Is or should there be artificial turf golf courses? (re: California drought)

[rkim291968]

While this is not an 18 hole golf course, Dave Pelz has found that synthetic grass has definite benefits....

The house where the short-game guru Dave Pelz lives, in the foothills west of Austin, Tex., has practice grounds designed to fit its owner’s fantasies. Just outside his back door, Pelz can take dead aim at faithful reproductions of his favorite targets: the 12th green at Augusta, fronted by a creek and an alabaster bunker; the 17th at Sawgrass, ringed by water; and the 14th at Pebble Beach, with its tiny tabletop green. The elaborate landscape, also features tributes to the 17th at Pebble, the 13th at Augusta and the Road Hole at St. Andrews, along with enough practice greens, skewed at different angles, to keep Ben Crenshaw endlessly entertained. The short-game facility extends across two-acres of SYNLawn synthetic turf that never requires watering or mowing, and that features a special patent-pending underlayment that allows his putting surfaces to receive shots like real bent- and Bermuda grass greens.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/golf-short-game-guru-dave-pelz-still-changing-game-golf

Now, that's what I am talking about!   This is the first thing I am gonna do if I ever win a Lotto.

[nick1998bunker]

Problem is it doesn't regenerate like grass, the mats at a course around mine don't last but a few months. Even that dirt course I can see being a problem if you don't want to use a Matt because there would be year old divots all around you. It's wayy more expensive and until it's economically feasible it won't happen...but who knows how long until that's the case 100 50 20 years?

[onkey]

It's been tried and there is at least one golf course in existence in Australia, but I believe that only the tee boxes and greens are synthetic turf.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/07/28/4055071.htm

There are some factors to consider with a completely synthetic course.  It will wear unevenly (where the majority of shots are taken) and replacing worn areas will not be easy.  The synthetic turf would be considered to be hazardous waste when it is removed/discarded--that would be a nightmare when you have to change out large portions. And as previously mentioned, the heat generated would be unbearable.

[HanNL]

I disagree, I see lots of players sweep the ball with all of their clubs and almost never take divots.

I hate practicing on mats.  Hurts the arms and shoulders if on it too long.

Even sweepers hit the ball with their downswing (albeit on the last part of it). Tbh it was just semantics: everything that follows from the backswing is the downswing (until it becomes the up swing/ follow through). If someone doesn't hit the ball on the downswing (apart from the obvious driver swings), they are most likely not hitting the ball solidly.

But as stated by various people (including me): golf mats are not the best kind of artificial grass available for an entire course. Hence, what happens on the mat is not really relevant for on-course experience of artificial grass. Artificial grass gives, you can do bicycle kicks on it without being hurt (as someone said).

Someone mentioned that his driving range mats don't last for longer than a few months. On a golf course this could probably be extended to a few years probably since you wouldn't be playing from exactly the same spot in exactly the same direction time after time.

[WUTiger]

Back in the 1970s, some golf courses experimented with Astroturf greens.

An article on modern artificial turf for golf courses explains the early problems:

Quote:

"That (early) turf was basically a carpet laid over a pad laid over cement."

http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/editorials/synthetic-turf-573.htm

In that early try for synthetic greens, trial-and-error basically delivered the following "rules." The greens needed roughly a 20ª front-to-back upslope give the player a chance to hold the green with a high spinning shot. Also, shallow greens created problems. The underlying cement base gave new meaning to the idea of firm greens .

Even with modern-day artificial turf improvements, I wonder what the July temperature would be on fairway carpets in California and Arizona? On football fields, a natural-gras surface temperature of 93ªF could be 180ªF on artificial turf in comparable conditions. Now, when you get up to head-level above the ground, the synthetic temp is much lower, but much of the heat stress is heat transfer from surface to soles of the feet.

For details, see:

http://www.turfgrasssod.org/pages/resources/serious-questions-about-newgeneration-artificial-turf-that-require-answers

http://usafootball.com/artificial-surface-turf/field-synthetic-turf-and-human-health-%E2%80%93-what-does-research-say

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patch

I don't think artificial turf would hold up well while being baked in the desert sun 9-10 months out of the year. Some places out here get up to 14 hours of sun, per day, during the summer months. Along with burning up, there would probably be a stretching, wrinkling problem too. ...

Patch , I was also concerned about this. But, the Travelgolf article says the new turf is extremely durable.

___________________

From an overall social standpoint , I doubt that artificial golf turf would do much to dent the long-term water problems in California. The state is just too popular for its own good, and doesn't have the water it needs for its 37 million people.

[No Mulligans]

Grass has a cooling effect on a hot day while artificial turf heats things up.  Also, it's extremely expensive.

If you look at a course like Torrey Pines with all that grass between holes, they could get rid of maybe 50% of the grass and replace it with natural waste areas (like some desert courses).  That would be a good first step in reducing water usage on a lot of California courses.

[newtogolf]

If there's a drought, Nestle should stop bottling water in CA and selling it back to you at steep profits.  You could make them recall all the water they've shipped across the world and pour it back into the reservoir.

I did a little research on the drought in CA and it seems the almond farmers and other agriculture use 80% of the water so I'm not sure what ruining all your golf courses in CA will really save you.

[Hammer 4]

Yes, we have a serious drought problem. The gubnor, is trying to pass a law where home owners, can only water once a week. As it is now, we are limited to 3 days per week, but only on certain days, depending on your address. And there is an incentive to tear up your lawn and replace it with drought resistant stuff. Also we are not allowed to rinse down driveways, or any hard scape. You need to have a nossel on your hose, washing your car, or watering your lawn, ect.

I've noticed that courses run by L.A. city, water at night, so they use smaller amounts of water, and some of the water is reclaimed. Private courses around my area, have stipulated some areas of the course that don't need to be watered, and have let the grass pretty much die, theres areas are usually on hill sides, or areas where balls normally don't land.

Needless to say, farmers are very worried, in the past they have lost crops, and we pay for it.

As to artificial turf on a course, as others have said, way to expensive, to install, and maintain.

IMHO...there's too many people, and way to much water is consumed by them. Cali in particular is way over crowded. I won't get into that, because of politics

[TD22057]

IMHO...there's too many people, and way to much water is consumed by them. Cali in particular is way over crowded. I won't get into that, because of politics

I think that the real issue is that the CA farming areas that aren't really "farm friendly".  80% of CA's water goes to irrigation for agriculture. So even if every person cut their water usage by 50%, that's only a 10% reduction in total usage which isn't anywhere close to enough to help with the drought.  Until the CA legislature gets serious about taking on the farmers and reworking the water rights craziness we have, nothing is going to happen.  And yes, I know that means we'll pay more for food - and I think that's OK because that's the actual cost to produce the food.  We've been subsidizing the cost of food via cheap water for too long.

[dave s]

I think the idea is worth time doing a financial analysis to see if it's cost-effective over time to create a course with an artificial turf component.

If you consider a tract of land that really isn't good for anything else (I'm thinking moderate desert-type land) giving this idea a go might make sense.

Tee boxes could be constructed platforms, fairways could be generous-sized landing areas surrounded by completely unimproved waste areas on all sides.  Expanded green areas, (approaches, rough areas and actual putting surfaces) could be what we're accustomed to seeing on all golf courses.

Someone figure this out. I think it might be a good idea.

dave

[Hammer 4]

I think that the real issue is that the CA farming areas that aren't really "farm friendly".  80% of CA's water goes to irrigation for agriculture. So even if every person cut their water usage by 50%, that's only a 10% reduction in total usage which isn't anywhere close to enough to help with the drought.  Until the CA legislature gets serious about taking on the farmers and reworking the water rights craziness we have, nothing is going to happen.  And yes, I know that means we'll pay more for food - and I think that's OK because that's the actual cost to produce the food.  We've been subsidizing the cost of food via cheap water for too long.

Good point. Seems like the CA. government is trying to put the over use of water blame on the average Joe, i.e. lawns that get watered to much, swimming pools, ect. At least that's what I get from reading all the, We need to cut back on water articles.

[Lihu]

Good point. Seems like the CA. government is trying to put the over use of water blame on the average Joe, i.e. lawns that get watered to much, swimming pools, ect. At least that's what I get from reading all the, We need to cut back on water articles.

In the same breath, they also refuse to build large scale desalination citing environmental impact. .. .

[No Mulligans]

Today I asked the starter at Balboa Park Golf course, how is the water restrictions going to affect the course?

He said that they were going to cap the sprinklers that were farthest from the fairways and greens and move from there towards the fairways and greens until they meet the 25% reduction that has been mandated by the Governor.  The effect on the play of the course will be minimal.

I imagine Torrey, which is also owned by the City of San Diego, will do the same.  Torrey has so much extra grass that I don't think this will affect the play at Torrey at all.

Also interesting.... I heard on the public radio station an interview with the Governor about the water restriction.  The interviewer pointed out and the Governor agreed that:

- No new restrictions have been placed on agriculture

- Agriculture uses 80% of the water in California.

- Agriculture accounts for only 2% of the economy in California

- Almond trees use lots of water, about 1 gallon per almond

[Moppy]

" And yes, I know that means we'll pay more for food - and I think that's OK because that's the actual cost to produce the food.  We've been subsidizing the cost of food via cheap water for too long. "

Sure, golf is more important than farming.... Now back on Planet Earth.

[Lihu]

"[COLOR=181818]And yes, I know that means we'll pay more for food - and I think that's OK because that's the actual cost to produce the food.  We've been subsidizing the cost of food via cheap water for too long.[/COLOR]" Sure, golf is more important than farming.... Now back on Planet Earth.

The main thing I'm frustrated with is the fact that politicians are bickering about allocation and fault while the should be building large scale desalinization immediately. . .

[ghalfaire]

I start by admitting I did not real all the pervious posts.  But I don't personally like the idea of artificial turf.  While it would save on water it does require cleaning and will make us duffers all better on the"fat" shots.  But I would be more in favor of genetically modified grass that is a low water use plant.

[Moppy]

The main thing I'm frustrated with is the fact that politicians are bickering about allocation and fault while the should be building large scale desalinization immediately. . .

No argument here. They should have done it a long time ago.

I start by admitting I did not real all the pervious posts.  But I don't personally like the idea of artificial turf.  While it would save on water it does require cleaning and will make us duffers all better on the"fat" shots.  But I would be more in favor of genetically modified grass that is a low water use plant.

Yeah, that will fly in California. ;)  I agree with you though that there are other kinds of grass which may not be as nice as what is currently used, like Bahia, but that is drought resistant.  Sure it doesn't look as nice, and after extended dry periods it gets a little sparse, but it would have to be better than artificial turf, and if you could water it some, it would hold up.  Of course without the watering, the divots aren't going to grown in so fast.

[rkim291968]

Even before thinking about desalination plants, they should have built more reservoirs (cheaper, nearer to where water is needed), implemented more water reclaiming/reuse policy, worked with farmers to plant less water hogging crops than almonds, etc...  But politicians are short sighted and I don't see any ground breaking changes.   So ... back to OT, I agree that we should change or build courses with water shortage in mind.   It does not seem plausible to build all artificial turf courses.