Pat,
Of course, I am biased in favor of golf, but if golf courses are such an environmental disaster, why to the articles claiming that keep going back to the same three examples of pollution to “prove it?” They cite the diazanon bird kill in the 50’s (later proved to be a disgruntled employee pouring it in the pond) the Nemacur spill in the Inter Coastal Waterway in the 80’s, and a few claims of “multiple chemical sensitivity” (never proven directly linked to golf pesticides if memory servers) in the 90’s.
What human activity hasn't had a few incidents, particularly with disgruntled employees? It seems there would be more consistent examples of negative environmental impacts. Overall, I think golf has always done pretty well just because of its nature and has spent 20 years getting even better.
What never gets reported is how the golf industry has tremendously reduced water, fertilizer and pesticide uses on golf courses. I have read numbers of 25-66% reductions.
On top of that, most fertilizers and pesticides used on golf courses are formulated to degrade/decompose into simpler, harmless compounds in a matter of days when applied correctly under normal conditions. You might remember Chlordane, and the new treatment Chlordane SL (which stands for Short Life) Instead of lasting forever, it breaks down quickly. Of course, it must be replaced to continue control, but if there is a mistake, that mistake has no lasting influences.
The majority of contamination cases come from chemical run off. Only in sandy soils and shallow water tables does leaching usually become a problem. Many cases of contaminated wells were found to be a result of the farmers washing their equipment so close to the wells, and causing run off, rather than chemicals leaching through the soils.
Technically, the compounds are broken down in three ways - microbial, chemical, and photo-degradation.
Microbial degradation breaks down of pesticides with fungi, bacteria, and other soil microorganisms that use pesticides as a food source. Soil moisture, temperature, aeration, pH, and organic matter affect microbial degradation rates, because they influence microbial growth/activity. Repeated chemical applications actually increase the microbes’ food source, which increases their quantity, which accelerates degradation.
Chemical degradation breaks down pesticides by soil chemical reactions. Many organophosphate and carbonate insecticides are broken down by hydrolysis where the pesticide reacts with water, with some actually broken clown within a matter of hours when mixed with alkaline water.
Photo-degradation is the breakdown of pesticides by light, particularly sunlight. Photo-degradation can destroy pesticides on foliage, on the soil surface, and even in the air.
Modern pesticides are also used at a fraction of the rate that old ones (like DDT) were used. For that reason, I hate generalizations that “golf courses use “a lot” of chemicals.
Newer pesticides accept that bugs can die slowly, and still be dead, to lower the application rate. Newer chemicals affect motor skills so they limp around and can’t get food, as much as it outright poisons them. When my old house had termites, the applicator put a fly and termite in a closed box, shot in a puff of the Chlordane SL. The smaller termite showed some effects, and the fly showed less immediately because of greater size and weight. If there is that much of a difference in reaction for those small animals, how much less would it affect a 200 lb man, or even 20 lb baby at those application rates?
For both fertilizers and pesticides, 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. Otherwise, runoff will be minimal. Studies at Texas A and M showed that, even when applying nitrogen and irrigation at ten times the normal rate, 99.9% of the fertilizers stayed on site, and only 0.1% was collected in runoff, suggesting that in normal application, perhaps 0.00001% of fertilizers run off.
Those who are against golf courses have the view that no expense is too great, and want “guarantees” that no chemical will ever affect anyone. It seems that we are at the point where that’s true, except in unusual human error or weather conditions.
But, it’s a matter of going from 99.999% good to 100%, which is also a matter of perspective. Depending on your point of view, the cost 100% chemical containment may or may not be important enough to justify the cost for the few that might be affected.
As to erosion during construction – yes that can happen, but there are strong erosion controls in place. There have been accidents – the Pete Dye course in CA collapsed into the ocean as a result of a sanitary sewer line that crossed the golf course breaking. (What a crappy situation that was!)