While I consider Chris Gray to be a friend and a respected GCSAA golf course superintendent, his portrayal of GCSAA's position is inaccurate. Unfortuantely, these comments get picked up by other media and the truth is clouded. As background, GCSAA conducted the first ever national survey of golf courses to ascertain the profile of the nation's golf courses. The second phase of the study focused on water use and conservation. The finding was that 1/2 of 1 percent of water consumed was by golf courses. Furthermore, GCSAA looked at the revenue generated by that water usage compared to other uses. Is 1/2 of 1 percent just right, too much or too little? That is not for GCSAA to determine. That is a value judgement communities must make. Water providers, community leaders, golfers, owners/operators, industry and yes, golf course superintendents must weigh in on. The data is just that -- information. What is important is the value we place on the use of the resource. There is no doubt the debate regarding golf's relationship with the environment is healthy. But let's make sure that we don't spin the message in a manner that is not accurate.

Well said, Jeff.

Which number do the critics want reduced ? The $78 billion or the 2.08 million gallons of water ?

I'm always amazed that there are people who seem to think that once water is poured onto grass, it is forever gone from the system. Plants "breathe" moisture back into the atmosphere, and water evaporates as well as filters into the ground tables.

I have known Jeff Bollig for many years and, in the past, we have certainly found ourselves on opposite sides of many debates concerning the GCSAA's marketing tactics, ranging from the certification program to environmental programs. That being said, I respectfully disagree with his statements, here at geoffshackelford.com, regarding the manner in which the GCSAA decided to report the data from the second phase of the national survey.

The survey provided you with the number of gallons of water that golf courses use; which is 2.08 billion gallons per day. If you (the GCSAA) had decided to simply report this number, as-is, I have no issue. That's simply not what happened. Once you had this number in hand, you took deliberate and knowing steps to make this very large water use number, more palatable by dividing it with the overall water use of the United States, resulting in the statement, "1/2 of 1% of all daily water used." What other purpose would such a calculation serve, other than to take a large number and make it appear smaller. I sincerely wish that you had simply reported the fact of the daily water rate use, rather than finding it necessary to make that number more pleasant to the eye.

There's no sense in trying to mask our industry's water use; it is what it is. Our industry is coming together like never before with partnerships between vendors, superintendents, researchers and associations to help defend our generally accepted watering practices as well as developing new techniques to achieve better water use efficiency. Tactics, like this one employed by the GCSAA, only give the appearance of an industry attempting to conceal who we really are; users of an enormous amount of water.

So while Jeff warns of spinning the message in a manner that is not accurate; I warn of spinning the message at all. We should be who we are.

Why didn't the GCSAA just use the survey data, instead of dividing it? I mean, you have to have the raw data first, before you can divide it by the U.S. average.

They definitely look like to trying to hide the amount of daily water irrigated on a golf course.

Chris - what does that last sentence mean ? What does "we should be who we are" have to do with reporting or mis-reporting facts and spinning facts to force a conclusion ?

I'm not saying that you were spinning or mis-reporting - just trying to figure out what you were talking about. Personalities have nothing to with facts unless the personality fudges the facts...which makes them not facts. (geez - now I sound like Abby from NCIS) :-)

The GCSAA has always tried to show us in the best light possible, and I applaud that. That is really the reason of why it exists, to help us in our jobs and our industry.

Presenting the daily water use rate in the manner they have, "one half of one percent", does sound a lot better than saying 2 billion gallons a day. But why is it necessary to say it this way? Who's benefit is it for? Us superintendents? I think we would be fine with the actual number of 2 billion gallons a day as an industry. So it must be for the people outside the industry, who are looking in.

I can Gray's point about not wanting to appear to be hiding something like this. And I agree that we are seen as a "recreational activity" rather than a business. Golf's perception has been going down hill for years.

I can also see Bollig's point about the individual communities needing to address the situation on a case by case basis.

In the end, my thoughts are that we should probably just own up to what we use and start focusing on efforts to justify them. That, along with new ways to be better water users, will give us the best chance to survive in upcoming water crisis that very likely to occur. Especially out here in the West.

Court:

Thanks for the question.

What I mean by that statement, "We should be who we are," is that we should embrace the simple fact that we are an industry that uses a whole bunch of water. By the GCSAA saying that our water use is "1/2 of 1%" implies that we do not use an enormous of water. I simply contend that it's better to focus on solutions and new ideas to help justify our water use, rather than use statistics to mask what is really go on out here on our golf courses.

By the way, Abby is my favorite characters on NCIS. Did you know she (Pauley Perreette) actually has a Master's degree in Criminology. Plus I love the Marilyn Monroe custom for Halloween. I love her personality. Why can't we get her to speak at the GIS. I would love that!

Ok - I understand where you were going. But either way of putting out the figure - 1/2 of 1% or 2 billion gallons - neither one is a figure the average joe understands. 1/2 of 1% means nothing without knowing what it is a percentage of...and 2 billion is a number that is beyond comprehension other than that little league field the Yankees play in or that new Cowboys stadium. Most of us can't comprehend the millions of dollars athletes get paid because we only make thousands. How many people even know how many gallons of water it takes to flush a toilet ?

2 billion gallons of water sounds huge - but how many acres of grass are those 2 billion gallons covering ?

How many of those gallons are from on sight, non-potable sources that recycle water as opposed to courses that actually draw from public sources ?

If the golf course wasn't there, how much water would it take to keep a forest alive on the same land ? Trees suck up a lot more water than grass.

No telling how many questions I haven't asked to clear up the subject...

It's all a matter of perspective and understanding. By saying 2 billion gallons without the rest of the information, you spin in a way that an environmentalist whack job will pick up and use to scare an ignorant public (aka the dumb-masses) into thinking all sorts of ridiculous and wrong things about golf courses. Many of which people would have no problem adding to their incorrect opinion of the game.

So yes - get Abby to run this through the mass spectrometer in the Marilyn Monroe costume and THEN give out the figures so it can be understood and not used as either a scare tactic or a smoke screen.

I couldn't agree with you more, Court. It's much more productive to justify the water use of golf courses, rather than waste time and energy on the "spinning" of the data.

We have critics to our industry that are specifically focused on our water use. I simply believe it would be better to say, as plainly as possible, what we are actually using rather than trying to conceal it with this "1/2 of 1%" business. At that point, we can move onto the more beneficial aspects of showing all the benefits that golf courses accomplish with that amount of water use.

You have some excellent points about the comparisons of what a forest uses. Facts like that are our most valuable ammunition in this fight.

We should definitely move past this whole smoke screen and scare tactic crap and get on to illustrating the wide spread environmental benefits of golf courses. I just thought a plain and simple starting point would be the best place to do that.

I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts.

I will respectfully disagree with Chris and take offense to the assertion of deliberate and knowingly trying to spin the data. There is no implication by GCSAA regarding the water use numbers. GCSAA states it BOTH as a raw number and a percentage to give people a better understanding. I repeat, GCSAA has never put a value judgement on the amount of water used nor tried to hide the fact of the use. Why would we have done the survey in the first place if we were trying to hide anything? Chris fails to mention that the GCSAA survey covered virtually every aspect of water use and conservation in a survey available at www.eifg.org. The data is laid out for all to see and evaluate. If someone want so say water use is too much or someone wants to say it is not enough, then they should do so and support it by fact and reasoning. Just to say it is not good enough. Furthermore, to misrepresent what GCSAA reports is disingenuous.

What has started out as a simple, opinionated, criticism has ballooned up to the point where the Managing Director of Marketing and Communications of the GCSAA has accused me of being disingenuous. My criticism was very simple; that my association should not report our water use rate in such a manner (a calculated percentage) to appear less than what it really is. I stand by that argument.

Jeff argues that the calculated percentage number that is constantly reported and highlighted, in lieu of the actual raw number, is not "spin." Well, I guess that depends on what you define "spin" as.

At some point, someone made the decision to use the "1/2 of 1%" statistic as the preferred number to use when referring to golf course water use in news releases. Not even to mention, again, that someone had to take the raw data and calculate the statistic in the first place. Both decisions are, to me, some form of spinning, Whether Jeff agrees or not, that's his opinion.

My opinions are simple and clear.; use the raw data. I also take exception at being called "disingenuous" by Jeff. My actions are not deceitful or devious in any way. I guess I'm a little surprised by this petty name calling by Jeff, especially since he says he considers me a friend

The latest post from Jeff somewhat confuses me. He brings up my failure to mention the complete survey coverage and it being available at www.eifg.org. I didn't mention it because it doesn't relate to my point of using the derived statistic in the GCSAA press releases and marketing materials. I fully encourage everyone to read the survey; it appears to be the only place with both the raw data and the derived statistic used together.

Jeff posted the statement: "GCSAA states it BOTH as a raw number and a percentage to give people a better understanding." Other than in the full survey, where else have they used both? Certainly not in their press releases, which are specifically designed to spread the messages of the GCSAA and superintendents.

Allow me to illustrate an example of this. On February 2, 2009, the GCSAA issued a press release entitled "GCSAA research profiles water use of golf courses". I'll skip right to the key findings section of the lengthy document.

"Among the key findings were:

Golf courses account for one-half of one percent of all water used annually and just one and one half percent of all irrigated water applied.
Only 14 percent of golf courses utilize water from municipal water systems.
Superintendents at 18-hole golf facilities utilize numerous methods to conserve water, with the top three tactics being the use of wetting agents (92 percent), hand watering (78 percent), and keeping turf drier than in the past (69 percent).
Superintendents utilize information from multiple sources as part of their decision to apply water. Most facilities utilize direct observations of turfgrass and soil conditions, with approximately 35 percent routinely utilizing evapotranspiration data.
Recycled water is used by 12 percent of golf facilities, with 37 percent of facilities in the Southwest Region using this source. More than half (53 percent) said they would use effluent water, however there was not a source of it. Another 13 percent said there was no infrastructure to deliver it from water providers."

FYI, I cut and pasted this directly from the GCSAA website. I certainly don't want to further accused of being disingenuous with regards to this matter. Anyone wanting the full press release, please let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.

This press release very clearly shows that the GCSAA only reported the water use rate as the derived percentage statistic, with absolutely no inclusion of the raw number. Jeff stated the GCSAA uses both numbers, but I guess I need some assistance in finding them both in this press release.

For the record, I never implied, even for a moment, that the GCSAA was somehow being underhanded with this alternate percentage choice being used. I honestly believe they were not. But to our critics, this type of reporting lends itself very easy to accusations of misrepresentation. I continue to believe that the raw data should be showcased and embraced. That way we can continue to move forward with much more important work of water conservation and efficiency throughout the golf course management industry.

I've stated on other threads that I get a good education from reading Geoff's site. However, I've also stated that the contradictions among posters to the site leave me without a clear indication of who is right and who is wrong.

This is another one of those instances. However, this time aren't you all saying the same thing but simply arguing how to say it?!?!?

Most people who are in positions to make decisions of any magnitude are able to decipher and reconcile the raw data and % numbers you guys quote.

I've said things like I am about to say before and been shouted down...but I think it needs to be said again...

If we all care about golf (which I assume we do) we need to come together as interested parties and work together for the good of the game. Infighting and bickering will not help our cause. Are good discussions and passionate arguments worthwhile? They can be if they are done in the correct venues. But to fight like this on a venue like this is probably not the place to present a divided and antagonistic side of the golfing world to the general public.

That is my 2 cents...take it or leave it.