Head count

Some argue the axiom “more is better” is not always true, at least when it comes to golf course irrigation heads.

To combat escalating water costs, some golf courses are reducing irrigation heads. While consultant Brian Vinchesi, Irrigation Consulting Inc., Pepperell, Mass., does not completely dismiss this strategy, he also believes it is not a good idea.

“This is because the more sprinklers you have, the more control you have,” Vinchesi says.

Vinchesi illustrates his point by questioning whether a few large irrigation heads – using a lot of pressure and energy to throw water a good distance – could water 100 acres of turf. However, a third more smaller heads that use less water, throw it a shorter distance and run at less pressure and energy, gives a super much more control of their water.

“The reason there are so many heads on a golf course today is for controlling the water,” Vinchesi says. “It allows you to put it where you need it to be and not put it where it shouldn’t be. The saying we always use, which is counter-intuitive, is ‘The more sprinklers, the more control.’ And to be honest, the more sprinklers, the less water you’ll use.”

Vinchesi uses another example. In “the old days,” it was common practice to place four or five full-circle sprinklers around a green. Those sprinklers were responsible for watering the approach, the green, the surrounds and the bunker faces around the green. The problem is those areas require different amounts of watering. So, a superintendent would set the watering for the thing that uses the most water, which was probably the bunker face, but certainly not the green. So he probably over-watered the green and the approach but he may have hit the surround okay. If he set the watering for the surround, he probably under-watered the bunker face.

Today, a golf course wouldn’t have this problem because it will have four to five heads for the green, two heads for the approach, four, five or more sprinklers for the surround and separate small sprinklers to water the bunker face. This way, you’re precise with your water ring and give each feature only the amount of water it needs.

“With a lot of the newer systems today, one of the reasons you see a lot more sprinklers is because you’re putting two sprinklers on the fairway edge, one for the fairway and one for the rough,” says Vinchesi. “That way, you don’t have to water the rough and the fairway at the same. That saves a lot of water because you’re now watering for the fairway versus the rough, whereas if you had one sprinkler that waters both, you’re watering for the rough which takes more water.”

Superintendents who believe they’ll use less water if they use fewer sprinklers are fooling themselves, Vinchesi says.

“You’re going to use less water if you use fewer sprinklers and cover less turf, but usually you’re not seeing that. They want to cover the same amount of turf, they just want to do it with fewer sprinklers – which means using more big sprinklers,” says Vinchesi. “You’re going to be more environmentally-friendly if you use more sprinklers because you’re going to use less energy and less water and be more precise. When you have big sprinklers, you have no choice but to turn them on and water everything because if you have to water one thing in the area they cover, you have to turn them out.”

Vinchesi cites a recent success story in which he helped design Country Club of Fairfield’s (Conn.) system. A “Top 100” links-style course, they doubled the amount of their sprinklers but used less water.

“They’re extremely precise and throw no water on the fescue,” he says. “We have so much control of the water now, whereas with the old system, water was being thrown where it wasn’t supposed to go.”

But Vinchesi cautions against following the cookie-cutter approach to irrigation systems. Every course is unique and different and thus may have different needs when it comes to watering.

“A low-end muni course might just use a straight double row, but a high-end private course might use five rows,” he says. “Courses can have anywhere from 500 to 5,000 heads. It’s just a matter of what you’re trying to do.”

Today’s technology and equipment have facilitated better irrigation strategies. New sprinklers are much better at putting down water. So, just transitioning to newer technology can create better watering and save more water. And cheap isn’t a good way to go.

“The cheaper the system, the more water it will use because you just can’t put certain things on it,” says Vinchesi.   

He sees two options for superintendents looking to improve their current irrigation system: keep the old control system and put on new sprinklers, or take old sprinklers and put them on a new control system.

“But you’ll be much better off with newer sprinklers,” he says.

In today’s tough economic climate, most superintendents are electing to improve their irrigation systems to use less water without replacing them because they don’t have the money for new systems. This is a departure from five years ago when they were more inclined to replace them. Some are also electing to install soil moisture sensors, which the superintendents love, Vinchesi says.

Vinchesi does see one scenario where it might be prudent to reduce the number of irrigation heads: if a course reduces its irrigated acreage by, say, putting in a lot of natural areas. In that case, if you have less area to water, it makes sense that you can reduce your heads.

John Jennings, CGCS, Chicago Golf Club, has seen firsthand the perils of watering with too few heads. Vinchesi described his system as a straight double row with as few sprinklers as possible that “throw water everywhere [Jennings] doesn’t want it to throw.”

Jennings says he makes do with what he has: a system that dates back to 1991 that has 530 heads, with anywhere from four to six on greens, one to two on tees and a double row system on the fairways. The system was installed very inexpensively, designed for cost rather than need. The head spacing is beyond the maximum range, so he has problems with wind and achieving triangle areas in between the heads. In addition, the main irrigation pipes are small for the amount of water flow he has.

“More heads would definitely give us greater control to water surfaces more uniformly with more heads on smaller spacings,” Jennings says.

Jennings also admits he’s pretty lucky. His members care more about playing conditions than having emerald green turf. Also, he has really good soil with good roots so he can push areas by not putting water on them and not lose any turf. Finally, he doesn’t have a lot of trees, so consequently he doesn’t have competition from tree roots and doesn’t have to deal with excessive shade on his fairways, which are 90 to 95 percent bentgrass.

Valid reasons

I recently attended the American Society of Golf Course Architects’ annual membership meeting in Denver, Colo. In attendance were 90 ASGCA members and several leading golf industry authorities. Representatives from both Rain Bird and Toro attended the meeting and provided insight into their newest products. Both companies continue to develop products that focus on assessing the watering needs of the turfgrass and improve golf course irrigation practices. Both Toro and Rain Bird have state-of-the-art products.

With this in mind, I began to wonder: How does the idea of removing irrigation heads impact water usage and the cost to operate an irrigation system?

The philosophy seems reasonable – fewer irrigation heads equal less water usage, right?