Kansas Crimson

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:23 pm

Well said, CoyDC

Putting the onus on and using the people to solve the problems is socialist

Subsidies for unsustainable practices is socialist.

Putting the problem in the hands of those creating them is not socialist.

Proposing that we not pay people to irrigate the desert but not grow crops is not socialist.

Socialism isnt the people empowering platform you believe it is

In fact, its quite the opposite.

https://www.usga.org/course-care/water- ... ourse.html

Golf courses use a variety of water sources for turfgrass irrigation including groundwater, surface water (lakes, rivers and reservoirs), recycled water, and municipal potable water supplies. The source of the water that a golf course uses is largely dependent on the location of the course in relation to local and regional water supplies. Often, courses will use multiple sources of water...

unfortunately, their hyper-links are broken, so you can’t access the actual studies/data

i’d also like to see a 3rd party assessment, rather than one from he USGA

or, we could all just assume and guess without any real facts to speak of

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... d=91363837

yes, it’s from 2008

yes, some courses have taken steps to mediate their impact (drought-resistant and salt-resistant varieties of grass)

still...

There are now approximately 16,000 courses in the United States — about half the total in all the world — and if you laid them out together, they would be as large as Delaware. And that Delaware of golf courses uses water, lots of it. They call them "greens" for a reason, don't they?

Audubon International estimates that the average American course uses 312,000 gallons per day. In a place like Palm Springs, where 57 golf courses challenge the desert, each course eats up a million gallons a day. That is, each course each day in Palm Springs consumes as much water as an American family of four uses in four years...

and just to be clear, i’m not anti-golf...i’m anti-golf courses, constructed based on a different time when different levels of resources were available

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:54 pm https://www.usga.org/course-care/water- ... ourse.html

Golf courses use a variety of water sources for turfgrass irrigation including groundwater, surface water (lakes, rivers and reservoirs), recycled water, and municipal potable water supplies. The source of the water that a golf course uses is largely dependent on the location of the course in relation to local and regional water supplies. Often, courses will use multiple sources of water...

unfortunately, their hyper-links are broken, so you can’t access the actual studies/data

i’d also like to see a 3rd party assessment, rather than one from he USGA

or, we could all just assume and guess without any real facts to speak of

So are we agreeing?

I am not sure what we were supposed to learn from your article?

Fewer than 10% of golf courses use potable water for irrigation.

That's not a guess.

“I am not sure what we were supposed to learn from your article?”

nothing...i’m just bored and posted it for no reason

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 2:34 pm “I am not sure what we were supposed to learn from your article?”

nothing...i’m just bored and posted it for no reason

No worries.

It is well known that potable water is not a sustainable long term irrigation plan for a golf course. Very high end courses make up the 10% i mentioned above, and even they are looking to create more sustainable sources, and only use potable water in emergency situations.

Fwiw, when i mentioned ponds above i meant man made irrigation ponds where their sole purpose is to hold (and collect) the water used to irrigate the golf course. My word choice was confusing maybe.

The courses i worked on in myrtle beach pulled water from the intracoastal waterway that ran along 2 of the 4 courses occasionally when we needed to fill our irrigation ponds a little bit. It was pumped into a treatment pump house where it was prepared for use. Other than that we had a sustainable amount of water in the network of irrigation ponds throughout the property.

I doubt we counted towards the 12% of courses that operate solely on recycled water, but we were close (98% recycled and then maybe 2% intracoastal...iirc we only ran that pump maybe 2 times in the 2 or 3 years i was there).

For some rural courses it has to be hard. Paying for water more than occasionally would put them out of business. But creating an advanced sustainable irrigation system/plan is also probably not realistic. My advice to them is worry mainly about the greens and do a rain dance for the rest of the course.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:21 pm Don’t mean to argue. Heck, I thought we were agreeing!


If there was any sass detected in that comment, it was done so in a way meant to illustrate the irony of a guy who wants to empower people at the expense of corporations, then turning around and calling me a socialist like it’s a bad thing.

Kick his ass c bass.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:06 pm yeah, sure economic growth is important. but it must also be weighed against things like, whether we even have the natural resources to sustain the economic activity.

American capitalism is still caught up in some mindset that economic growth is good no matter what, and that infinite growth and infinite consumption can actually be sustained.

Oh, and that environmental impacts! Which have always taken and continue to take a back seat. Even with climate change finally getting more press nowadays, those impacts are still often met with doubt or even denial. And even if those impacts are acknowledged, they're not necessarily addressed in any more than a token way.

says who?

how, and why, are we supposed to have perpetual growth?

it’s such an illogical idea...resources, no matter how they’re defined are finite. it is literally impossible to have positive growth forever

Is part of the "why" is because we have perpetual population growth?

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 3:53 pm Is part of the "why" is because we have perpetual population growth?

Perpetual population growth in areas that don't have the resources to maintain all the water consumed.

i tried to have this discussion with DC back in the day, and could never get a straight answer to the how/why questions

Because death, destruction and despair is bad? Because ous doesnt like people to be poor? If we fail to grow all of the above accelerates.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:31 pm Because death, destruction and despair is bad? Because ous doesnt like people to be poor? If we fail to grow all of the above accelerates.

really?

do tell

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:52 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:31 pm Because death, destruction and despair is bad? Because ous doesnt like people to be poor? If we fail to grow all of the above accelerates.

really?

do tell

Growing demands require growing supply.

In business/economics it is often said if you arent growing youre dying. You cannot remain stagnant and succeed. Growth is a huge component of our economy. It fizzles without it. Particularly given the tendency to over leverage assets.

Actually I think the way we distribute potable water in major (and most minor) population centers is part of the problem. There’s no reason for every drop of water entering my house to meet the highest quality potable standards when I use maybe 5-10% for drinking and cooking. The rest is used for landscaping, sanitation (toilets), cleaning (washing clothes and dishes) and showers.

How much actual clean water and energy we would save if we provided water to lower potability standards and two point of use water purifiers per household? Isn’t that kind of the practice for people who use well water?

No? Ive been on a well for 15 years. None have had point use purifiers.

The filtering of the water down to the aquifer is the purifier.