Is Surface Drainage a 'European Design'?

[michael damico]

I have been thumbing through a piece, "Practical Greenkeeping" by long-time European greenkeeper, Jim Arthur and came across a topic dubbed 'contour drainage condemned'. In this section of the Drainage chapter, Arthur correlates American design (up until the mid 90s) in more arid climates (California, Florida, Texas; the West and South) to that of engineer-designed highways in California:

" ... Anyone who has suffered from the total snarl up of traffic on a freeway in California for instance, which automatically follows a torrential if short storm, will know what I am talking about. There are no roadside drainage gullies, everything depends on runoff. Flooding, albeit temporarily, is the rule. Meanwhile, everything stops.
      Courses are designed with massive earth moving operations, destroying natural drainage in the process, to shed water to a centre line of fairways, down which is run what is literally a sewer, with gratings at intervals to deal with the flow. The water is collected in storage lakes, doubling as the water features which seem such an intrinsic aspect of American design. Golf is not a water sport; water features are not easy to manage and the concept is, to the eye of the traditionalist, most unnatural."

He continues to discourage such principles by supporting his claim that this type of drainage in a different climate (that which has more humidity, primarily that of the UK, but I take it as the Northern US as well), also requires subsidiary drainage to help produce dry surfaces in the winter months when the soil is more saturated.

After speaking with a British turf intern (now on his way to becoming his own greenkeeper) I met from my days working maintenance at Oak Hill, I was informed that the book was used as the bible for turf students for a while, but now has been deemed outdated and principles that are no longer practiced to a large extent; instead, they now turn to Beard's book. I absolutely love Arthur's principles, for both maintenance and design, and thought this might be a good topic to throw up here.

More and more we are beginning to see surface drainage as opposed to (what I will say) the late 80s-90s style of thought in shaping and draining. (80s-90s style: think of most Dye, Nicklaus, Palmer, or even Hills courses you have been to with catch basins everywhere and countless yards of pipe that you know is connecting it all, eventually surfacing in one of the numerous water features) Are American architects now becoming more like their European counterparts? Is Arthur just completely wrong in this assumption and bold declaration and wasn't paying enough attention to the grassroots movement that is now en vogue?

I think that C&C's work at No. 2 with the irrigation system is (albeit, a long shot) a correlation of the aforementioned Arthur principle of surface drainage, only on the irrigation end. I have seen the Renaissance team work and they too are strong advocates of allowing water to run its natural course, attempting to minimize the use of plastic piping. I know Nuzzo is a strong advocate of these principles as well, which actually, most of the architects on this site are like-minded on this subject. But let us not forget the sites that C&C and Doak are most noted for having selected to work with; they're not necessarily clay soils in arid climates.

But, I digress back to the original topic at hand, is surface drainage a European design philosophy? Bendelow seemed to be one of the best at this (a European-American) along with a handful of the Golden Age designers, but they were predominantly immigrants from Europe without most of the means that were available post-WWII. Most of the design philosophies Arthur is attacking seem to be more of the post-WWII American architects, or at least that's how I take it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always thought drain pipes were Euro - why would they be called "French Drains?"

Seriously, it depends on how flat the site it in general and water flows about the same everywhere, although soils, slopes and watershed size (and runoff rates from housing) all make a difference in how destructive water can be and how much it needs to be trapped to control your critical areas.  In some cases, its a matter of "destroying natural drainage" or having your fairways destroyed.  Yes, I always favor the practical aspects of the latter to the theoretical benefits of the former.

Now, it's true that the Florida designs of the American "Bigs" had lots of CB's and pipe.  But, they were mostly flat sites and those guys wanted to drain them AND have more "natural" looking fw for their high end customers.  And, no doubt, the American mindset runs more to the complicated and the Brits to the simple.

Lastly, the trend to quicker openings has affected drainage, as has the protective netting.  Long running slopes do concentrate water, making it harder to grow grass there.  The netting (or sod) reduce damage and grow in time.  But for some courses, the calculation was "what can we do to open in 2012 vs 2013 to avoid losing the $XXX in revenues so we can start paying off our loans?  If $100K in drainage netted $1M in revenues, most courses went with more drainage, for the owners sake and because golfers have NEVER liked long wet swales going through their fairways.  At least not the ones I know.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Michael,

The way I see it is that the difference in drainage is as much a function of the differing nature of precipitation... Rainfall in Britain and Ireland tends to be long but light drizzle... You don't get a large number of inches falling in a short time.... So the trend has been to allow for run-offs and an element of vertical drainage through the soil.

In climates with heavy bursts of rainfall, there is much more damage to be done hence larger number of catch basins...

I'd counter that rather than Americans now becoming more like the Europeans, I've started to see more European designs rely on catch basins through pronounced shaping etc... Maybe that's just a perception and not reality though...

[Steve Okula]

Perceptions and not reality was always enough for Jim Arthur. He was never anything but a consultant, and he never managed a golf course for a single day in his life. Nor did he ever design one, let alone a California freeway.

Connecting California road engineers and Florida golf architects, placing them in the same philosphical school, requires a logical contortion of amazing audacity. What did Arthur know about designing roads, or golf courses, for that matter? When was he in the U.S.A.? In fact, when did he ever travel outside the British Isles? 

He made self-righteous pronouncements based on a tenuous grasp of conditons, climates, soils, species, cultures, costs, and just about anything else outside of his own narrow experience in his home country.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Jim Arthur was one of the true agronomists who saw beyond the stereotypes of hybrid grasses and fertiliser, and also saw the importance of protecting the soil structure.
In GB there are still a lot of Jim Arthur fans among the greenkeepers, even if the fertiliser industry tend to write him off as dead (well he is) but his writings are more applicable than ever with the advent of environmental sustainability.

Europe is a large continent and extends from warm climate zones with little top soil in the Canary Islands to almost Arctic conditions in Finland. As we all know each zone has it’s needs and solutions.

Speaking from my own experience designing and constructing golf courses in Europe, maintaining the natural drainage of the soil is of paramount importance. In this way one can avoid the necessity of catch pits everywhere to provide surface drainage.  

This means avoidance of compaction.

In Switzerland soil protection is a huge issue, as a result bulldozers and wheeled vehicles on open ground are more or less banned. Site machinery, such as excavaters are limited in size and can only be used under “dry” conditions.
The soil structure must be excavated with consideration of the top soil, subsoil and the inert earth material – and more importantly the fill (humps and hills) must be returned in the same order.

So to answer your question, I think the Eurozone tends towards soil protection and avoidance of “wall to wall” catch pit construction.

[Niall C]

John

In simple terms is it something to do with the amount of earth being shifted ? Its maybe easier to do the things you say if you're not shifting quite the amount of soil that high end US developments might, or is that a false perception on my part ?

Michael

As a complete ignoramus on this subject I think its a great question. Its a topic I'd like to know more about.

Niall

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Niall,

Thanks for the question, I hope I understand it correctly.

Soil protection is not only about minimal earth movement, but also avoiding mixing the subsoil with inert material, and avoiding compaction of the soil by using the wrong machines at the wrong time.

The point Jim Arthur is making, as quoted by Michael.

" ... Anyone who has suffered from the total snarl up of traffic on a freeway in California for instance, which automatically follows a torrential if short storm, will know what I am talking about. There are no roadside drainage gullies, everything depends on runoff. Flooding, albeit temporarily, is the rule. Meanwhile, everything stops.
      Courses are designed with massive earth moving operations, destroying natural drainage in the process, to shed water to a centre line of fairways, down which is run what is literally a sewer, with gratings at intervals to deal with the flow. The water is collected in storage lakes, doubling as the water features which seem such an intrinsic aspect of American design. Golf is not a water sport; water features are not easy to manage and the concept is, to the eye of the traditionalist, most unnatural."

.... from his observance he felt that US Style Golf Courses in the 80’s were built like Motorways.
Golf courses (US Style golf course) had excessive earth movement and large water features.
As a result natural drainage was ruined and surface drainage was required.

Jim was certainly not an advocate of extensive surface drainage, on the contrary he was a minimalist who felt that the traditional golf courses of the UK were being ruined by the increasing popularity during the 80’s of fairway irrigation, penncross greens and unnecessary water features.

Jim was outspoken, but one can’t dismiss him for that.
His views were certainly apt in the UK, however they would not necessarily apply in other parts of the globe.