From your excerpts, I kind of agree and in some areas I don't. For one, the idea of "social equity" being in any way tied to environmental responsibility is a big red flag for me. It cries out for central govt. control, which I am against.
More specifically, when golf spread from the links land, it had to adapt. Philosophically, I think the early work of the Golden Agers to adapt design to regional differences in the US was the most golden part about their work.
Similarly, I think the challenge is to look at each US region individually and adapt golf to it, rather than use possibly not applicable links models - or any other governmentally mandated national policy - blindly. Maybe even look at each golf course site individually.
A place like Minnesota that will likely never have a long term water shortage shouldn't necessarily be placed on water restrictions like desert climes. It would be neat if what is now normal watering of bent fw could be a calling card and distingushing feature of that regions courses.
I understand that in general, he is talking about lesser maintenance and I can be on board with either that, or greater maintenance efficiencies that deliver the current level of product less expensively.
I could also be on board with just reducing bunker maintenance, which would probably lop three to five people off most maintenance crews!
Or maintaing courses like Tim N says, more during the day. The real problem with pre opening maintenance is that the irrigation must be done sooner, so systems that once typically watered a course over two nights time can are now designed with 4X capacity - to water the entire course every night in 4-6 hours (8-10 a night, every other night used to be standard) And, if your mainline is 16" pipe instead of 8" pipe, you just MIGHT be tempted to overwater and have the ability to do it!
But, we shouldn't forget that golf as an industry, as a result of increased awareness, has been doing many things already without having to give it a label like "sustainability."