Reduction in water allowance for course irrigation

[Thomas Dai]

Different parts of the globe have different conditions.......but.........if the amount of water that is available to be used on the course were suddenly cut by 50%, say through the tightening of abstraction regulations, could your course, and those other courses in the same area, survive? Would the course still be useable? Would actual course conditioning, rather than just the colour, be worse? Would course conditioning perhaps even be improved?

As I say above, different parts of the globe have different conditions, so it would be good to hear thoughts from different areas of the globe.

All the best.

[Chris Munoz]

we use on average per water cycle, 1.4 million gallons a night.  have over 230 acres of turf. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

I am currently working on three golf irrigation design projects and one will be going out to bid in the next month.
I will be specifying some sub surface irrigation in each project.

Basically, to irrigate a given area, it requires 50% less water with sub surface vs traditional over head irrigation.
No evaporation, run off, or wind blown water loss, and water delivered directly to the root zone are the main reasons why sub surface is a more efficient method for turf irrigation.

It is very difficult to convince some supers to consider sub surface because it requires a different mind set and some management adjustments. But it is not new technology and it is proven to be effective as it is used in many parts of the world where water is truly scarce.

Cost is a factor, but we are seeing it installed for less then $1/ sq ft. That is still too expensive to use in a widespread manner, but I expect the cost to drop dramatically as we see more use. make no mistake, soon we will see a full golf course irrigated in a manner where the water never sees the light of day. It will work and I plan on helping to make it happen.

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

In Argentina there are many courses which have no irrigation system, except very basic systems for watering greens (which are very similar to irrigating you back yard, done manually with hoses). Although compared with courses in the US, conditions are not ideal, you can still play very decent golf. The courses are much more natural and you have to get used to varying conditions depending on the weather.

[Donnie Beck]

I am currently working on three golf irrigation design projects and one will be going out to bid in the next month.
I will be specifying some sub surface irrigation in each project.

Basically, to irrigate a given area, it requires 50% less water with sub surface vs traditional over head irrigation.
No evaporation, run off, or wind blown water loss, and water delivered directly to the root zone are the main reasons why sub surface is a more efficient method for turf irrigation.

It is very difficult to convince some supers to consider sub surface because it requires a different mind set and some management adjustments. But it is not new technology and it is proven to be effective as it is used in many parts of the world where water is truly scarce.

Cost is a factor, but we are seeing it installed for less then $1/ sq ft. That is still too expensive to use in a widespread manner, but I expect the cost to drop dramatically as we see more use. make no mistake, soon we will see a full golf course irrigated in a manner where the water never sees the light of day. It will work and I plan on helping to make it happen.

Interesting........ But what are your plans to prevent salt accumulations?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Donnie,
With over head irrigation we deal with salt accumulation by applying extra water, above and  beyond field capacity so we have some leaching via gravitational water percolating down into the soil. Right? We basically put so much water into the soil that the sheer weight of the water creates a flush. Of course when we do that we have a lot of run off and we are still applying the very same water that built up the salts in the first place, but the weight of the water flushes away the excess salts and we carry on until the next flush.

With sub surface you can also exceed field capacity and use gravitation water to leach. You can't put quite as much out at once, so you might do it a little more often (using a lot less water) but the physics do not change.

One prominent golf irrigation company is not prompting sub surface because their focus group of 15 "elite" superintendents said they would never use it. No real in depth thought, no trials, no "lets have a look", just I'm not changing no matter what. It's just science, and it works.

[jeffwarne]

Don,

For us interested laymen
Are you referring to "drip" irrigation?

[Greg Chambers]

Don,

Very interesting.  Please keep us posted as this progresses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall remodeling some Southern CA courses back in the late 80's when the entire state was under irrigation bans (maybe greens were allowed) due to water shortages/drought.  Quality was reduced but the courses survived.  Georgia had a similar ban about five years ago.  Every area probably experiences big droughts and water reductions for extended periods.

Many courses have gone years without irrigation.  Until the last decade and a half, most courses were "under irrigated" in terms of less than 100% coverage, and in being able to provide less than full ET replacement, and depended on rain periodically to make up the difference, accepting some browning in periods of less rain.

So, while not universal, we have seen golf courses survive on less water than they currently use, so to some degree, and in most locations, I expect they would survive under less water.  The regulations would have to be reasonable, of course.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sub surface (SDI) use is common in the middle east where water is a very scare commodity.

SDI use on tees makes a lot of sense to me and that is where we will be using it in our next project. Tees are smaller areas and there is no real golf advantage to extra turf in the tee surrounds. The small heads we often use on tees are a pain and usually do not hold up over the long haul in a golf environment.

SDI use on greens is a challenge due to cup depth, root length, and high perc root zones that don't support the capillary action required to keep adequate moisture in the rootzone. there is a research green at New Mexico State University that was grown in and is maintained with SDI, but it is a tray type system that prevents the water from leaching due to the sand porosity and depth of the water lines. Dr, Bernd Leinauer from NMSU has been researching SDI use in turf for 10 years and has done some fascinating work including establishing paspalum turf with brackish water with SDI only. No overhead irrigation. Water is scarce in some parts of NM and their are athletic field complexes in the Albq area that were established with SDI and have been in use for over 5 years. The turf managers there report that the fields with SDI have the lowest maintenance requirements of the all the fields they manage. There are also sports complexes in the Denver area that are irrigated solely with SDI, and the turf managers there report the same.

This is a long video (1:20) hosted by Dr John Kamniski from Penn St where Dr. Leinauer gives a report on the use of SDI.  Its a good primer for anyone who wants to learn more about SDI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0wql6rzeVs&feature=share&list=PLswKlrW9JSp6vJ9yPC-gemznT4WVqnvzH


This article has some SDI info but you'll have to scroll down toward the bottom. The Arapahoe story is a good one. The EPIC photo of the football filed at SMU is representative of what we can do under greens. Not only are they irrigating directly into the rootzone, but they are also capturing all the drainage water and re using it.  

http://www.sportsfieldmanagementmagazine.com/article-8666.aspx



 

[Donnie Beck]

Don,

Interesting.... I was under the assumpsion you could not deliver enough water to get a good flush and salts would accumulate. This is very intriguing to me as I love the concept and look forward to hearing more as your project progresses.

[Bradley Anderson]

Don,

Subsurface irrigation was experimented with extensively at Purdue by Dr. Bill Daniels in the 1970's. I think at one time there were over 300 greens with his system in Indiana, Illinois, Canada and Colorado. It was called Purr-wick.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.lib.msu.edu%2Ftic%2Fgolfd%2Farticle%2F1977jul25.pdf&ei=_BOYUYr0IrCWyAGzxoDQCQ&usg=AFQjCNH0xrqFi0HhUY9KVHDAsrIaLIqP5w

As I recall there were some issues with maintaining consistent moisture at various elevations. The link above shows pictures of installation - it was quite a sophisticated process.

Of course the science and technology has probably improved since the 1970's but as important as greens are it would be foolhardy not to also install sprinklers around the green. And what are you talking for cost of 5 or 6 perimeter heads and pipe - $1,500 per green?

All the other costs would remain the same: controllers, mainline, feeder lines.

Greens are only 3 acres of turf and how much difference in water evaporation are we talking for only 3 acres of overhead watering verses 3 acres of subsurface watering?

I would be concerned about the long term effectiveness of subsurface. I would especially be concerned about calcification of the pipe over time. There are soils in the midwest that actually clog the slits in drain pipes. So the other issue here is how will the subsurface orifices react with the soil, not to mention the water that is being used for irrigation.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brad,
Purr wick is not the SDI I deal with.

And you couldn't be more wrong about all the other costs remaining the same. In fact, that is one of the largest advantages of SDI. Water window? What water window? Lower pressure and flow means less pump and smaller pipe.

Just remember this if you can peel away all the pre conceived notions about irrigation, its about getting water INTO THE ROOTZONE IN A UNIFORM MANNER. It is not about putting an even coat of water paint on the turf surface. Almost all golf course management technology comes from ag, and they have been using SDI in ag for years.

It is an entirely different ball game.

I'll leave it at that. I'm putting it into the ground and the proof will be in the pudding.

[Bradley Anderson]

Don,

Unless we're talking about a par 3 course here, 80% of your irrigated turf is fairway. If you are watering fairways with conventional overhead sprinklers, which I think is a fair assumption, then your pump and pipe sizing will be based off those requirements, regardless of what method is used at the greens and tees.

Now if you pull pipe to even one quick coupler at every green and tee, your feeder lines even there will be essentially the same as conventional irrigation. Say what you will about the preconceived notions of superintendents, but this one insists on a quick coupler at his greens so he can hand water.

The best water conservation requires individual control of every head in the fairways. So there again I think you will need a comparable control package.

Sorry but I don't see the savings in pipe, pumping and control from using subsurface.

In the Midwest, conventional overhead irrigation of greens and tees would involve replacing 50% of ET on 6 acres through the months of May - September. The math on that would be .10 (average inches ET loss/day) x .5 (% replacement) x 28,000 (gallons per acre inch) x 6 (acres) x 150 days = 1,260,000 gallons per year. It could be more than this depending on how much Poa annua you have or how open you are to wind.

How much of this water is actually wasted to evaporation? If even 25% is not being used by the plant, we are talking about 2,000 gallons a day that subsurface could save us. I suppose that might be substantial enough to warrant it's use and that would make it worth looking in to.

But to put this in perspective, your irrigation reservoir looses two or three times that much water per acre, every day, to evaporation. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brad,
Yes, if your idea is to irrigate 80-90% of your golf course in a conventional manner, then you are not going to change much.

And I'm not arguing that.

But I am telling you that if a course used SDI on a more wide spread approach, the savings in pump, pipe and other irrigation components are huge. Yes, it is doubtful we will see much SDI in the mid west where water is abundant and cheap. Right now, SDI costs significantly more to install then a high end irrigation system. Where a high end over head system with most of the modern bells and whistles might cost 2M to irrigate a 90 acre country club, SDI would cost ~2.7M - 3.5M. So in areas where you don't have to save water, it's use will be minimal, not only due to cost but also due to acceptance.

But in areas where water costs are $1000/acre foot and annual water bills run into the 400-700K range, or where water is very limited and in short supply, saving 50% of your water starts to look a whole lot more appealing.

All you have to do is look a little harder at the technology and spend some time researching and I think you'd start to see why it is worth considering. You talk about single head control (and every system i design has single head control), but optimum control is regulating water in the ROOTZONE, not on the surface. Start doing your water audits based on soil moisture and not catch cans, and you'll quickly learn the assumption of perfect uniformity on the surface = perfect uniformity in the soil is a complete myth. But what better way to achieve optimum soil moisture management then to deliver water directly to the area it is needed. Combine that with good sensor technology and you are managing irrigation at an entirely different level.

Irrigation reservoir? Why? You are no longer needing to push out hundreds of thousands of gallons in a short time frame as with SDI you can irrigate anytime you want, and because the flows are low and you are using half as much water, at much lower pressure, the traditional reservoir pump station model is replaced by a closed system with everything sized to work with your water source. Its a closed system and the water never sees the light of day.  Sound like fantasy? I believe you will see that exact system with in five years. It will not be in the mid west, but maybe in AZ, NM, CA, UT, AUS, or the middle east. Areas like that are already switching thousands of acres of vineyards, orchards, and other perennial crops over to SDI, and I'm not talking about old drip with an spaghetti tube sticking out of the ground next to the plant. I'm talking about closed systems with emitters built within buried tubing where there is zero evaporation, run off, or wind loss and all the nutrients are delivered with the SDI as well.  

Lots of people, like Dr Leinauer at NMSU are working on that goal, and it is being tested and used all around the world. I've received a PM regarding a researcher who is using SDI on greens in France and I will be reaching out to him. Why in France? Because in some parts of France you can not drill a well and you have to use rain water capture to have any water to irrigate your golf turf. You live with constraints like that and you find real ways to conserve water and still grow good golf turf.  

[Dan Herrmann]

This may be the most important thread at gca.com, for it represents the state of the future of the game.

Water rights in 2010 may be more important than oil rights today.

[Joe Hancock]

Water rights in 2010 may be more important than oil rights today.

Maybe I'm interpreting incorrectly, but my take from this is that the future of golf lies in the past.(I'll leave Peter Pallotta to take this to the next philosophical level!)

To Don's take on things: He doesn't fail at anything he endeavors to do. For instance, he and his wife started a family and now I think they have more kids than Wolf Point has potential tee areas...

To the original point about reducing water use: It matters what technology is used to deliver water to the turf, but what matters even more is what the golfer expects and what the superintendents know and believe is best(beyond self-preservation) when it comes to water use.

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

To Don's take on things: He doesn't fail at anything he endeavors to do. For instance, he and his wife started a family and now I think they have more kids than Wolf Point has potential tee areas...

hey gramps, we all have our talents...

[Thomas Dai]

Some very interesting points made here. I particularly like Dons quote that "its about getting water INTO THE ROOTZONE IN A UNIFORM MANNER. It is not about putting an even coat of water paint on the turf surface." - this seems to me a rather nice summary of the general intent of irrigation.

A question though, how far under the surface is SDI installed?

All the best

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

At one time, you and I were discussing the need(or not) and expense involved in getting a very high distribution rate percentage of irrigation. I think we even mentioned, for example, the little undulations that are common to links golf, the uneven coloration of links turf(green in the lows, less so on the highs, as rain collects and provides more water) and how that was not only acceptable, but a nice variation in playing conditions within the same course. It makes the golfer identify the condition of the lie of the ball, and play accordingly.

Is this drive for irrigation uniformity a change in your preferences, or is it a sustainability thing, or a recognition that golfers want uniformity and it can be provided? Or, is it all those things or none of those things?

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don,

At one time, you and I were discussing the need(or not) and expense involved in getting a very high distribution rate percentage of irrigation. I think we even mentioned, for example, the little undulations that are common to links golf, the uneven coloration of links turf(green in the lows, less so on the highs, as rain collects and provides more water) and how that was not only acceptable, but a nice variation in playing conditions within the same course. It makes the golfer identify the condition of the lie of the ball, and play accordingly.

Is this drive for irrigation uniformity a change in your preferences, or is it a sustainability thing, or a recognition that golfers want uniformity and it can be provided? Or, is it all those things or none of those things?

Joe

Joe, its not a drive for uniformity, its a drive for simple common sense.

We try and get uniformity with over head and I can tell you that the idea of close spacing and multi million dollar systems resulting in better uniformity in the root zone is not a fact. As we shift our water audits from catch can to soil moisture audits we learn that what is happening on the surface is not always mirrored in the soil. Soil moisture technology has leaped in recent years and I can tell you the results of soil moisture mapping an old system vs a newer high tech system is not giving the results those in the irrigation business where hoping for.

As for SDI and uniformity, that is just a by product of the simple premise that if we deliver water right to the rootzone then we use water much more efficiently. But, with SDI, if we want to grow acceptable golf turf, we need to deliver it in a uniform manner.

I know the "old school" guys will not accept SDI. Just as the 'old school" guys didn't accept computer controlled irrigation and before that didn't accept sprinklers.  We in golf tend to be very conservative. But what is more conservative then simply putting a tube in the ground that distributes water in an even area? No wind blown loss, no run off, no worry about slopes and topo, just put the water where it is needed and then keep an eye on it via visual observation and sensor technology.

It is really extremely basic.

[Joe Hancock]

 No wind blown loss, no run off, no worry about slopes and topo, just put the water where it is needed and then keep an eye on it via visual observation and sensor technology.

It is really extremely basic.

Sounds like no excuses either. I'm glad I'm not a super any more!

I like how you said that the uniformity is a by-product of the technology. That helps my mind get wrapped around this a little better.

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sounds like no excuses either. I'm glad I'm not a super any more!

Joe, no one is saying its a magic bullet. But go watch some sprinkles run on a breezy evening and tell me that looks to be the best and only way to get water into the ground. In an area where you have a lot of water and take its abundance for granted, it's no big deal. But in other parts of the world where water is in shorter supply and you might wonder if watching it blow away and vaporize is really the best practice.

I just think it is crazy not to look at better ways...knowing that most will never come around until its been proven and in use for a couple of decades shouldn't stop us from trying to find a better method.

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

Do you have enough research available to determine what the "typical" water savings, by percent, that SDI provides vs. overhead irrigation? If a golf course is told to use 50% less water, does SDI do that while keeping all things equal as far as turf quality(you know me...turf quality doesn't mean the normal)? And, how do soil types affect the SDI system?

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
There has been a ton of research done with SDI, mostly in ag, and the number most commonly used is 50% water savings.
Dr. Leinauer has done some side by side research and comes in at 50%+ savings.
There has been some European research where SDI is more prevalent that says the savings is more then 50%. 

Knowing you and the kind of grass you like to grow, I'd think you'd like SDI because poa wold have no chance vs the deeper rooted grasses. Plus no irrigation on the surface means less weeds and disease issues. It is right up your alley.

What I see is that it works best in loamy soils. Fine in clay soils as well. Big plus in loamy clay soils is the lines can be farther apart and deeper since the capillary action and water holding capacity is better. From a playability stand point, clay soils with SDI means a dry surface and deep rooted turf.
I don't see it working so well in high perc soils. Too much loss to gravity and too sophisticated with the use of trays and other devices to try and keep water from percolating. I'm not ready to suggest using it in greens, although  that seems to be where everyone wants to test it. I think on tees is a no brainer and that is where I'm going to use it in the coming year, although I have one potential client who is looking at more widespread use.

The academics use a complicated computer model called "hydrus" to measure soil properties, capillary action, and grass type and use to come up with line spacing and depth. 

Here is some sales lit that explains the instal process and a little more about how it works. It is very interesting and quite advanced, we just haven't seen much in USA golf yet. 

http://www.netafimusa.com/files/literature/wastewater/Vermeer-Netafim-Literature.pdf