Good drainage as we all know, is critical to good golf.  Unfortunately it can be expensive and a tough nut to swallow for course owners/members.  I am working with architect Scott Witter on an old classic golf course in New York and it is in dire need of improved drainage.  We have not yet costed it all out, but upwards of a half million dollars might need to be spent to sort out many of the golf holes and keep them playable after a heavy rain.  

We completed a drainage project down near Philly that dramatically improved playing conditions.  It was a tough sell to get them to spend the money, but after biting the bullet, the members were elated with the results.  Some big pipe was used as this course is like a giant catch basin for the entire area.  



Anyone have any similar stories and or suggestions to make the pain of the expense easier to take?

Craig,
The soils are not great but the course was built in 1915 so we got what we got.

I would love to see the cast iron rim for that catch basin Mark...I suspect the slots in the top would be sized accordingly to keep out domestic animals and small children...whoa

This is a REAL challenge on many sites here in the northeast, but also across the country with many GCarchitects and engineers 'handling' it in different ways, some better than others.  The practical matter is very real and what Mark didn't mention, is often the need to address localized springs that 'daylight' in the right rough, center of fairways, etc., on courses that are built on rugged terrain.  On the course that Mark is referring, we have some desperate conditions where springs are the leading culprit to the poor conditions and rain, in any amount really, just adds insult to injury.

Frustrating to architects and superintendents is the fact that springs can and often move from year to year depending on many soil conditions and thus a large area of disturbance needs to be opened up to find the root of the issue.  Frustrating to clients is the SUBSTANTIAL costs for something they can't SEE, and it is a tough sell...not unlike the value that comes from a good tree management program.

Jeff,
A yearly payment for 500k is going to be more like 45 to 50k per year, if you want to amortize the thing over 20 years.
In the NE region we have about 200 days to make money and that's if it isn't raining hard enough to force a closing, which can happen 20 to 40 times a season with or without good drainage.  Only 90 or so days are 'peak', between Memorial Day and Labor Day. A course here would have to generate about an extra $7,000 a month to cover it.
That may not sound like a lot, but in an area with little to no  population growth and low to medium per round prices it probably isn't going to be easy to convince an owner to take the plunge.

 

If groundwater tables and springs are really problematic.. have you looked at intercepting them and creating some surface "features" or creeks to collect and convey them away from areas of play?  

 I wouldn't be surprized if historical landfilling, to create more usable surface area on the periphery of ridges and in valleys, impacted natural drainage paths... i.e, fill with no culverts etc..

Jeff,
As you know, you can't have enough good drainage.  We error on the high side whether it be adding drainage in fairways or in bunkers, etc.  I should note, that big catch basin in the photo is located in an out of play area.  I have a pet peeve about seeing them in areas where lots of golf balls end up.  

Your idea about arguing the savings of lost revenue is a good one and it helps.  But like Jim says, it is still a tough sell back this way.  

Scott knows what we are facing with the project in NY.  Our likely progress is to prioritize the holes and to do a few at a time to show benefits of the improvement.

The one beauty of the drainage work with did at that course in PA is that we saved significant expense on new cart paths.  The club initially wanted paths put in and we suggested doing the drainage work first and then decide about the paths.  Guess what - no need for paths after "the problem was corrected"  

Mark,

I agree.  Good drainage is great for both golf courses and prostate patients!

While I never thought I could be criticized for saying the same this as you just did, this site, led by the Emperor hissself, have told me that this isn't true and that Golden Age architects brought along little drain fairys that drained their courses by magic, without the need for catch basins of any kind.  

They concluded that I am a total crap architect, based on that thread alone, even though very few here have even played any of my courses.  That is why I said I hope you escape with a better fate.  I trust the Owners I have worked for thank heavens for my ability to drain golf courses and keep golfers on the course. (and make them money)

I agree that the big honkers ought to be in out of the way areas.  Its better to cut off the big drainage before it hits the fw anyway.  But again, what do I know, having drained close to 100 golf courses, when the experts here know far more without ever having drained one?  As I told one poster, "Well, its damn sure you never made a drainage mistake!"

To save typing, all readers may consider this post to also be a part of Mike Young's "Do we call out BS" thread as well.

Special note to Tommy:  I'm just having fun here, not taking anything personally.

Chris,

I was on a field job yesterday - in DFW with clay soils.  I tried the lay of the land look, but the superintendent, after looking at the course after some spring rains, has asked we add drainage on one hole where its evident that too much water runs to collect naturally.

In my earlier posts, I wrote that water running more than 300 feet collects with power, requiring collection before that.  I left the basins out on that hole, and proved it to myself again.  We added about 8 catch basins and connection pipe, with some reshaping to make it work, all without disturbing the irrigation system.  Should have been done originally but I tried to be a "minimalist."

If you have sheet flow, you can drain naturally.  The culprit on this hole was a natural swale, almost imperceptible to the eye that started water concentration near the top of the hole, and accelerated it all the way down through the fw.  Sheet flow rarely stays sheet flow long.

Like you, I think I know what I know and I think I know about drainage.  As much as we dislike CB's, especially in view, I think they are necessary on most courses.  Who the heck cares what Tillie might have thought about drainage outlets(with his drinking, he probably had a whole different connotation on that subject!) when you are playing in slop?

Chris,
Sometimes that is/was all that is needed.  You have to remember that many of our classic golf courses today have been surrounded by development.  Like that course we worked on outside Philadelphia shown in the photo, the courses themselves have become like giant catch basins for the neighboring community.  As such, something more elaborate needs to be done.  That pipe looks excessive but calculations dictated it was necessary to fix the problem.  

Can anybody clue me in as to what can/is be/being done to ensure that the chemicals used on golf courses are not leaching through the soil, entering drainage tiles, and affecting sources of water?

As vital as drainage is, I have a hard time swallowing the fact that many times these drains lead right into sewer systems and or other sources of water; places that pesticides should never flow to.

Thanks.

Most pesticiddes used on golf courses are formulated to degrade in a matter of days. That is, they break down or decompose into simpler, harmless compounds. When applied correctly, and under normal conditions, fertilizers and chemicals will enter the soil and in a short time become benign.

It is only in cases where the application is poorly executed or, sometimes, unusual events, such as a sudden, unexpected washing rainstorm that products will be carried off the target crop, being grass on a golf course. Otherwise, runoff will be minimal.

I stole a brief explanation from Ohio State;

Pesticide degradation, or the breakdown of pesticides, is usually beneficial. The reactions that destroy pesticides change most pesticide residues in the environment to inactive, less toxic, and harmless compounds. However, degradation is detrimental when a pesticide is destroyed before the target pest has been controlled. Three types of pesticide degradation are microbial, chemical, and photodegradation.

Microbial degradation is the breakdown of pesticides by fungi, bacteria, and other microorganisms that use pesticides as a food source. Most microbial degradation of pesticides occurs in the soil. Soil conditions such as moisture, temperature, aeration, pH, and the amount of organic matter affect the rate of microbial degradation because of their direct influence on microbial growth and activity.

The frequency of pesticide applications can also influence microbial degradation. Rapid microbial degradation is more likely when the same pesticide is used repeatedly in a field. Repeated applications can actually stimulate the buildup of organisms effective in degrading the chemical. As the population of these organisms increases, degradation accelerates and the amount of pesticide available to control the pest is reduced.

Chemical degradation is the breakdown of pesticides by processes that do not involve living organisms. Temperature, moisture, pH, and adsorption, in addition to the chemical and physical properties of the pesticide, determine which chemical reactions take place and how quickly they occur. Because of lack of light, heat, and oxygen in the water-saturated layers of the soil profile below the surface, chemical breakdown is generally much slower than at the surface. In northern states, the season influences groundwater temperatures from 5 to 10 feet below the ground surface, varying from 39 degrees F to 41 degrees F during the coldest part of the winter to 59 degrees F to 61 degrees F during the hottest part of the summer. Groundwater below 10 to 15 feet maintains a constant temperature of 50 degrees F to 53 degrees F. These low temperatures greatly reduce tile rate of chemical breakdown.

One of the most common pesticide degradation reactions is hydrolysis a breakdown process where the pesticide reacts with water. Depending on the pesticide, this may occur in both acid and alkaline conditions. Many organophosphate and carbamate insecticides are particularly susceptible to hydrolysis under alkaline conditions. Some are actually broken clown within a matter of hours when mixed with alkaline water.

Photodegradation is the breakdown of pesticides by light, particularly sunlight. Photodegradation can destroy pesticides on foliage, on the soil surface, and even in the air.

Factors that influence pesticide photodegradation include the intensity of the sunlight, properties of the application site, the application method, and the properties of the pesticide.

Is drainage more of an issue now with golf carts and low mowing heights, in comparison to, say, 1915?

Joe

Lower cuts don't affect it. In fact, it probably helps to move the water faster.

Jeff,

I disagree. Yes, surface run-off would face less resistance, but turf at higher heights of cut would have more structure, which would help keep soils stable when the soil is saturated. Of course, all that would be directly affected my normal moisture maintenance levels as well. Already wet soil only gets wetter when it rains....

How much more important is drainage on greens vs. roughs?  

Joe

Joe,
Here is a good example of a cart path acting as a dam.  




Water was supposed to sheet drain across this fairway but the area always seemed to be wet so a cart path was put in which actually made the situation worse.  If they would have fixed the fairway drainage issue first, they might have been able to save the expense of the cart path.  

This is a neat little Donald Ross course called Tumblebrook.   A few years ago we did quite a bit of study regarding fixing up the course and even adding a new nine holes but where that stands now I'm not sure.  A good friend of ours Jeff Broadbelt, was involved with the course but it has changed ownership and I'm not sure what is going to be done with it.  Hopefully it doesn't follow Locust Valley's fate and turn into housing  

Joe,
I don't know who built that path but the problems it caused are obvious.  After it rains, you can't even get to the fairway as you will sink up to your ankles.  I have not been out there this season but need to swing by.  

It was good to see you in Anaheim!