Recently, the City of Santa Cruz proposed reclassifying Pasatiempo Golf Course with respect to water usage during a drought.
Previously, the golf course was in the "Business" category and would have had to cut its water use by 75 %, which probably would allowed Pasatiempo to water the greens and tees.
The new classification would demote the golf course to the "Irrigation" category, which would mean that the golf course would get NO WATER.
For years I've been advocating that courses review their water needs for the purpose of developing contingency plans in the event that water becomes:
more and more expensive;
less available,
of inferior quality
severely restricted or
a combination of the above
It would appear that some or all of the above might be looming on the horizon.
In light of the recent awareness of, and trend toward, firm & fast, should the Santa Cruz incident prompt clubs to take a renewed interest in planning for their future water needs and problems ?
And, should they examine this issue in combination with the benefits of firm & fast conditions ?
Will this act as a catalyst toward fast & firm ?
With memberships on the decline, will budgets, combined with rising prices and scarce availability force clubs to examine this issue in ernest ?
Why wouldn't a prudent club re-examine their future water needs ?
Should architects re-examine and re-prioritize water needs for courses they're designing ?
Is the Santa Cruz proposal and the message it sends, good for the game ?