Building From the Low Point Upward (DMK Interview)?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

On the recent NLU podcast with David McLay Kidd, DMK says that he built Bandon Dunes "from the low point upward" (paraphrased).

https://nolayingup.com/podcasts/no-laying-up-podcast/nlu-podcast-episode-381-match-3-0-recap-and-david-mclay-kidd

DMK starts talking about this at about the 35-minute mark, "we needed to start at the lowest corner of the site." "We worked away from that." "(the finishing holes) Those holes were as high as possible, the driest corners."

He then said "if you want to get super nerdy, there are two things that usually drive the construction. Drainage, so you have to start where the pipe is exiting and work toward where the pipe is entering, so from the lowest point to the highest point. And then the other driver is usually irrigation."

I saw some comments asking about this, about how this wouldn't risk your work on the bottom holes from being washed out as you worked uphill.

Is this common on all golf course projects? Not all are of course built on a slope for the whole property, of course, but even on those courses with valleys and ridges, does construction generally start on the lower holes? What are the advantages to doing this? He stated it like it was a common and given thing, but I'm not sure I've heard of it before.

I'll hang up and listen (with perhaps an occasional question) from here on out.

[Tom_Doak]

That's weird, because I was told that when they built the first few holes on Bandon Dunes, they didn't put in any main drainage pipe - assuming that everything would drain down into the sand - only to have to retrofit drainage pipe after the irrigation for those holes was in the ground.


We put in a LOT of drainage pipe we felt was superfluous at Pacific Dunes, because of that story.  Nearly every little pocket in the fairways has a loop of perforated tile underneath - just in case!  But in many cases, when we dug the drain lines, the sand was deep enough that we could tell the pupe was probably unnecessary.


In general, starting with the lowest holes is usually a good idea - it would have saved Arcadia Bluffs a ton of grief.  But not all sites require a main drainage line going across them.


The other driver of the construction sequence is, where is the pump station? The irrigation system is usually built from there outward.  And you can only finish and grass a hole once you've got irrigation to it.  Pacific Dunes was an exception - we worked from the coast inland toward the reservoir, because we were able to tap into the irrigation system for Bandon Dunes. 😉  There are big advantages to batting second.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So, Tom, or others: is the main thought in building from the low point upward that you can INSTALL the drainage (pipes, gravel, whatever) moving up the slope? Like… you see a wet area, and you figure out how to drain that into the drainage of ground below it?

But if you started at the top, you could still install the drainage as you went. But would it be tougher to know where the drainage would have to go down below, and thus, where should be sending the water? Or would doing so make the lower ground possibly so wet that it may not be workable? Like, if you're constantly working toward higher ground, you're generally moving into drier and drier land.

I'm sure these feel like dumb questions to people that have been doing this for decades, but it feels like a fundamental thing to building a course.

[Tom Kelly]

Anything that involves drainage from a single trench to a full golf course generally needs to be constructed from the low point(s) upwards to some degree. If you're digging a trench from the top down then it's likely you're releasing water to the lowest point which is where you are digging....you end up digging in a puddle. If you dig from the bottom up, you are allowing the water to be released as you go, it's class 101 of drainage work. Occasionally it isn't possible and if so, try to do the work when it's dry but there is a reason why drainage is being installed so there will likely be issues.


As above, irrigation is a very big consideration and also earthworks, you can't build a hole that needs fill material if you haven't got any fill material. Access also needs to be considered, you don't want to have equipment travelling across newly finished areas in order to get to where they are working if you can avoid it.

[Brian Ross]

So, Tom, or others: is the main thought in building from the low point upward that you can INSTALL the drainage (pipes, gravel, whatever) moving up the slope? Like… you see a wet area, and you figure out how to drain that into the drainage of ground below it?

But if you started at the top, you could still install the drainage as you went. But would it be tougher to know where the drainage would have to go down below, and thus, where should be sending the water? Or would doing so make the lower ground possibly so wet that it may not be workable? Like, if you're constantly working toward higher ground, you're generally moving into drier and drier land.

I'm sure these feel like dumb questions to people that have been doing this for decades, but it feels like a fundamental thing to building a course.

Erik,

Another thing to consider when thinking about sequencing is grassing. Once you grass an area, you have to really put the water on it until the turf becomes established. This can be anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks of heavy watering depending on the grassing method.  If you start at the high point and work downhill, all the runoff from the irrigation of those areas is going to run down into the area where you're now working.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,  Not much to add to the construction comments, other than yes, it depends on a few things and the site, but generally a good idea.  The general rule is, once water is in a pipe, it should stay in a pipe until it finds its natural outlet.

Sometimes the design sort of has to work its way up from the low, at least the drainage design.  Wild Wing Avocet Course was one such project.  Only 3 feet of fall across the entire project, so I found the low point (in front of 5 tee) used that to set the lake elevations.  Each of 5-6 lakes is at the same elevation connected by big, deep pipes to function as one drain outlet.  On the first two courses by Willard Byrd, he chose to add 4 feet to all fw to drain those holes locally, and invested 400K of dirt to do it.  By a combo of lowering the drain outlets, we probably only "wasted" 200K of earth.


There are other examples, of course.  That said, on a gently rolling site,  there can be 2-4 major watersheds, and an outlet and plenty of fall in each, then design is easier, but you may still need to build each up from the bottom.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thank you for the replies. They’ve been helpful. Now that I read them, they seem like a “duh” type of thing that I probably could have figured out, but having read it now from several of you now I know why and can have certainty about it.

Thank you.

[Ronald Montesano]

Nothing really to do with this, but add this to the golf course construction boner category: there is a local nine-hole that developed a a huge, central pond for irrigation, then placed the pump house at the high end of the pond. It's a big elevation change.


One would want the pump house at the low end, correct? Is relocating a pump house an easy task, just costly?

[Tom_Doak]

Nothing really to do with this, but add this to the golf course construction boner category: there is a local nine-hole that developed a a huge, central pond for irrigation, then placed the pump house at the high end of the pond. It's a big elevation change.


One would want the pump house at the low end, correct? Is relocating a pump house an easy task, just costly?

How did they make the water in the pond not lay flat? 


The key metric is not the elevation of the pump house but the elevation of the intake line that sucks the water out of the pond.  If you don't get the intake to the deepest part of the pond, some amount of the water in it is useless.  But if you build the pump house at the high end with a deep intake, that's okay . . . it really depends on the shape of the bottom of the lake.