Watering golf courses adds to the financial well being of the area and is done towards a goal of increasing wealth. Watering your own yard generally is done for simple vanity (if you had kids who frolicked in your yard, or used it frequently for some other purpose [bocce maybe?], then this argument is flawed). It makes sense, in most cases, to hold golf courses and private residences to different standards.

I always think the solution is to give every residence a set amount of water per square foot of housing space (or per person) for free or for very cheap, and then, if there's a shortage, charge everyone an extremely high amount for any water used beyond the baseline. If you want to water your yard and are willing to pay $50/gallon to do it, so be it. We'll use that money to ship in extra water or build a desalinization plant and a long pipeline. Otherwise, people's financial incentives will produce conservation beyond what's achievable by guilt-tripping alone.

Nobody I've suggested this to has ever thought it was a good idea.

We do pay for water usage here, although I'm not really familiar with the rates breakdown since I haven't been charged yet here (and I pay through my landlord anyway).

"Watering your own yard generally is done for simple vanity" -- this is not entirely true, as I think there is a bit of the "Broken Windows" argument that applies here to well-kept yards. Although note that "well-kept" doesn't necessarily mean grass -- it can mean gravel, wood chips, xeriscaping, or whatever combination of vegetation and mineral is appropriate for your local environment.

excellent use of the term xeriscaping.

Yeah, I learned that term when I moved out here, and I've seen many excellent examples of good xeriscaping since then.

I am really into manscaping. I know a few people who have been lifers in LA and their stories of the drought LA had in the 70s and 80s are very interesting. Water was rationed then and it looks like it might be happening here again soon.

If there is a drought (oh wait, there is), shut the golf courses down.

My parents house in Connecticut is on the beach and you can see a few people have decided to put big old grass lawns on their property, but it's right next to the ocean and looks ridiculous. My parents planted a bunch of these saltwater sand reed things which I personally find annoying (they limit my ability to stroll through the yard), but look much more appropriate.

Is that called seascaping? Aquascaping? Riparianscaping?

Ingen, I like to play golf and think golf courses are actually quite nice in some circumstances as habitats.

The economic argument for their watering having a higher priority, while valid, also discounts the cost of pollution in chemical run-off. I have not looked at/looked for any studies, but I bet the run-off from fertilizers on golf courses is substantially higher than the combined total a neighborhood of residents would produce tending their yards. Also- I doubt (without any evidence) that golf courses contribute much to a general economy as they usually don't support the incomes of more than a few individuals (and their upkeep is very expensive), and they also won't attract too many residents to the area unless they are near to other attractions. Many public courses also do not water as profusely as private courses from my own observation.

I played a couple times with my boss at Franklin Park's course in Boston (I've played at many other public courses too), and it is fairly "natural" in its upkeep. But then again, Boston is not in a very dry climate zone.

I dunno how much I can buy the argument that golf courses' well-being is essential to a city's economy. Certainly, the well-being of any business contributes to a city's economy, but a golf course is not an essential service. I'd buy on to Ingen's rationing plan, assuming it's very well-advertised in all the major languages spoken in the region and provides exceptions for hospitals etc.

Growing up in San Diego, my family never had a lawn, which at age eight I thought sucked and at age 28 I think was very smart.

Slater,

Assuming the golf course is staying in business, then it's contributing at least SOMETHING economically to the community, even if it's minimal.

Concerns about fertilizers and runoff can be addressed independently of how much water the golf courses use. If the runoff is a problem, we can pass laws limiting fertilizer/pesticide use (which would probably be more effective at limiting the amount of bad stuff getting into the watershed than limits on water use).

And hey, I'm happy to make the courses PAY for the amount of water that they want to use. If they think it's important to their business, let's make them put a dollar amount on it. Charge them $50/gallon and see if they're able to operate without it.

Lorelei,

I never said that the golf courses were essential to the economy, just that they contributed something and were more worthy of using the water than people watering their lawns merely for the sake of a pleasant looking home (although I'm partial to the broken window argument that CM proposes, so I'm potentially swayable on this point).

Eh, we basically agree. I think I react overly strongly to arguments that try to give businesses lots of privileges because of vague "benefits to the economy." If some private business wants my tax dollars/water-related sacrifices/private property/whatever, it should be able to show a direct benefit.

Ingen, I like your suggestion that golf courses contribute *something* to the economy-- because that's exactly my point and is the reason why pollution does matter economically. Pollution and environmental quality also contribute *something* to the economy and quality of life. Cleaner environment (in some cases) = more people moving to that location and thus more money. Or, higher property values and thus better real estate market (because hey, that industry employs people too!)

Also, in many places in the U.S. and other parts of the world, people do already pay money for water use. To many people this entire idea seems "savage" and I agree to some extent but perhaps for different reasons. If potable, clean water becomes like another part of the big profit economy, I only see that as a bad thing (for instance, imagine if oil was a plentiful as water-- there would not be a way to make such an abundant natural resource so responsible for fighting, profiteering, etc...). There are some doomsayers that believe we are headed that way with water-- I'm a little more optimistic or naive I suppose. So-- sure, while it sounds great to charge golf courses for their use of water in times of crisis-- I disagree with this philosophy. It would be like the military drafts of old in this country (think pre-Vietnam) where people could pay someone a mercenary fee to go in their place-- it's a libertarian/priviledge idea me no likee because it assumes a hierachical society of winners and losers-- haves and have nots-- blah blah blah. I'm an idealistic and big believer in some form of national service/investment in one's own country either via military, environmental restoration/protection, community service, etc. Of course, there are probably a lot more reasons not to sell scarce water to golf courses.

Alright, I'm sure my arguments ara not entirely clear or connected at 4:00 in the morning. Maybe I'll wake up later and read this and think I was weird to write it.

I acknowledge that paying high fees for water is somewhat akin, considering morality, to paying one's way out of a draft.

I'd argue that the difference is that water usage can be controlled somewhat effectively by utilizing the already available market system (we all pay for water, we just don't often recognize how much... I pay about $15/month) while the draft cannot. With water we're trying to find a way to encourage people to use less when there's an external constraint on the public water supply. The existence of a market system will contribute to that. With the draft you're trying to get more people to join the military, the buy-your-way-out market system works against the societal goals in that case by encouraging lower enrollment (though I seem to recall people telling me that the Union army needed the money more than it needed the soldiers).

The issue here is that we have competing goals that are hard to balance other than by gut instinct: encouraging water conservation (which the market system will do) and granting free access to clean water.

Ingen, I read your response a couple times and I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean by "the market system."

Are you saying that people will self-regulate their use of water if they have to pay more for it, thus by proxy creating a "fair and just" system? In other words, oil is being conserved in greater quantities now because people are driving less due to the higher costs of gas? If you want to drive more you can pay for it at a higher price?

If I have understood you correctly, then I guess that this system might work in the U.S. and developed countries, but I don't see it working well in developing countries (which seem to be the majority).

Philosophically, I believe that you should not have to pay for water. It's as fundamental a human right as the air we breathe. What if it gets to the point where you have to pay for clean air? Yikes.

Yes, that is my point and yes, it was geared towards the United States. I know nothing about water use issues in developing countries and wouldn't presume to offer any real opinions on the matter.

As for paying for clear air, we already do, we just don't notice it. We pay for clean air through higher property costs, through higher taxes, and through more expensive goods/services.

Property Costs: People don't like living in areas with air pollution and avoid them when possible. While admittedly LA is very polluted and very expensive, can you imagine how much more expensive the land in the region would be if the air was perfectly clean? Think about the difference in prices between land bordering on a garbage dump and land bordering the ocean? Or land near anything that's producing air pollution at noticeable levels. We pay for the privilege not to live next to such monstrosities whether or not we call it paying for clean air.

Taxes: We, in America, have established certain air pollution controls including a bunch at the national level and others at the state level. Regulatory regimes require money to operate and we pay for those regimes through higher taxes.

Products: Companies that were producing goods at a certain price before the pollution controls went into effect were then required to begin producing them in a more clean, and more expensive (otherwise they would have been doing it the clean way in the first place), manner. This ends up costing consumers money (and factory employees jobs). This is a trade-off we're willing to make because we're a rich country and we value clean air, but it's certainly a price we're paying.

In California I had to pay to have my car inspected to make sure it wasn't emitting too much exhaust. The cost for me was reasonably low ($50), but the costs for others can be much, much higher when their car fails the test and requires expensive repairs (I know someone who paid over a thousand this summer in repairs) or the purchase of an entirely new car.

We're paying for that clean air, we just don't call it that.

Ingen, I guess you are right to some extent that we pay for clean air via our government, but can't you make that same thin argument for countless other things?

Taxes in the U.S. thus pay for all of the "services" and "regulations" government provide. Do I want my tax dollars to pay for subsidies for Walmarts and automobile companies? Absolutely not, but it happens in a greater windfall than it does for environmental protection and stewardship. So I'm paying twice under your argument-- once to support the failing American auto manufacturers who build vehicles with shitty fuel efficiency and are losing their market share and thus American jobs are being lost. Then I'm also paying taxes by proxy to help protect the air that I already paid to pollute. Would you agree with that?

Plus, haven't you heard? Many manufacturies, companies, factories, etc... have figured out that producing their services/products with less detriment to the environment makes for a better long-term business success model? It's short-term profiting that's the culprit-- not additional costs to productivity that would contribute to Americans losing jobs.

I'm not against fixing any of the problems you're citing. I'd be happy to cut off all funding to private corporations. Let Detroit collapse, I'd be ok. Let some of the airlines go bankrupt.

Manufacturers have found that appearing to be friendly to the environment brings them some benefit among consumers who are willing to pay for it, but I continue to suspect that the lower prices that can be obtained by behaving irresponsibly win more often than we'd like.

north carolina is in a bad drought, too. not sure what theyre doing with golf courses, but both duke and unc are still watering their field hockey fields. oh, and those fields are astro-turf.

http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/742218.html?iref=topne...

(via deadspin)

Clinton probably runs a dirty campaign than Geroge bush.If this what the Democrats want than maybe I will just not Vote.I will never Vote for Clinton.Who is she going to screw next.