skip to main content

When it comes to golf course water conservation, no strategy saves more water over a given area than eliminating irrigated turfgrass – so long as the alternative landscape can be maintained with little or no water. However, reducing the area of irrigated turf is not without cost or challenges. The location and composition of turf reduction areas must be carefully planned. The new landscape will also require multiple seasons to establish and mature, and labor inputs can actually increase if there are high expectations for playability and presentation. Turning off the water in an area is easy but figuring out the right replacement landscape and how to manage it successfully is often quite difficult. The chapter “Reducing Irrigated Acreage” in the USGA Water Conservation Playbook provides detailed information about how to plan and implement a turf reduction program. This article provides a summary of the key concepts.

Overview

The process of reducing irrigated acreage begins with establishing water conservation goals. It is important to measure current water usage on the different playing surfaces and determine the minimum amount of water savings that will make the project worthwhile. From there, a course can work to identify target areas for turf reduction. This process should include the golf course superintendent and ideally a golf course architect so that the various options can be discussed in terms of their impact on playability, strategy, aesthetics and the maintenance budget. There are many alternatives to irrigated turf – including naturalized grasses, ground covers, rock, mulch, landscape plantings and even bare soil. The best option for a particular course depends on the environment, water saving goals, maintenance resources, golfer preferences and many other factors. Once a plan is in place, work can begin to remove the existing turfgrass and establish the new landscape.

"There are many alternatives to irrigated turf – including naturalized grasses, ground covers, rock, mulch, landscape plantings and even bare soil."

Benefits

The clearest benefit of reducing irrigated turfgrass area is significant water conservation. Replacing irrigated turf with naturalized grasses or non-irrigated landscapes can eventually translate to 100% water savings in converted areas, depending on the environment and alternative landscape selected. In periods of extreme drought, it may still be necessary to irrigate certain kinds of turf reduction areas to keep plants alive, but that amount of water should be considerably less than what is required to maintain turf. Reducing the amount of irrigated turf also saves on mowing requirements, fuel costs, pesticides and fertilizer applications. Depending on the environment and expectations, there can also be significant labor savings – but beware, labor costs can quickly add up if turf reduction areas are expected to be playable and free of weeds and debris.

Turfgrass reduction often results in improved definition and texture across a golf course, and removing irrigated turf can transform how a course looks and plays. Naturalized areas can be used to accentuate or alter the strategy of a hole and adding native grasses or low-water-use plants can be less disruptive than other potential architectural changes. Another benefit of turf reduction areas is that they can be used to hide or solve problems. Areas that are mostly out of play but challenging to maintain because of poor irrigation coverage, poor soils, tree-root competition or drainage issues can be ideal candidates for turf reduction.

Considerations

Expectations for playability and aesthetics

Achieving meaningful water savings through turf reduction while delivering acceptable aesthetics and playability at a reasonable maintenance cost is no easy task. Golfers have certain expectations for what a low-water-use area should look and play like, but it can take lots of time and resources to meet those expectations. Weed management, density issues and erosion are all common challenges in turf reduction areas. It’s important to make sure golfers and course management have a clear understanding of what to expect and what the trade-offs are between playability, presentation and cost.

Choosing areas for turf reduction

The success of turfgrass reduction depends heavily on the locations chosen. Areas receive less scrutiny when located far from play, but as turf reduction gets closer to the action it can touch off a steady stream of criticism related to lost balls, impact on pace of play, and overall presentation. To get the best results, we recommend working with a golf course architect when planning to reduce irrigated turfgrass acreage and using technology like GPS tracking to better understand how golfers of different skill levels typically play a course.

Dealing with existing plant material

After turf reduction sites have been chosen, superintendents need to determine the best method for addressing the existing turf. In some instances, the superintendent can simply stop mowing that area and let the turf grow, but typically the existing turf will need to be killed and/or removed prior to establishing a replacement landscape treatment. This can be done by applying herbicides, using cultural practices like stripping or tilling, or some combination of these approaches. Some turfgrasses are very stubborn and will continue resurfacing after multiple herbicide treatments and physical removal. Patience and persistence are required.

Establishing the new landscape

Almost regardless of the plants or landscape treatment selected, there will be a multiyear process of establishment, problem solving and maturation before a desirable state is reached. Grasses, ground covers and shrubs often take years to fill in and mature. During that time, weeds, erosion and other issues can complicate establishment. Any new vegetation will likely require some irrigation during establishment and it’s important to recognize that significantly reducing irrigation can potentially have a negative impact on desired trees and shrubs in the area.

Developing a management program

When establishing any type of non-irrigated or low-water-use area, a successful management program will be a constant voyage of discovery. Some challenges are easily anticipated, but many unexpected ones will arise – and the challenges will evolve over time. Weeds that were problematic in the early phases of establishment may disappear, only to be replaced by an entirely new set of weeds. The frequency of mowing and amount of weed control needed may change yearly depending on the weather, and erosion issues may start small and worsen. It is important for golfers and decision-makers to understand that while turf reduction areas can help a course save water and other inputs, they are seldom “low-maintenance areas.”

"Some challenges are easily anticipated, but many unexpected ones will arise – and the challenges will evolve over time."

Tips for Success

Beware of the impact on the labor budget.

Eliminating turf saves water but can lead to increased labor costs. The time it takes to do things like weeding, selective mowing and other management tasks can quickly add up. Test different approaches to turf reduction in smaller areas first to help set expectations and give the superintendent a better idea of how much extra labor the new landscape will require.

Don’t be afraid to treat different areas differently.

Making a distinction between in-play turf reduction areas and truly peripheral areas can help optimize decisions about what to plant and how to maintain the new landscape. High-visibility, high-traffic areas will likely require more resources to maintain acceptable quality than somewhere farther out of sight.

Mowing is part of management.

The vegetation in turfgrass reduction areas often gets too thick, leading to a poor aesthetic and lost balls. This is especially true in areas with regular rainfall and soils that retain moisture well. If turfgrass reduction areas are growing out of control, there’s nothing wrong with mowing them down to a more manageable height or mowing down certain areas that are particularly problematic. This may not produce the ideal aesthetic, but it’s better from a playability and presentation standpoint than letting areas get excessively weedy and overgrown.

Fine fescue is not always the answer.

Many golfers imagine seas of long grass blowing in the breeze when they think about “naturalized” or non-irrigated areas, but this aesthetic is not native or easy to maintain in most areas. Trees, shrubs, small plants and ground covers are what would naturally grow in most places. It is important to at least consider a broad range of planting options when it comes to turfgrass reduction areas.

Conclusion

Reducing the total amount of irrigated turfgrass is one of the most impactful strategies a course can use to decrease overall water usage. It is not without challenges and requires planning, patience and effective communication to be successful, but the overall benefits can be very worthwhile.