Irrigating without water

Brian Vinchesi

The California drought has hit historic proportions and no end is in sight. The lack of water has forced the governor into issuing an executive order aimed at slashing water use by 25 percent. Although no one is immune to the mandatory reductions, irrigation and turf are hit hard. Eliminating turfgrass is the best solution for some, with hundreds of millions of dollars going toward that effort.

Golf courses will be hardhit in some areas and less so in others. The governor’s executive order isn’t specific about golf, but local authorities are required to reach a minimum reduction in water use. Most golf course regulation is going to be in the form of a “percent reduction.” For example, a course may be mandated to cut its annual water use by 35 percent. Although this will save water, it is very unfair. That opens up a discussion on how water use restrictions for golf courses should be implemented. There are different techniques, so let’s discuss a few.

One approach is to limit the amount of turf on a golf course. For example, a maximum of 90 acres for 18 holes. As we all know, turf loves water and green turf even more so. If you limit the amount of turf, you will at least theoretically use less water. Part of the California governor’s executive order is a proposed 50 million square foot reduction in turf followed by a $350 million turf buy-back program by the Metropolitan Water District, the water wholesaler for a large part of Southern California. It isn’t because gravel and isolated plants look better than lawn, it’s about reducing the landscape’s water requirements.

As discussed, another way to reduce water is to cut every user a percentage of their current use. This saves water and forces wasters to be better water managers, but it severely and unfairly punishes those who have always been efficient water users. If you’re a course already using as little water as possible, and then you’re cut 25 percent, it is disastrous. Most superintendents have been judicious with water, and they will be penalized with a required large-percent reduction.

A third way to regulate is through water budgeting. In this case, you are allowed so much water per acre per year. It is a set amount and how you use that water is up to you. For example, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (Las Vegas) allows golf courses on their supply to use 6.3 acre-feet per acre (75.6 inches annually) and Arizona is 4.7 acre feet per acre. An acre-foot is 325,848 gallons. If a course is already at its number or close to it, then it’s not much of a stretch. However, if a course is over the limit, it will have to get better at irrigating, lose some turf or change the turf type. Although some people hate this approach if for no other reason than it is regulation, it is a fair approach. It doesn’t penalize those already saving water and forces those that don’t to think about efficiency. The downside is there has to be a basis for the water budget. How many acres are being budgeted for is an essential number and a mechanism that is equitable needs to be developed to determine that water budget number.

In California, golf courses will be required to reduce water use not only if they are on a potable water supply, but it looks like also for those using groundwater sources, which was a surprise. Recycled water however, does not fall under the restrictions. The percent reduction varies from 8 to 36 percent depending on your water districts average per capita water consumption based on 2013 numbers. The State Water Resources Control Board has assigned to each of California’s 400 water districts specific water conservation goals. For example, Coachella Valley Water District is a 36 percent reduction while the City of Coachella is 24 percent. These restrictions must be put in place by this summer.

Although the restrictions are not permanent, they will most likely stay in effect until the end of the current four-year drought.

California has reminded us that there are ways of implementing water-use restrictions. Some are fair and equitable while others are more punitive. The best way to argue against restrictions is to measure your water use so you have a record of what you’re using. Estimations are just that and actual real-world metered results provide data that is hard to argue against.

Brian Vinchesi, the 2009 EPA WaterSense Irrigation Partner of the Year, is president of Irrigation Consulting Inc., a golf course irrigation design and consulting firm headquartered in Pepperell, Mass., that designs irrigation systems throughout the world. He can be reached at bvinchesi@irrigationconsulting.com or 978/433-8972.