Patrick:

Unfortunately, one of the reasons some clubs overwater so much is so when they get cut back to 50% (or 33% or 25%) they will still have enough water to get by.  Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Rationing WILL force everyone to address the problem, especially if the rationing becomes permanent.

If I'm not mistaken, there was a non-native to North America, Australian tree that was imported to Florida (perhaps west coast areas also) that used inordinate amounts of water.  But then when it got established, the tree huggers didn't want golf courses to get rid of them because of the huge water sucking consumption that drew away from turf.  It might have been chronicalled in John Stawn's book, "Driving the Green".

Also, I think that in the upper midwest, the red oak got into trouble with "oak wilt" because of droughty conditions, that stressed the tree to an unknown pathnogen.  We lost many red oak in Wisconsin for a while.  Many were on golf courses.

It is too bad that bureaucracies force these turf managers to have to game the water allotment system.  It seems like a turf manager like Scott Anderson at HVCC has the best approach.  But, if he runs his facility on the leanest possible watering routine - and then gets cut, he will probably really have a problem.

Hmmm... if this case of supers upping their water usage to asuage losses in drought conditions is true.

Even in the most isolated of cases.

Golf has a serious problem.

There's one word for such a thing:

GLUTTONY

As if golf needed any more problems in regard to its already staggering consumption of resources.

ANY super caught doing this (and his club) ought to be run out of the business and never allowed near a golf course again.

Kyle
Agreed
When I used to live in a Manhattan condo - our electricity was not billed per apartment, but included in our common cahrges - one of our neighbors used to leave his air conditioning on all weekend while he was out on the Island so his appartment would be nice and cool upon his return.
There is a word for people like this. Asshole.

I don't disagree with your disdain for overusage to offset projected cutbacks, in the spirit of the morality of the actions.  Yet, these fellows jobs are on the line, and these memberships are notorious for not cutting the turf manager any slack, despite his being pressed by outside natural forces like drought and disease, etc.  They want their green grass, and often don't give a darn about the super's water rationing ethics.  So, they will direct him to over use in anticipation of cutbacks.  Bureaucracies never seem to reward honest or ethical activity.

That is the ethic that will destroy this game in the next 50 years.

Trace it where you will, but someone needs to take a stand against it. I think my main purpose in this business will be to redefine the standards by which a golf course is maintained. The game is getting too fat.

Things that get too fat become extinct.

I don't disagree with your disdain for overusage to offset projected cutbacks, in the spirit of the morality of the actions.  Yet, these fellows jobs are on the line, and these memberships are notorious for not cutting the turf manager any slack, despite his being pressed by outside natural forces like drought and disease, etc.  They want their green grass, and often don't give a darn about the super's water rationing ethics.  So, they will direct him to over use in anticipation of cutbacks.  Bureaucracies never seem to reward honest or ethical activity.

A simple consumption tax, rather than restrictions, would effectively reward water stewardship.

Mark,

That's already happening in some areas.

The cost of water will continue to climb, especially when the source is closely metered, like effluent water.

It will also climb when there's no competition, sourcewise.
Mandated effluent water sources will TAX the ultimate user.

The problem is that most clubs will only address the issue when it becomes onerous, and by then, it may be too late.

I don't think over use will necessarily benefit golf courses if restrictions are ever made permanent.
There's just too much science involved anymore and I think you'll see the AZ model used by other states when they decide to get serious about water monitoring.
Basically the AZ model is like this, existing courses are measured for turf acreage and then multiples are used to determine how much water the course may use. New courses are limited to the amount of irrigated turf they may use.
For instance, when I was last in AZ they were on what they call the 3rd management period. This basically means they set a number of years, in this case 10, for each period before the standards are reviewed and changes made. In this case after each period the restrictions were toughened based on improvements in irrigation technology and water management.
At my course we were allotted 4.6 acre ft of water per turfed acre. This is based on our climate; other parts of the state got a little more, some less. The law reads that the courses must use all available technology and knowledge to meet their allotment. This means you needed to keep your system in good repair and upgrade if necessary. Your allotment is also based on a 3 year average; you could go a little over one year and make up for it the next if you got more rain. It paid to be judicious, because even if you had it made one year you could basically bank for the future.
Municipalities or counties may require courses to cut back, but you can almost be sure that if the states get involved and legislation is passed it will be based on science and over use will not be a benefit.