Less turf, more water: Courses strip turf to conserve water

As California mandates a 25-percent water use restriction, golf courses are stripping turf to conserve every drop of water they can.

Rumblings about the California drought have by now spread to every corner of the country. Still, it was a surprise when in late April, standing in a fallowed field typically covered in 5 feet of snow, Gov. Jerry Brown announced an unprecedented set of mandatory drought restrictions.

His directive was clear: Reduce water use across the board by 25 percent. No more voluntary cutbacks.

“The idea of your nice little green grass and lots of water everyday… that’s going to be a thing of the past,” Brown said at the news conference. “It’s a different world. We have to act differently.”

The state’s recent crackdown on water use has served as a wake-up call for the golf course industry. Many superintendents are certain California’s new restrictions will create a new norm, prompting golf clubs across the country to follow California’s lead in an effort to save water — and money.

Going off the grid

While most superintendents have long had water conservation programs in the works, the added attention has driven some of them to take more drastic measures. Some courses have installed smart irrigation systems to monitor use, created water reclamation areas or resorted to strict water contingency plans, deciding which areas to water — perpetuating the turf care industry’s new mantra: “Brown is the new green.”

All these combined strategies equate to one of the most significant and widespread renovation seasons to date. In California and other drought-stricken areas, superintendents have the additional pressure of weighing water conservation efforts against current climate conditions.

For Bernardo Heights Golf Club in San Diego, maintaining a championship-caliber golf course in drought conditions is nothing new.

“When you talk about a drought in San Diego, well, we are technically a desert,” says Bernardo Heights Superintendent and California GCSA President Jim Alwine. “I think there are always ‘drought conditions’ down here. There is always a need to save water.”

Along with other state golf courses following Brown’s orders, Bernardo Heights is currently undergoing a massive renovation project to do just that.

The private 18-hole, par 72 course, designed by Ted Robinson, is changing its aesthetic in an attempt to get off the potable grid entirely. Though water conservation has been a top priority since Alwine first signed on as Bernardo Heights’ director of grounds three years ago, the new restrictions have shifted his efforts into high gear.

In addition to converting the course from ryegrass to bermudagrass and embarking on an $800,000 upgrade to its irrigation system, Alwine is overseeing the removal of more than 60 acres of golf turf. It’s a huge project, but one Alwine believes is worth it.

Following Gov. Brown’s announcement, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC), along with the state’s other water agencies, upped the ante on its turf rebate program, enticing homeowners, businesses and golf courses to spring into action. Funded through MWDSC water sales, the agencies agreed to pay roughly $2 to $3 per square foot of turf removed.

It was less of a question about whether Bernardo Heights was going to participate in the program, but more about when. The club broke ground on the project in May.
“Knowing we had the rebate lessened the challenge,” Alwine explains, comparing the remuneration to a dangling carrot. “When you can get it paid for like this, (golf clubs) will jump on it.”

The turf rebate programs “sort of drove the bus forward,” says Mike Huck, an independent water management consultant. “I think it gave (superintendents) the political cover to do the things that they were already planning on doing.”

Huck says that with the average golf course hovering somewhere between about 120 to 150 acres, removing ancillary turf areas could annually save courses as much as 80 percent to 95 percent in water savings, or about 12 million gallons of water.

Numbers like that are music to Alwine’s ears. Just a few years ago, Bernardo Heights was balancing a water budget that bulged to more than $500,000. The expected savings from its turf reduction project frees up the course’s money for better use elsewhere, he says.

Consider the following

With such a large scale project and a crew of just 15 people, Bernardo Heights opted to hire a landscaping firm to handle the labor. However, many golf courses doing smaller turf reduction projects are handling the work in-house, either renting the turf removal equipment from a local dealer or investing projected savings in a new fleet of their own.

“Renting can get pretty expensive, both in time and money, so many courses are making the investment,” says Steve Relaz, product manager for Ryan’s line of turf renovation equipment. “Having equipment like sod cutters on hand is more convenient for the golf course employees, and the work gets done faster.”

Why? Relaz says the decision to remove turf is just one step in the renovation process. Superintendents also must consider irrigation system placement and how a turf reduction project will affect course play and design. And of course, there’s maintenance.

“Whether it’s edging, leveling the ground near cart paths for safety reasons or fixing damaged turf areas, turf renovation never really stops,” Relaz says. “There’s always work to be done.”

That’s something to which Jesse Seguin, director of agronomy at Brookside Golf & Country Club in Pasadena, Calif., can relate. The club is about halfway through removing 21 acres of turf. He says that unlike other courses, Brookside opted to remove turf areas that weren’t necessarily out of play, which increased their detail work.

“It’s kind of an evolving project; we’ve had to tweak areas, modifying a few areas… I have three guys that work 25 hours a week just maintaining our turf reduction areas: edging, raking, spraying, removing leaves, etc.,” Seguin explains. “You don’t just remove the turf and everything is hunky-dory. But it has freed us to not to have to irrigate that 21 acres of turf and has maximized our water use.”

As Brown moves to reel in water use — the governor has threatened to enforce the mandates with hefty fines and increased utility rates — Huck says other courses may want to follow suit. Water rates more than doubled in California between 2003 and 2014, and he believes Brown will make good on his promise to push up rates.

For now, every single effort to save water counts. In addition to switching from overhead to drip irrigation systems, for instance, Huck encourages superintendents to undertake other projects, such as switching out cool-season grasses for drought-resistant, warm-season varieties; incorporating native grasses or desert landscaping; and increasing the frequency of deep-core aeration.

“It is more difficult to aerate in drier conditions when the soil is hard, but the benefits of aeration remain,” Relaz says. “Frequent aeration helps reduce the amount of thatch so that when it rains, more water is absorbed into the soil rather than being blocked and running off the thatch.”
Yet so far, turf reduction remains the quickest route to water savings.

Benefits beyond the benefits

In addition to making a positive impact on a course’s surrounding environment, Huck says superintendents’ water conservation initiatives are likely to provide a financial benefit. In a way, Huck adds, it makes even more sense for superintendents to remove golf turf, even without receiving the rebate.

But it already may be too late for some. In July, the MWDSC announced it was closing the turf rebate program after exhausting more than $350 million in funds. About 15 pre-approved golf courses currently have projects in progress, says Sherita Coffelt, a spokeswoman for the MWDSC.

“Outdoor water use accounts for approximately 50 percent of total water use,” Coffelt adds. “We have been doing toilet, washing machine and showerhead programs for more than a decade, so outdoor is the next area to focus on.”

Though discussions surrounding a potential rebate extension remain on the table, Huck expects the turf reduction momentum to slow. However, golf courses shouldn’t be deterred from embarking on a turf removal project, he says.

“Depending on what your source of water comes from, there’s still an economic payback,” says Huck. “I think there will be enough incentive over the next few years for it to continue. There may be courses that remove a portion of their turf each year. I really think this is a trend, and we will see it continue.”

Seguin says golf courses may not have a choice.

“All of us have to reduce our water output, regardless of if there’s a rebate or not,” he says. “Being proactive and responsible turf mangers and managing this precious resource… it’s the right thing to do for the environment. It just has to be done.”

As Alwine walks the Bernardo Heights course, he says more than 50 contractors are hard at work driving equipment to remove and renovate the last few acres of extra turf. Dark mulch, decomposed granite and more than 500 desert plants have taken its place. Though the club experienced some initial pushback over the changes from its membership, Alwine says they will continue to move forward with the renovation plan, including allowing the new bermudagrass to go brown during winter.

Most members who’ve returned to the course to take advantage of the nine holes that are open during the week have been impressed, Alwine says.

“It’s a little more beautifully landscaped,” he adds. “The course itself hasn’t changed — it’s really just the edges. It’s different, but as far as playing it, it doesn’t play all that differently. It shouldn’t be about how green it is, or the aesthetic — it should be about playing quality.”

Stephanie S. Beecher is a Milwaukee-based writer and journalist covering the world of business. This is her first article for Golfdom.