Turf Reduction article on USGA website

[Ronald Montesano]

If you haven't seen it, have a read:

http://www.usga.org/news/2015/February/Turf-Removal-Saving-Courses-Water,-Money/

[Tom_Doak]

This is big all across California now.  Tons of courses are cashing in to convert acreage and get the rebates.

What's not clear to me is what they are replacing the turf WITH ... whether these converted areas are playable for golf or not.  I wonder if in some cases, unirrigated turf would be far better than conversion, but you don't get the rebate for just turning the water off.  And the conversion is permanent.  They won't let you convert it back to turf later, so you'd better be sure you don't overdo it.

[Brent Hutto]

So what's the reasoning behind subsidizing the removal of turf in order to use less irrigation water versus subsidizing the use of less irrigation water directly?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

We faced that at La Costa.  Where we had some paspalum in some out of play areas, or salt grass, we felt it was best to leave it, perhaps even with irrigation that would only be turned on once a month or so.

In the other areas, we used decomposed granite, a native mix, or bark mulch.  The least successful in my eyes was the native mix.  In other areas, I have used seeded Bermuda and/or Buffalo grass, which, un-watered or lightly watered, does provide the right look and playability, if not a California water credit.

And yes, there are a few native area mixes we over did it on, too close to fairways.

Brent,

How do you reduce watering if you don't reduce turf?  At what water costs in CA, if you think supers were wantonly over watering to keep it too green, I think you are way off base.....at least in general, as I obviously haven't been to every California course.  The ones I have seen have certainly watered the turf to the bare minimum possible over the drought years.  And basically, raising water prices is what they did to try to reduce water and wanted to do more......

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

I'm not saying there's any advantage one way or the other. Just asking why the thing desired (less water used) is not addressed directly by the subsidies. I can't think of any way in which subsidizing reduced turf and therefore causing less water to be used is a better outcome than simply subsidizing less water usage in the first place.

My concern would be that if you try to indirectly influence water usage by paying people to reduce turf acreage, that level of indirection simply introduces more room for people to game the system somehow. Which may indeed be the reason an indirect solution was chosen. Who knows.

P.S. It sort of reminds me of the USGA addressing the "problem" of the ball going too far by dictating different grooves on wedges.

[jeffwarne]

P.S. It sort of reminds me of the USGA addressing the "problem" of the ball going too far by dictating different grooves on wedges.

That damn 800 lb elephant in the room again
Well I let it go 6 posts before I chimed in.
Last I checked courses played with balls that went 10-15% farther they needed more turf,but maybe pine straw will do the trick when they go 10% farther again in 2025 (and the USGA reports the distance gains are statistically insignificant ....again)

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

That wasn't really the point I was going for but hey, you're welcome.

[Craig Sweet]

California could save a ton of water if they simply stopped all fracking operations.

[JESII]

California could save a ton of water if they simply stopped all fracking operations.

And almond farming...

[Daryl David]

California could save a ton of water if they simply stopped all fracking operations.

And almond farming...

Don't forget avocados.

[JESII]

I wonder what the typical club's energy bill has done in the last 15 years...

[Mark_Fine]

We recently completed a project in Northern California and one of the prime goals at the start was to eliminate 22 acres of "irrigated" turf.  The driver behind this objective was the high cost of water AND water restrictions.