Use of Non-Saline Reclaimed Water for Golf Course Irrigation in Florida

The Use of Non-Saline Reclaimed Water for Golf Course Irrigation in Florida

John L. Cisar, Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College Avenue, University of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale 33314; Monika Reuter and George H. Snyder, Everglades Research and Education Center, P. O. Box 8003, University of Florida, Belle Glade 33430; Michael A. Fidanza, Berks Campus, Tulpehocken Road, Pennsylvania State University, Reading 19610

Corresponding author: Michael A. Fidanza. maf100@psu.edu

Abstract

A survey of 150 golf course superintendents in central Florida was conducted in fall 1999 to determine the amount of reclaimed water use, level of satisfaction with reclaimed water, and benefits and problems with reclaimed water for irrigation. Eighty-five surveys were returned, with 46 of 85 (54%) superintendents using reclaimed water. A high percentage (91%) of those using reclaimed water were either satisfied or very satisfied with the water. The most frequently cited benefits were abundant supply, conservation of fresh water, and cost. A common concern was potential salinity or sodium in water and soil, even though the sampling area only included golf courses that use non-saline, reclaimed water. The most frequently observed problems associated with non-saline, reclaimed water included clogged irrigation heads, excessive rusting of equipment, and growth of algae on greens and holding ponds. Finally, 85% of the superintendents that were using reclaimed water would choose to continue its use.

Introduction

Water reclaimed from sewage effluent is a valuable source of irrigation water for golf courses in Florida (11,13). In the USA, 13% of courses use reclaimed water versus 34% in Florida (14). However, skepticism and concern persists among golf course superintendents about the agronomic, environmental, and social impact of using reclaimed water on their golf course (1,2,3,8,9,10,13,15,17,19). Therefore, a survey was conducted to ascertain the level of use and satisfaction with reclaimed water among superintendents in Florida who have used this source of water to irrigate their golf course.

Conducting the Survey

In November 1999, questionnaires were mailed to 150 golf course superintendents in central Florida (Fig. 1). These superintendents represent inland golf courses away from Florida coastal areas where salt water does not intrude into the sewer system and would not contribute to salinization of reclaimed water. All data were compiled and organized and expressed as a percentage (16,18).

Fig. 1. Location of the golf course irrigation water survey area in Florida, which consisted of golf course superintendents (n = 150) who are members of the Central Florida (1) and Ridge (2) chapters of the Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association of America.

Use and Satisfaction of Reclaimed Water

Eighty-five of 150 questionnaires (57%) were returned, with 46 of the 85 (54%) respondents using reclaimed water. All data presented herein are from those 46 respondents. Reclaimed water was used on many areas besides the actual golf course (Fig. 2), and median amount used ranged from 1.9 × 10⁵ to 4.5 × 10⁵ m³/yr. Experience with reclaimed water was grouped as ≤ 10 years (72%), 11 to 30 years (20%), and 8% not reported. Most (85%) of the reclaimed water came from public sources (Fig. 3). Although 52% received reclaimed water under pressure, only 30% of those superintendents indicated that the water pressure was sufficient.

Fig. 2. Areas on the golf course where irrigation with reclaimed water is used as reported by golf course superintendents (n = 46) in the Florida survey. The target areas include the actual golf course (i.e., greens, tee, fairways, and roughs), ornamental plantings, landscapes around buildings, and other areas (i.e., property owner’s lawns, parking lot islands, roadside vegetative planting areas, turfgrass and ornamentals nurseries, and driving ranges and other practice areas).

Fig. 3. Source of reclaimed water as reported by golf course superintendents (n = 46) in the Florida survey. Public sources include reclaimed water or effluent from cities, counties, and other government organizations; private sources include industry or any non-government organization; and other sources include reclaimed water generated from within the existing golf course property.

The amount of water received was not restricted on 87% of courses, but restrictions on other courses were attributed to limited water in the summer due to seasonal demand of domestic consumers. Water was stored in holding tanks on 67% of courses and on some courses, reclaimed water was supplemented with other water sources: A high percentage of courses (83%) also used surface and run-off water from lakes and springs, and 50% had access to additional water from wells. Forty-six percent were supplied with a detailed analysis of their reclaimed water, and another 27% had access to a report upon request. Nevertheless, it appears that a substantial portion of users do not know, or care to know, the composition of their irrigation water. Consulting services were provided by water suppliers in only 15% of the courses. However, 91% of superintendents did not find it necessary to employ a consulting service or receive advice on reclaimed water use.

Fifty-two percent do not pay for reclaimed water, but 46% reported a wide range in price of $500 to $816,000 annually. Some courses pay a flat fee, while others are charged on a monthly basis, and some courses are charged only for pumping expenses. Some courses have caps on the charges, while others have staggered costs (i.e., lower charge per unit quantity of water with increased usage). Further investigation is needed to examine this large variation in the charge for reclaimed water (6).

Over 90% of those using reclaimed water were satisfied or very satisfied with it (Fig. 4). Three advantages most often cited were available supply (39%), fresh water conservation (15%), and cost (13%). Other minor reasons cited were positive public relations, the perception of less sodium than expected and therefore presumed better water quality, healthier turfgrass, and better water pressure. Although 37% of respondents indicated that reclaimed water had not caused any problems, the most frequently reported problems or disadvantages were high sodium (22%), mechanical problems (15%), and algae (13%).

Fig. 4. Overall favorability rating on the use of reclaimed water for golf course irrigation as reported by golf course superintendents (n = 46) in the Florida survey.

Discussion and Recommendations

Although the survey was designed to minimize the number of golf courses dealing with high salinity in their reclaimed water, salinity or sodium and nutrient content were important issues that impacted satisfaction with reclaimed irrigation water. Twenty-two percent of respondents considered high sodium to be a disadvantage of using reclaimed water, yet over 90% were satisfied or very satisfied with reclaimed water. This suggests that the sodium concern was not great or at least manageable. Also, increased sodium levels in soil test results were often attributed to the use of reclaimed water, and superintendents reacted to such soil test information by applying various calcium-type products on those sites.

The most frequently cited mechanical problems associated with reclaimed water included clogged sprinkler heads and increased rust, especially if the water was used to clean equipment. Other minor problems indicated were odor, increased fungicide use, excessive water, and, oddly "sometimes not enough water." While 87% of all courses did not experience pest control problems because of the use of reclaimed water, one respondent indicated a problem with snails.

Algae were experienced as problematic by 13% of respondents, predominantly in the pond and grass areas, but also in irrigation lines or heads. The other factor that impacted user satisfaction was the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the reclaimed water. Algal growth on greens and in ponds, and growth of various aquatic animals (i.e., crustacea sp. and bryozoa sp.) in irrigation equipment was attributed to nitrogen and/or phosphorus in the water. Keeping these nutrients low in the water should improve user satisfaction, even though the nutrients should be beneficial to the turfgrass. Most superintendents (74%) did not adjust their fertilization program to account for nutrients contained in the reclaimed water, although 18% made such adjustments (i.e., calcium, lime, increase soil sampling, limiting fertilizer applications) and 8% not reported.

In conclusion, over 85% of superintendents would select to continue to use reclaimed water for irrigation. However, it is important to note that the survey was directed toward golf courses located inland to avoid highly saline reclaimed water. Satisfaction would likely be much lower for irrigation water high in salinity, since water quality parameters and the salinity level of that water substantially influences consumer satisfaction (4,5,7,12). Superintendents generally liked using reclaimed water because of the assurance of having an adequate quantity of water for irrigation, and because they considered it to be a water-conserving technique. Many superintendents (87%) proactively informed their membership of the irrigation water source through a variety of methods (i.e., posting signs, newsletter announcements), and complaints by golfers were not cited as a problem in this survey.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation and gratitude to the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and Water Conserve II for financial support of this project, and to members of the Central Florida and Ridge chapters of the Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association of America for cooperating in the survey. The authors also express their appreciation to Ms. Marie Roberts, Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, for providing the mailing list used in this study, and to Mr. Norman Harrison for data processing.

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 2004. The institute identifies water management as key issues. Golf Course Manag. 72:107.

2. Barrett, J. 2004. Mandated water restrictions: The future. Golf Course Manag. 72:103-106.

3. Benefield, T. 1991. Effluent: a Trojan horse? Florida Green May/June:44-45.

4. Carrow, R. N., and Duncan, R. R. 1998. Salt-Affected Turfgrass Sites. Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, MI.

5. Garner, A., Stevely, J., Smith, H., Hoppe, M., Floyd, T., and Hinchcliff, P. 1996. A guide to environmentally friendly landscaping: Florida yards and neighborhoods handbook. Univ. of Flor. IFAS Bull. 295. Gainesville, FL.

6. Gross, P. J. 2003. Making the right spending decisions when tackling soil and water quality problems. Green Sect. Record 41:17-20.

7. Haag, K. H., Miller, R. L., Bradner, L. A., and McCulloch, D. S. 1996. Water-quality assessment of southern Florida: An overview of available information on surface- and ground-water quality and ecology. U.S.G.S. Water-Resour. Investig. Rep. 96-4177. Tallahassee, Florida.

8. Harivandi, A. 1993. Using reclaimed water for golf course irrigation. Golf Course Manag. 61:28, 32, 36, 38.

9. Harrison, S. 1998. Evaluating our impact on water quality. Golf Course Manag. 66:199.

10. Huck, M., Carrow, R. N., and Duncan, R. R. 2000. Effluent water: Nightmare or dream come true? USGA Green Sect. Record 38:15-29.

11. Marella, R. L. 1999. Water withdrawals, use, discharge, and trends in Florida, 1995. U.S.G.S. Water Resour. Invest. Rep. 99-4002. Tallahassee, FL.

12. McCarty, L. B. 2001. Best golf course management practices. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

13. McCarty, L. B. and Cisar, J. L. 1993. Effluent: A solution with problems. Florida Turf Digest 10:19-23.

14. National Golf Foundation. 1999. Operating and Financial Performance Data of 18-Hole Golf Facilities. Nat. Golf Found., Jupiter, FL.

15. Rossi, F. S. 2001. The challenge of poor irrigation water. Cornell Univ. Turf. Times 12:1, 4-5.

16. SAS Institute. 1987. SAS/STAT Guide for personal computers. Version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

17. Snow, J. T., Erusha, K. S., Henry, M., Kenna, M. P., Peacock, C. H., and Watson, J. R. 1994. Wastewater Reuse for Golf Course Irrigation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

18. Sprinthall, R. C. 1997. Basic Statistical Analysis. 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

19. Stowell, L. J., and Gelernter, W. 1999. Issues in the use of reclaimed water on golf courses. PACE Insights 5:1-4.