 |
|
Water works
Latest survey sets the record straight on golf courses’ water usage.
 |
Photo courtesy of Rain Bird |
GCSAA’s one-of-a-kind Golf Course Environmental Profile, a series of surveys examining the environmental impact
of the game’s playing fields across America, has entered a new era, and there’s
no turning back now.
The results of the project’s second survey, which covers water use and conservation, is being released this summer, highlighted here first, and later reported in full at
www.eifg.org/programs/baselinesurvey.asp. It has also been submitted to the Web site of the scientific journal Applied Turfgrass Science at www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/ats/.
The process, underwritten by GCSAA’s philanthropic organization, The Environmental Institute for Golf, and The Toro Foundation, began more than two years ago with its opening salvo, a survey on golf course land use and stewardship characteristics at the nation’s nearly 16,000 venues. Those results were reviewed in the December 2007 issue of GCM and on the organizations’ Web sites.
Now the data on water use are in, and a third survey on nutrient use was conducted a year ago. Those results will be released sometime this coming fall. Meanwhile, the project’s fourth phase, pesticide use, was completed in early May and a fifth survey, golf course energy use, is scheduled to be launched in 2009. The project is ongoing, and there will be subsequent surveys on a rolling basis to measure progress.
Water use in the U.S. has been estimated (U.S. Geologic Survey) at 408 billion gallons a day. The GCSAA survey estimates that U.S. golf courses use 2.08 billion gallons per day, or 0.5 percent of the country’s total water use per day.
The national survey on water use and conservation was conducted in the fall of 2006 and provides vital data in GCSAA’s efforts to establish a baseline on specific golf course management practices. Generally speaking, the results set a positive “we-told-you-so” tone for the industry, but also include some noteworthy room for improvement.
Clark Throssell, Ph.D., director of research for GCSAA and the chief architect of the project, notes that the water-use survey had good participation, a nearly 20 percent response rate, and thus produced valid results. And, as will be the case throughout this ground-breaking effort, there were no previous statistics to compare with, so the benchmark is being set.
“I guess that’s what really gets me excited — now we have some hard numbers that we can talk about,” Throssell says. “Up to this point, there was a lot of conjecture without basis and it made it tough to have much of an in-depth conversation. Now we can talk factually.”
Right off the top, the facts speak pretty well for the industry. The survey shows that golf course irrigation comprises just one half of 1 percent of the more than 400 billion gallons of water the nation consumes a day. Furthermore, golf course irrigation amounts to only 1.5 percent of the nearly 140 billion gallons of irrigated water used each day in the U.S.
“The survey’s message overall is positive, I think,” Throssell adds. “For the most part, superintendents are taking conservation steps ... being responsible users ... such as upgrading their irrigation systems to make their water use more efficient.”
Another GCSAA staffer instrumental in the project’s implementation, Greg Lyman, director of environmental programs, agrees that the water consumption of golf courses pales in comparison to such users as agriculture, industrial and domestic or residential entities. But, he adds, the reality is that water conservation in golf must improve even more to ensure the game’s future.
“When it comes down to it, it’s up to each community to decide what is a fit use for water,” Lyman says. “That’s where the percentage that golf uses is important — at the local level. I think where golf needs to be at the end of the day is to be known as an efficient user of water. If it is, it justifies a seat at the table to help decide how communities use their water.”
The Southwest agronomic region leads in annual water use per facility with 149.5 million gallons, followed by the Upper West/Mountain region with 97.9 million gallons. The Northeast region uses the least, 13.8 million gallons per facility. Interestingly, in total annual water use, the Southeast, with more than 3,200 facilities, consumes 260 billion gallons, while the North-Central, with 4,125 courses, uses 92 billion gallons.
 |
The second survey of GCSAA’s Golf Course Environmental Profile is in, and results are being released this summer. The survey estimates that U.S. golf courses account for just 0.5 percent of the country’s daily water use. Photo courtesy of The Toro Co. |
The survey divided the U.S. into seven agronomic regions — Northeast, North-Central, Transition, Southeast, Southwest, Upper West/Mountain and Pacific — and Lyman found it interesting that significant differences in water use, irrigated acres, costs, etc., surfaced across the regions.
“This study really documented the diversity of use in a way that we haven’t known before,” he says.
For instance, of the estimated 762 billion gallons in total annual water use on U.S. golf courses, the use per facility ranged from almost 250 million gallons a year in the Southwest and Upper West/Mountain regions combined — 2,300 courses — to only 29 million gallons in the Northeast and North-Central regions — 6,800-plus courses. Likewise, the annual cost of irrigation water in the western three regions is far above the rest of the country (topped by nearly $108,000 per course in the Southwest). Moreover, the proportion of courses that pay nothing for water is well over half of those in the four eastern regions.
The differences by region in the number of acres of irrigated turf on 18-hole facilities follows the pattern, but in far less dramatic fashion. Irrigated turf acreage, however, sticks out in the survey results as one of the issues that is a bit disconcerting to the golf course industry.
The Southwest region has the highest irrigation water costs at $107,800 per facility a year. The Pacific region is the next highest at $42,400 per facility. The lowest annual costs are in the North-Central region, $4,700. In recent years, irrigation water costs have increased at 27 percent of U.S. courses and have decreased at only 3 percent of the facilities.
One part of the survey reveals that over a 10-year period, only 20 percent of U.S. courses had reduced their irrigated acreage. Another part, charting a more recent trend, shows that a quarter of U.S. courses have increased their irrigated acreage, at an average of 13 acres per layout. While 75 percent of those who have reduced their irrigated acres cited water conservation as the main reason for cutting back, no solid reasons were given for those courses that have most recently increased irrigated acres.
It’s not hard for some to read between the lines, however.
“It’s frustrating that more people in the industry don’t strongly favor reducing irrigated acres, but golfer pressure is very influential,” says Jim Snow, national director of the USGA Green Section, regarding the difficulty in achieving maintained turf cutbacks. “It’s very relevant in the Northeast and North-Central regions where they’re really irrigating the rough, making everything green wall to wall, which can double the amount of water use because of the amount of acres of rough.”
In the past five years, 25 percent of U.S. golf courses have increased their irrigated acreage at an average of 13 acres per facility. In that same time, 10 percent have decreased their irrigated acreage at an average of 12.3 acres and 69 percent report keeping their turf drier as a means to conserve water.
Jim Barrett, a noted irrigation consultant for three decades, agrees that the old dilemma of outside forces guiding golf course management practices is at play.
“For the most part, the superintendent’s mindset is really the result of unrealistic expectations of players and owners that ignore the realities of the efficient use of water,” says Barrett, who has been a longtime proponent of reducing the “green” in golf. He also points to the irony of the gains in efficiency by today’s golf irrigation systems versus the gradual trend to irrigate more acres.
“The survey is a valuable tool; it gives us some numbers to use which we didn’t have before,” Barrett says. “But, regardless of the facts, golf courses still use a hell of a lot of water. I think it’s incumbent on the whole industry to take measures to reduce waste and be even more efficient by continuing product research and development, improving course design and developments being compatible with management.”
 |
Clockwise from top: Mar-Apr 9%; May-June 26%; July-Aug 41%; Sept-Oct 18%; Nov-Dec 4%; Jan-Feb 2%. Average 18-Hole Golf Facily Water Usage in the U.S. (% of total irrigation by month) |
The survey results have prompted Throssell and Lyman to see water-use efficiency as needing industry-wide attention. They add that the survey also underlines golf’s struggle to tap into a basically limitless resource: reclaimed water.
The water study’s best measure of efficiency is the examination of irrigation system audits in the country. The survey found that more than 90 percent of golf facilities have never had a certified audit. Moreover, just 37 percent have made partial upgrades to their irrigation systems in the last decade and only 22 percent have had a complete system upgrade.
Meanwhile, the survey shows that 88 percent of U.S. courses do not use effluent for irrigation, most of them citing no available source and/or no delivery infrastructure.
Over the past several years, 16 percent of U.S. courses have been subject to mandatory water restrictions that are more stringent than normal allocations. The Northeast region has the most courses under mandatory restrictions, 33 percent, with the Upper West/Mountain region reporting 31 percent. In the North-Central and Pacific, only 3 percent are under mandatory restrictions.
At least one water expert sees the two issues being intertwined. Dale DeVitt, Ph.D., professor of soil and water science at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and director of the university’s Center for Urban Horticulture and Water Conservation, has a number of research projects concerning golf course water use and resources to his credit, particularly in the areas of efficiency and recycled water.
“Although golf courses maintain very high irrigation uniformity compared to other users, as we move more toward using poorer-quality water, the uniformity will have to be even higher,” DeVitt says. “It’s a real challenge for superintendents. They’re going to have to change their mindset and realize that although it’s going to cost money and time to constantly monitor and upgrade their irrigation systems, it will pay dividends in terms of how they use poor-quality water.”
Noting that golf in Las Vegas alone has risen to a billion-dollar industry as the city’s 53 courses reap the benefits of 40 million visitors annually, DeVitt says the Southwest region has come to add effluent to its resource portfolio and expects that many parts of the rest of the country will have no choice but to follow before too long.
GCSAA’s water study interests DeVitt because in 2004 he co-conducted a survey of golf courses in Nevada, Arizona and Southern California to assess superintendents’ attitudes and perceptions toward using recycled water for irrigation.
“The bottom line was that superintendents didn’t oppose a transition to re-use water,” he says. “However, they did recognize some side effects — hidden costs, pond management problems, irrigation system maintenance needs and turf problems due to excess salinity.”
Eighty-five percent of U.S. courses do not have a written drought management plan. Of the 15 percent that do, two-thirds of them indicate the plan was required by local or state government.
Besides his research on efficiency/effluent, DeVitt also has been studying the use of remote sensor technology as a drought management option.
“The idea is to move golf courses toward what’s called precision agriculture — you only use water and other inputs where they’re needed,” he says.
The major hangup on effluent as a golf course resource for much of the U.S. is, of course, a lack of availability for something so abundant. The hope is the GCSAA survey will send a message to policy-makers and developers.
“It really shows the need for the golf industry to work together to tie that resource into future developments early in the process,” Throssell says.
The water-use survey is much more extensive than reported here, full of valuable information and interesting facts. As mentioned earlier, the full report will soon be available on the EIFG Web site once it’s been accepted by Applied Turfgrass Science.
Of the 8 percent of U.S. courses that have had an irrigation system audit, the majority were private facilities or courses with a maintenance budget of $1 million or more.
Snow, who is also a member of The Institute’s Board of Trustees, points out that the survey is steeped in timeliness as well — its release coming as interest in soil monitoring technology is high.
“These things are coming along together where we can get some benefit out of them,” he says. “As technology improves, superintendents can really cut back on water without getting in trouble. I think the value of this study is terrific; we need it.”
GCSAA effort praised
GCSAA’s commitment to go on public record with superintendents’ golf course management practices has not been lost among more than a few interested parties.
Speaking for the golf industry itself is an established expert in facility research, Joe Beditz, president and CEO of the National Golf Foundation, which is conducting the Golf Course Environmental Profile surveys. He says the beauty of the GCSAA project is that it’s uncluttered by precedent and thus the results don’t point to a right way or a wrong way — it is what it is.
“The study is very farsighted by GCSAA and the major sponsors, The Environmental Institute for Golf and The Toro Foundation. It’s a research effort to establish baseline data on essentially resource consumption, application and management and it’s never been done before,” Beditz says. “It’s about how things will evolve in the future and will show that (superintendents) are good stewards and that, in fact, they are interested enough and caring enough to measure themselves. This level of accountability isn’t as evident in other industries.”
The project is likewise lauded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Tom Brennan, who has had a long-running interest in golf course turf-care inputs as chief of the organization’s Environmental Stewardship Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.
“It’s an impressive effort that GCSAA is taking the time to really get baseline data across all the elements of golf course management that make up sustainability,” Brennan says.
The EPA official points out that GCSAA has been a partner in the agency’s Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program since 1995. The program’s intent is to reduce pesticide risk, and joining organizations pledge that environmental stewardship is an integral part of pest management. They commit to working toward innovative practices that reduce risk to human health and the environment.
Brennan is anxiously awaiting the results of the GCSAA project’s pesticide-use survey, which was completed last month. Such solid information, he says, could go a long way toward better baseline scenarios for pesticide risk assessments.
“GCSAA has been a leader in expanding the conversation beyond the element of sustainability and wrapping in information about the practices of superintendents,” he says. “What bigger commitment than to step up and put yourself out there and collect the best data you can about your baseline just to get that conversation started?”
Greg Lyman, GCSAA’s director of environmental programs, notes that the value and scope of the study intensifies as the ongoing surveys and future follow-up evaluations progress and the ultimate objective comes into sharper focus.
“The numbers are getting increasingly more important and useful,” he says. “They will allow a more reliable understanding of how the golf course industry uses inputs and they will give us a clear indication of how we can set goals and targets for the industry. Then we can put resources behind that ... education, communications, technology transfer, more research ... in a much more thoughtful and reliable manner.”
— T.O.
RECENT issues
 |
 |
May |
April |