One more beef I have with Pinehurst-
The USGA is trying to showcase it as a model for a lower resource/lower cost approach to design and maintenance. Great, I applaud that- but the flip side needs to be Pinehurst passing some of that lower cost onto the players to make the game more accessible...so far I don't believe they've done that. They're still trying to charge several hundred dollars to play a course that has seen its water usage cut by 70% and requires relatively few resources apart from the greens. Now the club is privately owned and they can set their rates at whatever they want, but that said, the USGA has to look at both sides of the cost equation if their going to praise them.
Few are going to go to Pinehurst, and few will choose "not" to play #2 because it costs $50 less or more.
If it sets the example for the course near you, then great.
Plus, the waste areas require a good amount of maintenance. I just read an article that said the manpower and time is still the same, it's just doing different things. Water was cut 40%.