Unless a project is totally mishandled, agronomic decisions are pretty easy; and then the difference between a spectacular course and a mediocre or poor one boils down to the construction budget followed by the maintenance budget.
For example, I am currentnly managing a project in the transition zone. Grass selection is pretty easy based on projected maintenance costs (bermuda vs. bent on greens is the biggest decision).
The soils of the site suck. We have 14 distinct soil mapping units, ranging from sand and gravel to expansive clays. The best solution is obvious, undercut all bad soils , replace with good, imported soil, and maybe sand cap the entire thing. But that takes the construction budget from about $4 million to $7 million. It doesn't work. So you do what you can: Be judicious with soil management, cap tees with sand, install as much drainage as you can afford.
We will end up with a reasonably easily mantained site because we are spending the money wisely on the best infrastructure we can afford.
As far as managing the water on the course: Totally dependent on the irrigation system we can afford, the drainage system we can afford, and to a MUCH lesser extent, the superintendent we can afford. If you've got 14 soil types, monitoring and addressing the irrigation needs of each, as I think Steve Lang is alluding to is possible, but too costly to be practical.
Gotta run, would love to continue this later...
Jim DeReuil