Mike,
As your stats point out, it IS a political football. I recall seeing a study that 85% of all water use is in agriculture. Most farms in even the midwest irrigate abot 3X the typical golf course. Turf grass flourished before irrigation for a reason - it really doesn't need as much water as other types of plants. The number of golf courses that overwater above need is neglible, IMHO, compare to perception. Either they have ancient irrigation systems that could't put out the required ET if the wanted to, or new ones that are fairly water efficient and don't waste. Yet the perception is, ALL golf courses overwater and nuke the turf with chemicals, compared to home lawns.
Truth be told, how many homeowners or lawn companies put up boards to keep ferts and chems from being applied right to the street where the run in the sewer? So, besides the 50% more home lawn, actual practices probably make them about 3X less environmentally friendly than the average golf course. And yet, no politician will go after voters, when perception allows them to go after rich guys who play golf.
Based on acreage alone, the water smart program would save 50% more if it started with homeowners. There are now internet based programs to help you run your sprinkles more efficiently and they cost about the same as the cable bill. Not many get this service despite needing it more than golf courses. If you want to save water, start at home and shell out the $1000 per year to do what most golf courses do now - water with the absolute minimum water, controlled by computer to assure efficiency!
The idea that we can reduce meat eating to save water will be interesting. Politically, will it come to a time when our govt has to decide whether its more important to save water and help our own environment or feed the world? We could reduce ag acres signifigantly by telling the world that feeding itself if its own problem. Of course, our farmers wouldn't take to kindly to it either, but at some point, if we really are in such a crisis, it may come up as a legit, and tough question.
TD, you are right, I would hate any more governmental control, seeing what a great job they do historically, and for that alone, we should be supporting GEO as an independent group. That said, I can see a lot of possible unintended consequences, based on what I have seen former guidelines used for. We proably have to live with some of those in any event. Maybe even the golf watchdog needs a watchdog?
BTW, I know one golfer/environmentalist who is pissed at Bandon because the hotel doesn't even have sink stoppers! If you want to shave, you have to run the water the whole time. He wonders where they waste most of their water……there is a place you can personally make a difference in golf's environmental performance.
Ally,
I am not sure that "economically viable" or "the economy" are not the same things, and that they don't flucuate up and down. In either case, I am not for making general decisions based on current "perception" (See some examples above) and as you can tell, I am really against the whole environmental movement that leaks over into moral imperatives, business decisions, etc. And so many enviros sort of see all of those issues tied together into a "we know better than you do what is good for you" attitude. That kind of rankles my feathers, and IMHO, "central planning" by an "elite" fews never works as well as a free market. The central planners might be the smartest guys in the world, but no one is smart enough to set guidelines that might be applicable to every potential golf course on every potential site.
I was at my home club yesterday. In discussions, it came out that the maintenance budget was $700,000 in the 1970's, $488,000 in 1993 when I remodeled it, and $512,000 now. You can do the math, but its clear that costs have come down, and maintenance levels have declined because of what people can afford to pay. Its hard to say golf has gotten too expensive to maintain when most courses are operating on a fraction of what they used to.
My point is that so much policy or guidelnes may be driven by Augusta National, when that is in NO WAY what 99% of golf courses are like. That said, I agree 100% that golf courses ought to continue to improve their environmental performance and that a cooperative venture, perhaps led by a semi autonomous outside group may end up beign the best way to do it, even if their basic model is flawed to a degree. I know I am complaining a bit, but I really don't have a better answer either.
If golf takes too long, is that an environmental issue? Maybe golf should abandon 18 holes and go to 12 hole for recreational golf? It would save turf, too. I am not sure golf as a basic golf model is broken completely, but no doubt it can use some tweaks. You should start a separate topic on how you think the current and traditional golf model is flawed, and how it ought to change. But use facts and averages from the GCSAA or USGA, not a broad "everyone knows" type statement.