I admit, just as the overwhelming majority of my reading list consists of classic novels (history and golf architecture as well); the overwhelming majority of the courses I study and play are classics.  

The scant evidence I have seen to date would seem to indicate that modern architects and construction crews don't seem to utilize sheet drainage in the same amount and to the same effect as classic age architects.  Of course the subsurface drainage technology wasn't what it is today and by and large the architects weren't getting a percentage of the construction project as they seem to be getting today (a potential conflict of interest).  In the modern era, what is the level of practice of surface drainage and does it have a practical, if not artistic value, as well?

Wayne,

    Here in the Canadian prairies, surface drainage is definitely not an lost art. Due to our extremely cold winters, and slow spring thaws, it is essential that water be able to drain via surface topography, because the water simply can't penetrate the soil and enter the sub-surface drains. Especially in the southern prairies, where the landscape tends to be quite flat, much time and expense are dedicated to ensuring a positive flow of surface drainage.

Tyler Kearns  

Wayne,

No question its changed, but IMHO, for the better.  If you don't like the aesthetics, you would, as a superintendent like the results!

First off, I think many fail to realize that the classics have added tons of drainage pipe over the years in long swales that didn't drain as well as you may romantisize they did.  Often, the super added 4" french drains, which as Tyler says, don't work well, and even if constructed well, will clog and require maintenance over time.  Basically, the "modern theory" is, if its a surface drainage problem, solve it with a surface drain (ie catch basin inlet rather than french drain)

Here is how my surface drainage design has "improved" over the years, based on experience, the ability to get the course open quickly and in good shape, and just good old common sense observation:

1. Water concentrates into stream flow at about 300 foot of run.  Place drain inlets at 250 maximum runs to prevent erosion during grow in.

2. Sod holds water!  If there is any inkling that we will sod an area, it needs to be graded to 6-10% slopes, even if the natural area is a traditionally "sound" 3%.

3. In seeded areas, even 3% causes problems sometimes (shifting soils, etc.) so plan to grade those to 4-6%, knowing that some areas will require slower slopes to make things work in the field, so leave some wiggle room.

4. Cart paths block water, and standing water, when run over by cart wheels causes problems.  Grade raised paths, and add lots of basins and pipes on the uphill or both sides of the path, since it is the most heavily trafficked part of the course.  Incidentally, once water collects on a path, you can never let it get off the path, as the erosive force is just too much for turf to stand up to.

5.  Treat fairways like an engineer treats a road - swales on both sides, inlets to carry water below as necessary, so no drainage except what falls on them crosses the fairway.

6. Remember, many environmental reggies now require us to move water away from natural outlets to let it settle out sediments before entering streams.  Like it or not, this often means grading much of the site.

7.  Don't skimp on pipe size!  Because the capacity of a pipe goes up the square of the diameter, ( a 6" pipe has a sq. inch cross section of 3x3x3.14, or about 27.3 sq. inches, while a slightly more expensive 8 inch pipe has 4x4x3.14, or49 sq. in., almost twice as much for about 45% more cost)  Larger pipes can also be laid on shallower grades, which often helps out tremendously!

There is more, of course, but you can see that we deal with  things like more sod, cart paths and environmental restraints, the public perception that a new course should be perfect - no time to slowly fix drainage problems - compared to courses years ago in the Golden Age.  

In short, designers in both eras designed to the technology available and the expectations prevalent.  In that way, they are equally good drainage designs.  As noted, I believe current drainage designs are the best ever, technically.  I agree that seeing more basins on the golf course can be a distraction.  I would complain more about that, but in fact, I rarely can recall taking a drop from a basin that affected play, even in a greenside chipping area or center of the fairway, so I think its a good trade off.

Also, I think TEPauls point about natural slopes is probably a separate issue.  You can have very natural and flowing 4-10% slopes across your golf course and have good drainage with  a natural look.  Its the 20-33% mounding that often looks unnatural.

You see, this type of thread is one of the reasons I love Golfclubatlas.com so much. You never know when some really creative architectural concept might get inspired on here.

I consider George Thomas to have been probably the greatest conceptual genius in the annals of golf architecture and if he could come up with the idea of a bunker smack dab in the middle of a green (Riviera's #6) and have it last then why can't I come up with concept of a water hazard smack dab in the middle of a green and have it accepted and last?

The only remaining problem to solve is whether to make it a regular yellow line water hazard or a red-lined lateral water hazard. For the sake of the condition of the green I think I better go with the red-lined lateral!  

Another good reason to line it off--either yellow or red lined is there's always that danger some of these golfing yahoos will mistake it for "casual water" and take the wrong kind of relief.

So you need red or yellow water hazard lines to remind those mind-numbed yahoos that this isn't "casual", this is "SERIOUS".

Jeff,
We had a situation where sod had to be used and, as you said, it drains poorly. surface water was diverted from the area but it still remains wet. Is deep tining worth a try?

RT,
Some tailings but mostly subsoils from a nearby excavation. Now that I think more about it the underlying stuff is probably not much better. Dang!

Wayne Morrisson,

I wonder how much influence USGA constructed greens have had upon the moving of surface water on greens.

With high perc rates, has the need to move surface water diminished ?

Something to touch on, Given the once desert-like terrain of SoCal (lets face it, I live in a place that was one time a desert!) the work of Billy Bell should never go un-noticed. I think he was the king of surface drainage. I think they practiced it much more back in those days because they didn't have machinery to be digging trenches to bury undeground drainage, and the cost of having crews hand dig it in what is an inordinate amount of clay soils in are region is also another reason to understand how important his work was with both Thomas, the brief glimpse with Tillinghast, as well as his own stand alone work.

I never even realized how much so until one day at Riviera with Lynn Shackelford who was quick to point it out on the left fairway at #8. The little drainage ditches that cut though fairways and the like are so intrical to why Riviera works so well as a golf course. It was a most learned lesson. In fact, I consider Riviera to be one of the most excellent classrooms.

I've just gone through a situation where a superintendent "couldn't" accept sheet drainage on a new fairway, even though the slopes were 3% and greater. During grow-in he noticed standing water and wet areas and was convinced it would "never" drain properly. We wound up installing $8,000 worth of drainage just before finishing to satisfy his concerns. I feel the $$ could have gone to better uses. I am a great fan of handling water with natural slopes and minimizing drain pipe, inlets and ponds. But I am a realist and want the course to be free of nusance water problems. I agree, however, it has become a lost art, so to speak, to use simple methods in the design. Today a typical drainage plan will take as many hours to produce as the more evident features of a course. OK — if the site warrants such effort.

"Sad irony that Behr's talk about "permanence" is not reflected in modern day existence of his courses "as built"."

Mike:

It is sad and it certainly is irony. It's a little tricky trying to categorize Max Behr and his writing on various diverse subjects to do with golf and architecture. He wrote during a most formative time in American golf and American golf architecture. Things were moving relatively fast and things were forming and coalescing in various ways, particularly to do with the USGA which are today very much part of the fundamental structure of golf in this country as we know it.  

He wrote about a number of things in his somewhat interconnected "essays" that are of real interest to look back on today.

1/ The essential spirit or essence of golf as evidenced in architecture.
2/ Technical and aesthetic ideas in architecture in detail (including permanence through such things as drainage).
3/ The fundamental roll of equipment (balls and impliments) in the sense of a necessary "balance" between man and nature (and man-made golf architectural features to mimic "nature").
4/ The handicapping system
5/ The use of penalty in golf and architecture
6/ Permanence in architecture (in an actual and economic sense)
7/ Fundamental relationships as refected in golf and architecture--ex., Man vs man in comparison to Man vs Nature.

Some of Behr's contemporaries (1920s) were writing and warning about many of the same things he was but not in such written detail. It is irony to look back and notice how completely many things in golf and architecture diverged from the things Behr recommended. Was he wrong? Perhaps. Were others wrong not to listen more carefully to some of the things he wrote about and recommended? Perhaps. To me it would seem so as many of the things we see as problematic today Behr had many of the very same solutions for we offer today and are coming up with today, over 75 years after Behr wrote them. Sometimes it seems like some of what he wrote was done today or just yesterday.

His style of writing was completely unique, incredibly labyrinthian and almost bizarre but his message and the clarity of his reasoning once one gets past those obstacles is truly impressive.

Frank Pont:

Some of Behr's essays are in Goeff Shackelford's book "The Art of Golf Design" and he's now trying to complile more. I think I probably have most of them too but in piecemeal arrangement.

Pat,

I'm not so sure that the USGA spec greens are always the modern marvels they are supposed to be.  Probably due to the high demands on getting the construction right.  The worst green at Rolling Green is number 16, a short par 3 with the green benched onto a hillside with a lot of fall-off around the green.  This is the only USGA spec green (isn't that right, Mike?) and it is the worst green by far agronomically.  Water pools on it (so much for high perc rates) so there is constant wet wilt and fungus.  There had been a problem with too many trees and poor air circulation.  Quite a number of trees came down (granted a few more need to come down as well) and a circulation fan is used yet it is still the only green that is completely problematic.  

I don't think surface drainage is a lost art.  It has just become a more complicated art.  As most golf courses today involve housing development, golf drainage becomes part of the overall drainage plan and in many cases accepts water from other parts of the development.  Also, as Jeff says, after 300 feet you have a stream.  When developere wish for housing to line both sides of a fairway then the routing is usually done in the swales with the houses above.  Thus creating a majjor need for catches etc.
But as we move back toward "core golf" developments we will probably see more sheet drainage.