Survey of Irrigation Water for Golf Courses in Southeastern Pennsylvania

Michael A. Fidanza and David L. Sanford, Berks Campus, Tulpehocken Road, Pennsylvania State University, Reading 19610; Larry J. Stowell and Wendy Gelernter, PACE Turfgrass Research Institute, 1267 Diamond Street, San Diego, CA 92109; Peter J. Landschoot, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, 116 ASI Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802; Nancy Bosold, Cooperative Extension, 1238 County Welfare Road, Pennsylvania State University, Leesport 19533; James Welshans, Cooperative Extension, 1451 Peters Mountain Road, Pennsylvania State University, Dauphin 17018

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

Abstract

Irrigation water quality is one of the most important environmental issues facing the green industry today, especially in urban areas with competing interests for limited water resources. Fifty-eight irrigation water survey kits were sent to golf courses within the Groundwater Protected Area of southeastern Pennsylvania. A total of 35 (60%) water samples were received and grouped into one of five water source categories: domestic, lake, recycled, stream, and well. Laboratory analysis measured or calculated 26 parameters for each irrigation sample and also rain water. For all samples, 22 of 26 parameters were observed within the normal range for turfgrass, but four parameters were not: pH, bicarbonate, iron, and nitrate. All irrigation water samples, however, were considered to be of acceptable to good quality for establishing and maintaining turfgrasses in southeastern Pennsylvania. Information from this survey was used to communicate proper irrigation water quality monitoring and environmental stewardship to the golf course segment of the green industry in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Introduction

In the USA, water consumption is categorized as 80% agriculture, 8.5% industry, 4% domestic, 3% livestock, 3% landscape, and 1.5% golf courses (16). Over 17,000 golf courses in the USA irrigate about 1.3 million acres from that 1.5% of water (2). Golf courses are highly visible users of water and face significant criticism regarding sustainable land development and their impact on the environment, although the majority of land on golf courses is a diverse landscape in animal, aquatic, and plant life (18).

Recent expansion of residential and business communities in urban and suburban areas in southeastern Pennsylvania have increased business opportunities for the green industry (i.e., retail garden centers, golf courses, lawn and landscape maintenance, and nurseries) as well as created competition for limited water resources. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania created the Groundwater Protected Area (GWPA) of southeastern Pennsylvania (Fig. 1) in response to development pressures on the water supply in the City of Philadelphia and surrounding region (8). The Environmental Institute for Golf (Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Lawrence, KS) identified water management as the single most important environmental issue of the green industry (1), and water quality monitoring is considered an important first step in environmental stewardship on golf courses (12,15,17). Therefore, the objectives of this inquiry were to survey and assess golf course irrigation water quality in the GWPA of southeastern Pennsylvania, to include that information in the Water Quality Symposium during the Eastern Pennsylvania Turfgrass Conference and Trade Show in January 2005 at Valley Forge, PA, and to determine the value of that information from the perspective of the golf course superintendent.

Fig. 1. Location of the golf course irrigation water survey area in southeastern Pennsylvania in the following five counties: Bucks (1), Chester (2), Delaware (3), Montgomery (4), and Philadelphia (5).

Collecting the Irrigation Water

During August 2003, irrigation water survey requests were sent directly to 58 golf course superintendents representing public, private, and semi-private golf courses in the GWPA of southeastern Pennsylvania (Fig. 1). Each survey kit contained a 500 ml plastic bottle for the irrigation water sample, instructions, and a one-page questionnaire. Water source was identified by five categories: domestic, lake, recycled, stream, and well water. Domestic water refers to water obtained from a county or local municipal water authority, lake water is surface water existing as a lake or pond, recycled or reclaimed or gray water is water that has been through at least one cycle of domestic use (14), stream water is flowing water from a stream or river, and well water is obtained directly from an on-site well located on the golf course property. Natural rain water was also collected from the southeastern Pennsylvania area.

All survey and rain water samples were sent to Brookside Laboratories (New Knoxville, OH) for analysis. Twenty-six parameters were measured or calculated for each sample (Table 1). Data from all irrigation water samples were pooled and the mean, minimum, and maximum values were determined for each parameter (5,14), and the mean value for each parameter was compared to the normal range of irrigation water for turfgrass (3,5,9,11,19,21) and rain water. If the mean value was not within the normal range for turfgrass, that specific parameter was further examined by water source category. During March through April 2005, superintendents that participated in the irrigation water quality survey were contacted by email and/or telephone to gauge the benefit or usefulness of information obtained in the survey as well as the Water Quality Symposium. Superintendent responses were based on a modified five-point scale ranging from lowest rating = 1 to highest rating = 5 (13).

Table 1. Summary of irrigation water analysis data compared to desired range of irrigation water for turfgrasses and rain water.

Parameer measured or calculated^z		Irrigation water survey results^x					Rain^v
Parameer measured or calculated^z		Normal range^y	Mean	Min	Max	SE^w	Rain^v
pH		6.5-8.4^u	6.89	5.69	7.70	0.41	5.94
Hardness (mg/liter)^t		--	72.66	8.47	180.54	43.28	2.56
EC (electrical conductivity, dS/m)		< 1.2	0.35	0.07	0.70	0.18	0.01
TDS (total dissolved salts, mg/liter)		< 800	225.95	42.20	445.40	114.80	9.00
SAR (sodium adsorption ratio)		< 6.0	0.74	0.21	2.05	0.38	0.49
Residual sodium carbonate (meq/liter)		--	0.02	0.00	0.17	0.04	0.09
Cations (mg/liter)	Ca	< 100	29.54	3.76	67.41	16.45	1.05
	Mg	< 40	12.14	1.10	39.43	9.17	0.30
	K	< 160	3.83	0.00	15.16	2.59	0.00
	Na	< 160	18.32	4.84	57.45	12.34	2.32
	Fe	< 0.30^u	0.11	0.00	1.33	0.28	0.00
Anions (mg/liter)	Total alkalinity	--	77.37	9.61	248.03	53.99	8.47
	CO₃(carbonate)	< 50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	HCO₃(bicarbonate)	< 90^u	94.41	11.72	302.65	65.88	10.34
	OH (hydroxide)	--	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	Cl (chloride)	< 100	32.35	0.00	99.23	24.44	0.00
	SO₄ (sulfate)	< 200	31.00	4.21	90.35	23.62	1.89
Major nutrients (mg/liter)	NO₂ (nitrite	--	0.36	0.00	6.63	1.14	0.21
	NO₃ (nitrate)	< 8.0^u	3.17	0.00	20.43	4.48	0.35
	NH₃ (ammonia)	--	0.20	0.00	6.66	1.12	0.16
	Total P	--	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Minor nutrients (mg/liter)	Total B	< 0.50	0.03	0.00	0.36	0.07	0.00
	Mn	< 0.15	0.07	0.00	1.18	0.24	0.03
	Cu	< 0.05	0.01	0.00	0.29	0.05	0.00
	Zn	< 2.00	0.08	0.00	1.07	0.18	0.00
	Al	- - - -	0.08	0.00	0.74	0.18	0.00

^z Irrigation water parameters measured or calculated as determined by laboratory analysis from Brookside Laboratories (New Knoxville, OH, USA).

^y Normal range of irrigation water for turfgrass. A dash line indicates no normal range available for that parameter.

^x Mean, minimum (min), and maximum (max) data results from the 35 golf course irrigation water survey samples received during August through October 2003.

^w Standard error (SE) of the mean at P ≤ 0.05.

^v Natural rainfall collected in southeastern Pennsylvania during September 2003.

^u Indication that results from the irrigation water survey were outside the normal range of the measured or calculated parameter.

^t One mg/liter is equivalent to one ppm.

Analyzing the Irrigation Water

A total of 35 irrigation water samples were received during August through October 2003, thus representing a 60% response rate. The number of samples per water source were 8 (23%) domestic, 5 (14%) lake, 2 (6%) recycled, 11 (31%) stream, and 9 (26%) well. The mean of 22 of 26 parameters from the pooled samples were observed within the normal range for turfgrass, but the following four parameters were not: pH, iron, bicarbonate, and nitrate (Table 1). Therefore, each of those four parameters were further evaluated by irrigation water source and compared to rain water (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Mean water analysis results for the five irrigation water sources and rain water for (A) pH, (B) bicarbonate, (C) iron, and (D) nitrate. Normal range for turfgrasses: pH 6.5 to 8.4, bicarbonate < 90 mg/liter, iron < 0.30 mg/liter, and nitrate < 8.0 mg/liter. Values for each water source represent the mean with standard error (P ≤ 0.05).

Mean pH from recycled and rain water samples were below the 6.5 minimum normal range, with values of 6.34 and 5.94; respectively (Fig. 2). Although the recycled water pH was below 6.5, the optimum soil pH for turfgrass is considered 6.0 to 7.0 (6). A low or high soil pH can immobilize plant nutrients in the soil (4), and a low or high water pH is a signal that the water should be examined for other potential problems (11). For example, a water pH below 6.5 may indicate excessive iron or sulfate, while a pH above 8.4 could indicate high levels of carbonate, bicarbonate, or sodium.

Mean bicarbonate values from lake water samples were 126.43 mg/liter, and was above the < 90 mg/liter normal threshold for turfgrass (Fig. 2). Recycled and well water are typically high in bicarbonates (11), although bicarbonate levels from domestic, recycled, stream, and well water sources in this survey were slightly below the < 90 mg/liter normal range (Fig. 2). Excessive bicarbonates in water can contribute to an increase in soil pH and more importantly to the development of poor soil permeability (5,11). The bicarbonate ion can combine with calcium or magnesium and precipitate as calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate, which can often lower the sodium absorption ration (SAR) in soil solution (11). As a result, soil permeability problems can develop from the degradation of soil structure (i.e., deflocculation of soil clay particles) from excess sodium as well as a decrease in drainage, water infiltration, and percolation (4,5). Also, soils with high bicarbonate levels can inhibit both plant root growth and cytokinin export to shoot tissues for protein and chlorophyll synthesis (5,7,20). Excess sodium typically is not an issue in southeastern Pennsylvania due to an average annual rainfall ≥ 40 inches (8). Cool-season turfgrasses, as maintained in the southeastern Pennsylvania region, are typically not tolerant of high salt levels in soil or irrigation water and therefore turf quality can decline in warm summer months during periods of low rainfall (5,17). Gypsum application to turf is often recommended when irrigation water SAR ≥ 10 because this high SAR level can indicate problems of soil surface sealing and poor infiltration (10). Water samples in this survey, however, exhibited a mean and maximum SAR of 0.74 and 2.05, respectively (Table 1).

Mean iron content from lake water samples was 0.38 mg/liter and above the < 0.30 mg/liter normal range (Fig. 2). Over time, excessive iron content in irrigation water can contribute to immobilizing phosphorus and molybdenum in acidic soils (5). Also, water with excessive iron levels can result in unsightly deposits on plants and irrigation heads and equipment (5).

Mean nitrate value from recycled water samples was 8.08 mg/liter or slightly above the < 8.0 mg/liter normal threshold (Fig. 2). When irrigating turfgrass with recycled water high in nitrates, golf course superintendents often adjust fertilizer inputs in accordance with nitrogen added from that water (5). Potential adverse effects to golf course turf from repeated use of irrigation water with high nitrates include excessive growth, increased mowing requirements, reduced heat stress tolerance, reduced cold and drought tolerance, and greater susceptibility for weed and disease problems (3).

Discussion and Recommendations

Results from this survey represent the first collective analysis of golf course irrigation water in the GWPA of southeastern Pennsylvania. All irrigation water samples were considered to be of acceptable to good quality for turfgrass in the region. Future surveys of golf courses in southeastern Pennsylvania should consider analysis of soil chemical properties in addition to irrigation water. Also, future research should evaluate the use of gypsum applications on turfgrass sites with visibly poor soil infiltration and above normal bicarbonate levels in the irrigation water.

At the Water Quality Symposium, consistent monitoring and assessment of irrigation water quality and keeping good records was emphasized as an important component of best management practices and environmental stewardship for golf courses and the green industry (5,14,18). Prior to this survey, 23% of all participants tested their irrigation water one or more times per year (Table 2). After reviewing their water sample test results, 71% of all survey participants said they would consider testing their irrigation water at least one or more times per year (Table 2). Favorable responses to all five follow-up questions were obtained from those golf course superintendents that participated in the irrigation water quality survey and attended the Water Quality Symposium (Table 2). All respondents supported the addition of environment-related topics in future conferences (Table 2).

Table 2. Golf course superintendent responses to a questionnaire following analysis and review of the irrigation water quality survey and the Water Quality Symposium.

Question	Yes (%)^z	No (%)^z
Prior to participating in the irrigation water quality survey, did you typically test the irrigation water at your golf course one or more times per year?	23	77
After examining the results from the irrigation water quality survey, would you consider having (or continue having if you answered "yes" to the previous question) the irrigation water tested at your golf course at least one or more times per year?	71	29

Question	Lowest Rating 1	Below Average Rating 2	Average Rating 3	Above Average Rating 4	Highest Rating 5
Question	(%)^y
Rate the overall benefit or usefulness of the information obtained from the irrigation water quality test for your golf course.	0	0	0	26	74
Rate the importance of monitoring and testing the irrigation water at your golf course at least one or more times per year.	0	0	4	35	61
Rate the importance of obtaining a copy and reviewing the results of the irrigation water quality test for your golf course prior to attending the Water Quality Symposium.	0	0	13	35	52
Rate the overall benefit or usefulness of the information presented at the Water Quality Symposium.	0	0	8	22	70
Rate the importance of including environmental stewardship-related (i.e., soil and water topics) symposiums at future turfgrass conferences.	0	0	0	17	83

^z Percent based on total number of respondents = 35 golf course superintendents that participated in the irrigation water quality survey.

^y Percent based on total number of respondents = 23 golf course superintendents that participated in the irrigation water quality survey and also attended the Water Quality Symposium at the 2005 Eastern Pennsylvania Turfgrass Conference and Trade Show, Valley Forge, PA.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by PACE Turfgrass Research Institute, San Diego, CA, in partnership with Mr. Steve D. Davis, Bayer Environmental Science, Gulf Breeze, FL, and a Research Development Grant from the Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Pennsylvania State University, Reading, PA. We are grateful for the cooperation of members of the Philadelphia Association of Golf Course Superintendents. Also, we would like to express our gratitude to M. Ali Harivandi, Ph.D., University of California, Alameda, CA, for participating in the Water Quality Symposium at the 2005 Eastern Pennsylvania Turfgrass Conference and Trade Show, Valley Forge, PA.

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.t 72:103-106.

3. Beard, J. B. 1973. Turfgrass Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

4. Brady, N. C., and Weil, R. R. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

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

6. Christians, N. E. 1998. Fundamentals of Turfgrass Management. Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, MI.

7. Eaton, F. M. 1950. Significance of carbonates in irrigation water. Soil Sci. Am. J. 69:123-133.

8. Drohan, J., and Abdalla, C. 2000. Valuing Pennsylvania’s water resources. Penn. State Univ. Coop. Ext., University Park, PA.

9. Gelernter, W., and Stowell, L. J. 2000. Dealing with low quality irrigation water: the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club Research Study. PACE Insights 6:1-4.

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

11. Harivandi, M. A. 1999. Interpreting turfgrass irrigation water test results. Calif. Turf. Cult. 49:1-6.

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

13. Likert, R. 1967. The method of constructing an attitude scale. Pages 90-95 in: Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. M. Fishbein, ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

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

15. Peacock, C. H. 2002. Are we guilty: Is water pollution happening at the golf course, or do BMP’s really work? N. Carolina Turf. 19:18-19, 22-25.

16. Ratcliff, C. 1999. Water supply and demand. Grounds Maint. 34:10.

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

18. Rossi, F. S. 2003. Managing diversified landscapes. Golfweek’s SuperNEWS 5:25.

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

20. Smith, M. A. L., Meyer, J. E., Knight, S. L., and Chen, G. S. 1993. Gauging turfgrass salinity responses in whole-plant microculture and solution culture. Crop Sci. 33:566-572.

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