever before, so that the total water consumption is going up, not down.  It's just human nature for a membership that paid big bucks for a new irrigation system to want it GREENER.  Brown roughs or dormant roughs seem to be a non-starter now -- every course in Palm Springs or Denver (in their drought) is green from wall to wall.

You are right, though, that water use by golf courses overall is a drop in the bucket compared to flood-irrigated crops in the desert or those big center pivots for corn.  Rupert O'Neal told me the numbers on how a center pivot compares to the golf course.

[Phil Benedict]

  Brown roughs or dormant roughs seem to be a non-starter now -- every course in Palm Springs or Denver (in their drought) is green from wall to wall.

The last few years I've played PGA West in February and they let their rough go dormant.  Looked kind of cool actually with the contrast with the green areas.  On the other hand nearby Shadow Ridge is overseeded and green everywhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat is right about golf using less water than ag. I too believe they are getting on the conservation bandwagon, but most ag plants aren't as well adapted as lawn grasses, which is why lawns are so popluar in the suburbs!

Case in points, in the three sites where I have been asked to compare golf irrigation with crop irrigation golf comes out way ahead.  Cotton, vineyards, and other crops often water at 3500-4000 GPM 24/7 whereas golf courses water that amount for 3-5 days per week, in hot seasons only and for 8 hours. Even with every day watering, the golf courses by my unscientific survey use a third the water of crops.

[Pat Brockwell]

Tom, You're right, the members spent $$$ for irrigation, not the ability to cut back.  I applaud you for trying to educate golfers and owners on playability over apperances. Let's kick Augusta while we're here. They start every season with a big dose of unrealistic expectations on network TV and the Colorado River barely has enough water to run air conditioners in Phoenix.  Ivy Leaguers are concerned.

[Forrest Richardson]

The key to water is the term "use".

When we "use" water we are temporarily using it and allowing it to continue downstraem or downgrade (into the ground). Golf courses are great porous fields for drainage, filtration, and re-charge. They run circles around parking lots, rooftops and urban streetscapes.

Tom D. — At Peacock Gap we are already using less water and we have just begun to operate efficiently. The old system was awkaward, ill-controlled and hard to manage. We DID reduce turf acreage — but the real benefit is a system now controlled by the decoder system and capatbel of high efficiency and monitoring. Before, there was very little control and virtually no efficiency unless by luck.

[Forrest Richardson]

For the record, Jeff Brauer now saves water by changing the scale of his courses. In about 1996 Brauer began using a ratio of 8:10 on his plans...essentially miniturizing everything by 20%. Irrigation was less, costs went down, materials (sand, peat, bunker liner, cart paths, etc.) and clients actually had room left over to increase the size of their clubhouse exercise rooms. Brauer's fee, however, stayed level.

That Jeff. He's amazes me!