Considering how much of an effect irrigation has on stuff like initial construction costs, water use/environmental hurdles, fairway widths and shapes, etc. is there any chance that the minimalist firm & fast movement might result in some courses being designed and built without any fairway irrigation at all?

Yes, I know lots of low end and older courses were built this way, I've got a couple within a few miles of me.  I'm talking about new designs, quality stuff.  Maybe not something attempting to go for the top 100, but something trying for maybe the top 5%.

I've seen some droughts over the years here in Iowa, and while they may really hurt the farmers, I have yet to see any bad enough to completely kill grass.  Turn it brown, stop it growing, even crack the earth, yes.  But given a bit of rain it always greens up and comes to life again.  And that's just regular old grass, the type found on lawns or crappy old cow pasture courses that don't irrigate their fairways.  You'd think the USGA has or at least could come up with some pretty nifty drought resistant strains that would survive at least as well while offering good playing conditions when the moisture is more abundant.

Is this an experiment worth trying or am I being ridiculous?

There was talk about the International course at Champions Gate being waterless.  Didn't happen, but I do recall hearing that scuttlebutt.

I think ideally a course would have little rain but an abundance of water available for irrigation.

No irrigation is dangerous any time you have drought.

That would be like Detroit building a car without an engine.  Some are built of course with very simple systems for grow-in and drought times only.  I am sure there are some though in specific areas...that someone on here can come up with.

Chipoat,

I'm sure Maidstone is not alone, in fact I believe Fishers Island is devoid of fairway irrigation. I think that presently, there is simply too much pressure to get some return on investment - and the risk of losing a summer due to inadequate precipitation is too great.

TK

Shivas seems to have a nice solution. Do the architects on board here agree with the low water policy many of us seem to think is best for golf courses in general? If not, why not? What are we missing?

Doug,

Courses in the midwest with bluegrass are possibly the best opportunities to limit irrigation. As you say, it goes dormant, but may not ever really die, as its adapted to that climate.  Bent and Ryes would be a different story, so if you wanted top notch playing surfaces, you would need some irrigation - and, as someone mentioned, the will to not overuse it.

I will direct this next question to my esteemed friend Larry Rodgers - How do you keep costs in line now?  I often feel a "slave" to my irrigation designers, who tell me how much I have left over for the golf course!  All kidding aside, irrigation used to be 25% of budget, and now its often 33-40%.

For a while, I have thought the most practical approach was to put sprinklers everywhere you need to grow grass, but limit pump station capacity, which seems to have grown from a typical 1800 GPM ten years ago (and maybe 1250 GPM a few years before that) to 3000-4000 GPM now.  That doubles pump station costs and mainline pipe size.

In other words, whern some places, like Philly, limit watering to something like 21 MIl Gallons a year, why design a system that could put 5% of that out in a night?  It does happen in my experience.  

Conversely, the cost of putting pipe and sprinklers in out of play areas rather than temporary irrigation does not seem to save much money after considering the hand watering costs, and it is always available if needed.

It always strikes me as odd that while the "national dialogue" is towards conserving water, somehow the golf industry keeps pumping up the ability to deliver water with larger pump stations.  I know there are reasons for that, including the Owners desire to get maintenance off the course more quickly so players don't see it, the ever present golfer desire for green, the possibility of being blamed (or legally liable!) when turf dies and someone decides the irrigation designer didn't give him the necessary tools (I have heard of this happening) and the quicker grow in cycles which require temporarily higher demand.  So, the Owner must realize that he needs to have a nine and nind growing schedule. In the last decade, perhaps it didn't make economic sense, but with rising prices, maybe it will again.

And the fact that while you can pump more water through systems doesn't necessarily mean that the course needs to get more water, it just means it can in an emergency.  However, does it make sense to go back to the "every other night watering" systems that we used to have, and purposely limit the superintendents ability to water?  

As far as I can see, the worst case scenario of cutting the GPM would be that a few days in August might require delaying start times or quitting tee times a bit earlier so you could run the system longer.  No owner likes to lose summer revenue, and as long as water is available, that might not make sense, but is that a factor in your calculations?  2 hours times 30 players times 50 bucks , or $3000 revenue loss a few times each year vs. the debt of an extra couple of hundred thousand for a mammoth pump station and main lines?

In short, I don't think the market would allow no irrigation in the fairways, but I am asking an expert just how much we could reduce it.  Of course, I know the answer - hire Larry on the next project and he will be glad to tell me!

Tom,

Yes, the BI courses survived quite nicely until about 1980 without irrigation.....I recall my first play of St. Andrews in 80 - the caddie told me they had just put in sprinklers, but they rarely used them.  Weathermatic (now defunct) probably gave them away (or nearly so) to get bragging rights.  From the looks of the BO this year, I think they turn them on more often.

If you do that Ireland project, I think it would probably be necessary to have them - see above, its now "standard" even there - but I think the irrigation designer could program it to water only two or three fairways a night, since you could water every six to nine days and still be good, even in a drought!

Another question for Larry or the agronomists - for many superintendents the concept of deep and infrequent seems to have gone away.  Can a limited irrigation design force them to water that way, and thus, promote deeper roots and more drought tolerance, or is that too much of a risk?

Lou,

Yes, undulations create a problem, but not an insurmountable one, providing there is enough control.  Typical practice now is to provide a wire to each head so the super can tweak his performance by matching two higher heads together that may require 20 min run time, vs just pairing two adjacent heads, where one may be in a valley and the other higher, requiring different run times.

No question GSW would benefit from an updated irrigation system and deep aerifiying.  The updated irrigation should contain part to part heads around the green so that they don't have to over water the surrounds to get the green wet.  Going to triple row might also reduce overwatering of the fw to get the rough.  Like I said, more heads can be used to more accurately water, and reduce overall irrigation.

I would guess the Gentle Creek Irrigation would have cost about $1 Million total, but I could be wrong. I haven't heard of a $3MIL system in Texas.  It might be a $2 MIl, with your friend meaning labor was about equal to materials, to double the total cost.  Courses spread through housing do tend to run higher in cost - there are fewer shared mainlines, meaning the pipe sizes must be huge.  And, Gentle Creek waters pretty much wall to wall, so it is a big system, I am sure.  Not much market in Texas for homes backing on to a prairie look, so watering all that acerage is for home sales, not necessarily golf.

The technology available in irrigation is as amazing in many ways as the new drivers.  Computer contol is now standard, with weather stations tied to the internet, etc.  The main costs are really the tendency to water outer areas to perfection, and the trend to watering in shorter time frames, so maintenance vehicles can finish their work by 7 am by starting even earlier to be off the course by the time golfers get there.  Watering each area to its need - separate systems for roughs, fw, greens, tees, out of play areas, also drives up cost - but allows you to save water.

Other than getting the effect you really want in the design, I am not sure top 100 status is affected by the irrigation.  Its really related to climate and using water resources wisely.

Jeff B:  The irrigation budget for The Rawls Course was $2.3 million.  Then again, we did have 85 acres of Tifsport fairways and VERY windy conditions.

Jeff,
How do we keep costs down? There are many ways to reduce costs upfront and few ways to logically explain them, to the 2nd or 3rd superintendent, 10 years after the savings.

I for one am quite taken back by the cost of a "modern" irrigation system, 3 of the 4 mountain construction projects we are involved with have irrigation costs over $3.0 million. 4,000 GPM pump stations with 50 micron screening are all the rage! In each one of these cases the water available for the golf course must be shared with the development open space, roadways and sometimes front lawns. The smaller towns do not have the funding or the infrastructure to supply water to landscapes and are requiring the developer to take on these costs from his water rights.

Tom's project in Eastern Colorado has hired a "top gun" irrigation forman to assist the local hard working people to assemble a quality irrigation system. I beleive this person has been very helpful in keeping the irrigation caboose pushing the construction train. This system could have cost 50% more for a specialised contractor. The owner supplied the equipment, materials and labor under the "top gun's" direction. There was some local contracting assistance from the center pivot installer in the area with the larger mainline piping.

Another savings was terrain, the entire site had no more than 100' of elevation. This saved on pump costs. Tom also allowed for the reservoir to be close to the center of the property just off the 18th hole. This allowed for the mainline sizing to be reduced as the large pipe goes from the pump to the center then branches out with smaller mainlines. I believe the pump size to be around 1,500 GPM on a site with 2"/week irrigation requirements.

The spacing at this site was very tight to prevent massive overspray into the native. The tigter spacing allowed us to use a smaller GPM nozzle and reduce lateral pipe sizing.

Another item that should be considered is the control system, individual station control is great to have but most grow-in situations are running the heads at similar operational times. Tie a few heads together and add controllers as cash flow comes on line. This could come out of the capital improvement budget.

Jeff you know as well as anyone what requests come from the turf manager when it comes to the irrigation system. I once had a developer tell me that is why he does not allow chefs to design kitchens. The larger pumps are sometimes justified with electrical costs. We have had projects wher the energy costs could be reduced by 30% if the pumps operated between 11:00 pm and 5:00 am. Mr Hagadone wanted to have nightime maintenance in Coeur D Alene and that required larger pumps for a maintenence schedule that could go until midnight.

Pump sizing is also a reflection of the optimum efficiency of the standard motor horsepower. An example would be a 1,300 GPM demand would require 130 connected horsepower. (2) 50's and a 30 HP driver is what we use to use but due to the demand for VFD the system has (2) 75 HP drivers for 1,500 GPM. I have never had a turf manager come to me and complain they have too much pump but have had many complain about not having enough.

Much of this can be traced back to the control system which has very limitted flexibility when compared to the real world of computing power. The software developers say that their flow management programs will evenly distribute the flows. That is is everything is individual control and everything runs for and equal amount of time and there are NO management preferences as to what goes first, last and in between.

Irrigating every ether or every third night is a great idea and much better way to promote deep root development. Today's central computer software, weather station and instant gratification  will not allow this. I am told the market and demand is not large enough to build in and train the operators on how to incorporate these. This can also be a personnel management issue because of who is actually operating these systems. It is usually not the top person.

We had a project in Montana where the developer purchased the sprinklers, controllers and pump station form another golf course that was being bulldozed for less tha $50K. The balance of the material was new and over the next 5 years he will be replacing all of the used equipment with cash flow of the operation. This equipment new will be over $300K, so they saved $250K at construction rate intrest and will be taking it out of operations.

Yes Jeff it would be nice to be hired on one of your upcoming projects but that day will come and I look forward to it.

Tom,
You forgot to mention the other 155 (+ or-) acres that were also irrigated at Rawls in addition to the 85 acres of highly manicured turf. On your projects the owner is usually assisting with the construction and your hands on approach. Why not take it one step further and have an on-site  irrigation construction person with many years of successful installations train the future maintenance crew? I see to many of the "professional contractors" come to town with 2 lead irrigation people and hire the balance locally anyhow.

Lou,
The system at Gentle Creek was installed for about 1.5 million in 1999-2000 dollars, has about 1800 sprinklers and a pump station aroung 2,500 GPM for 130-150 acres of turf/texas native mix. The construction costs of the course at Gentle Creek were buried into the total development costs, a green turfed golf course usually sells property quicker than a similar dream without the golf. It is mind boogling as to the dept some clubs are taking on with their clubhouses.

The best irrigation system is the one with lots of quick couplers that are used for spot watering. Take care of the high hot spots with a hose and wetting agents then get on a deep and infrequent program for better stronger roots.

On another note, some of the raw material manufacturing plants are starting to operate but the manpower to run them have housing and family issues. The price of plastics are going to remain high and unpredictable for awhile and within the month we should be up to 80 -90% of pre Katrina production levels.

Larry R.-

RE: Gentle Creek, was the cost of the equipment just under $1MM?  I didn't sense that the clubhouse was overboard, but in keeping with what I think is (at least when I was there early last year) an affordable, high quality golf club with one of the better courses in the area.

Perhaps you and Don M. can answer a question that I've had for a long time.  Would it be advantageous and cost effective to have an asst. superintendent dedicated solely to irrigation and drainage?  With his own budget and cost center, focused mission, specialization, the ability to draw resources (personnel, parts, equipment, etc.), and accountability, it seems that such an organizational arrangement would make sense.

What got me to thinking in these terms is the frequency of broken pipes, leaky heads, irrigation turned-on during weekend evenings when the course is already saturated, plugged drains pooling water in low spots, etc. that I've witnessed, all overlooked for days and weeks at times.  Any thoughts?  

Don,

Is the "well trained irrigation manager" part of the maintenance staff on a fulltime basis or is he a sometimes used outside consultant?  Do you have such a person on staff?  That is the kind of inhouse position I had in mind.

Larry,

will we see the introduction of hdpe for use in our irrigation systems here?  Widely used elsewhere in the world, my experience in Brasil, it seems it would help reduce some costs in labor and material?  Would the material be more or less expensive?

Living and designing out of Arizona I am starting to get very worried about this subject as is the general public.  Legislation is being introduced in Vegas (Clark County) for putting a hold on any further golf development because of water.

None of my recent projects here in the southwest recently have come in under 2m for the irrigation system.  60' spacing, short watering windows, and most importantly overseeding has dictated our needs here.  Overseeding alone is probably the biggest factor with the need for a lot of water running all the time for two plus weeks.  We help justify those big pummps and mainlines with the power contract savings - sometimes.  Grow-in is similar with the bermuda and the only way to bring down that water use is to sod which adds cost in another way.

Quality construction helps.  Making sure all areas have acceptable slope so there are no "bird baths" and slow areas helps keep water distribution even and irrigation efficient.  In Laughlin because of the extreme hot climate and our concern about water in the long term the client chose to plate the entire 85 acres of maintained turf with 12" of processed topsoil of which the top 6" has Profile in it.  Big up front cost but the superintendent is raving about the root depth of both the sodded bermuda and the overseeded rye.  Many areas of the rye even made it through this summer with temps of 120+ for a while!  He also is experiencing very efficient time when working on heads and such.  (Easy to dig up and repair etc.)
It just seems like there are no options available to us for irrigation systems when the pressure is for consistent green lush conditions in the market.  The actual options of Toro vs Rainbird does us little in the way of real savings - we still have x amount of heads and controlers and y length of pipe and wire.

It just gets down to site and location plus expectations.  Soil, slope, mother nature and market!  If we could back off on the overseeding we could potentially bring down costs in both the irrigation system and cart paths here in the SW.  Unfortunately, sunbelt translates to resort living, which translates to green, green, green!