|
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.
“This allows me to water less and keep things on the drier side without compromising plant health,” he says.
Jennings echoed Vinchesi’s comments when he said it really comes down to what a superintendent’s clientele desires.
“If you work at a club where the driving goal is to have turf green border to border, there’s not much you can do,” he says. “If there is a tolerance for having areas become dormant in summer and backing off irrigation, than that would be a driving factor. Watering less turf area is obviously good for the environment, but it comes down to what the person in charge is looking for as an end result.
“If someone came to me with a reduction plan, I would have to know why exactly they wanted to do it and would it achieve the goal my employers were looking for,” Jennings adds.”There are a lot of things we as superintendents can implement on a golf course, but if it affects play in an adverse way for the clientele, it doesn’t behoove you to do it.” GCI
Jason Stahl is a Cleveland-based freelance writer and frequent GCI contributor.
SIDEBAR: Improve irrigation system efficiency
Maximizing efficiency is a common business goal. Waste affects the bottom line in many ways. Irrigation system efficiency is particularly important for any golf course looking to improve its bottom line. Increasing efficiency will lower a course’s monthly water and electric bill while improving playability, condition and turf health. The following tips can help superintendents improve their sprinkler efficiency.
Keep a level head.
More specifically, ensure irrigation rotors are level. The rotors’ distribution uniformity (DU) is affected when the head is not level to grade. Keeping the head level will ensure the rotor is capable of delivering optimum uniformity. Superintendents can experience a 2-3 percent improvement in DU simply from leveling heads.
Watch the pressure.
Are your irrigation heads set to the proper pressure? Most manufacturers set a rotor’s case pressure before shipping. Variance in head pressure will change the rotor’s performance. The set-point won’t necessarily change over time, but if the course has a problem area, checking the head pressure may be prudent.
Lower your rate (of precipitation).
Keep your nozzle selections as close to head-tophead spacing as possible. Overthrowing opposing heads can increase precipitation rates and reduce control. A general rule of thumb is to have precipitation rates be 0.50 inches/hr – 0.60 inches/hr for square-spaced rotors and up to 0.65 inches/hr for equilateral- or triangular-spaced rotors. Obviously, these rates vary based on soil types. The point, though, is to eliminate run-off. An optimized precipitation rate will reduce waste. Overthrowing opposing heads will also decrease control.
Be more controlling.
Modern irrigation systems focus on individual head control. Increasing the control improves efficiency. Block systems are typically less efficient than valve-in-head systems. Operating a block system requires all the rotors on the zone to run for the same amount of time as the head with the lowest efficiency. This causes wasted water and longer runtimes. If a new irrigation system is in the budget, or needs to be phased in, consider the ease of system expansion when choosing the type of control that is best for you and the course.
Protect your turf.
The surest way to decrease water consumption is to reduce the amount of irrigated turf; however, this doesn’t necessarily mean reducing the size of the irrigation system. As many courses are converting irrigated turf back into native areas, they are finding that the size of the irrigation system is growing. More sprinklers are being installed to increase control and reduce waste. While it is a bit counter-intuitive, reducing the number of sprinklers on the course does not necessarily lead to lower water use. In one recent case, an older single-row system going to a double-row system would be able to reduce water consumption by 17 percent by doubling the head number. The cost of making that decision is easy to quantify. It’s more difficult to put a price on the benefits of a dryer course – a more consistent playing surface, firmer fairways, faster green and improved plant health.
Lloyd von Scheliha, CGIA, is the rotor product manager with Rain Bird’s golf division.
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?
Well, think of the irrigation systems from the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s – and I know that they exist because I see them all the time. They were primarily single- or double-row systems, large-radius sprinklers that throw water a long distance. Few of these systems included single-head coverage around the greens. Most of the heads ran together in pairs or zones.
So, we have large heads that are spaced far apart. And, they run together with little to no control for them to be run individually.
Is this efficient? The answer is no.
This was the reason and the engineering behind multiple-row irrigation systems. This was the reason for back-to-back heads at the greens – one head waters the green, the other waters the green surrounds. This was the reason for individual-head control – the ability to turn just one head on and water a specific area. This is the reason for smaller radius, more efficient heads.
There is no doubt in my mind that reducing the number of irrigation heads is going in the wrong direction and will do nothing but make the golf superintendent’s job more demanding. This practice is not sustainable. I asked the Rain Bird and Toro representatives in attendance and they agreed this is a step backwards in technology. Who is driving their car from the ‘60s or ‘70s unless you are a classic car aficionado?
I am confident that a well-engineered irrigation system saves water and money over an inefficient and antiquated irrigation system.
Take, for example, the concept of irrigating the fairways and roughs like the greens, with back-to-back heads. This layout allows you to irrigate just the fairways or just the roughs given these areas’ needs. A system designed in this manner would allow a golf course – especially facilities where water is scarce or rationed – to only water what was most important. Maybe there is only enough water for a given time to water just the greens, tees and fairways. This can be done with a system that uses multiple heads and the newest technology. What if there is an area within a fairway that has a different watering need than another area within the fairway? The use of individual head control would certainly solve this problem. Yes, hand-watering will never go away, but the technology exists to give superintendents more options. The point is that a well-designed irrigation system that uses multiple heads with individual control will allow for extremely efficient use of water.
As an industry, we will be taking a step – many steps – backwards if we move into the practice of reducing irrigation heads and not taking advantage of new technology and practices. There is no doubt that water will become scarcer and that it will be rationed in some regions. The process of defining what needs water and how much water is far more sustainable for the future of our water resources than turning on a bunch of heads and letting the water run.
Chris Wilczynski, ASGCA, is head of C.W. Golf Architecture in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Pinehurst’s project
Bob Farren recently cut Pinehurst’s irrigation heads from 1,100 to around 450 -- but it had nothing to do with saving water or costs. Rather, the move returns the venerable No. 2 to the original classic feel it had in the 1940s and ’50s.
“The way to accomplish that was to peel away years of changes and improvements on it,” says Farren, director of golf course and grounds management for Pinehurst Resort. “And the most consistent thing that had impacted it other than mowing technology, turfgrass variety, etc., was all the irrigation added as more turf was added. And when you start subtracting turf, you have to subtract irrigation.”
Farren and his team took about 35 acres away from the 80 to 90 acres No. 2 had, replacing those acres with wiregrass. Even though Farren can’t accurately say how much water that he saved, in part due to a 20-percent deficit in rainfall this year, he feels comfortable in predicting that they’ll use 30 to 40 percent less water by the end of the year.
“We had to do that to maintain these sandy roughs we have,” he says. “If they had continued to be irrigated, then the weeds and Bermuda would have recovered themselves.”
Still, Farren says they’ll probably spend as much as they’ve saved controlling the weeds and managing the roughs that they had been mowing. But there is less of a need for fertilizer and water now, which, from a sustainability standpoint, has been a nice side benefit.
Another change is that there is no more overseeding because the course no longer has the irrigation system to support it.
“Overseeding was really why the irrigation system grew to the extent it did,” says Farren. “We had perimeter heads along the treelines, part circle heads under the trees, etc.”
Now, the course literally has a single-row system down the centers of the fairways, which is going to produce scalloped edges – which is what they want.
“The closer you are to the center of the fairway, the better turf quality you have and the more predictable it is along the center of the fairway where you want to be playing,” Farren says.
But Farren re-emphasized that the “rediscovering” of the course, as architects Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore called it, was solely to restore the course to where it was 50 years ago – without cost savings or the environment in mind.
“I don’t think the minimizing of irrigation heads is so much of the trend going on as is people being intrigued or interested in more of a minimalistic and natural course,” Farren says. “If you look at the success of Chambers Bay, Erin Hills, Bandon Dunes, Whistling Straits – courses that have had major championships or lots of exposure over the last 10 years – they are those type of courses. That’s the reason we felt it was important to help shape our future by turning back to the past to take a look at it and see what made No. 2 the classic golf course it always had a reputation for being.”
|
