Too much water in some places, not enough in others. Increasing negative publicity as a fallout from water use, chemical and fertilizer applications and a longing eye from those who look at golf courses and see what "could be." There is no doubt that a perfect storm has been brewing in California for some time, and some golf courses throughout the state could get caught in the maelstrom.
Is California caught up in yet another drought similar to the one that reigned over the state from 2012 to 2016, or has this year been part of a longer event? Did recent storms that dumped unusual amounts of rain and snow for October do anything to alleviate those concerns of drought? With the state mired in what some consider a climate event that has been ongoing for two decades, one thing is certain, California is facing a water crisis of dire proportions. Many reservoirs built to collect surface water to feed the needs of nearly 40 million people are at a fraction of their holding capacity and the governor recently declared a statewide water emergency.
The declaration does not call for mandated cuts in use, but does establish target goals that call for voluntary savings statewide of 15 percent compared with 2020.
"That storm was really good. It didn't end the drought for us, but it certainly helped," said Tom Hsieh, whose company manages municipal Gleneagles Golf Club at McLaren Park in San Francisco. "It allows most of us to turn off the water for a little while here, and it gives us a little bit of hope that we will have a normal season; we don't know. This rain storm does not end the drought by any means. We're not going to be out of a drought until at least a year of normal, maybe two years of normal rainfall before they declare the drought over."
California's water woes are at a confluence with another problem plaguing much of the state - a lack of affordable housing. A bill introduced into the California Assembly could make it attractive for some cities to convert municipal golf courses to high-density real estate.
Assembly Bill 672, introduced in February by Cristina Garcia of California's 58th district in Los Angeles County, targets municipal golf courses as potential sites for affordable housing and open space, died in committee in April. However, the bill has been amended as of September 1 with changes, including an influx of public assistance and the elimination of certain zoning requirements. It is expected to make a return engagement in session in January as a two-year bill.
There are many other options to accomplish home-density goals, but instead this bill targets low-hanging fruit, and that's the golf industry; specifically the municipal and public golf industry.
"It doesn't matter, in every city in the state the most pressing issue everyone is talking about is affordable housing," said Craig Kessler, governmental affairs director for the Southern California Golf Association.
"The problem golf has goes to public opinion. Land is precious and extra expensive. Golf encompasses acres of land in cities that cannot meet their housing needs."
AB 672, in its newest form, makes available $50 million from the state's general fund "to provide grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties to incentivize making publicly owned golf courses in densely populated areas available for housing and publicly accessible open space," the bill states. It also removed zoning requirements and the need for an environmental impact statement in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
The allure of a piece of that $50 million pie might be too good to pass up for elected officials looking to curry public favor by paving the way for more affordable housing and greenspace at the expense of what many in the public consider an extravagance for the privileged.
"People love wide-open spaces in an urban setting," Kessler said.
"If you don't play golf, a 150-acre golf course doesn't do you much good, but a park does, even though we know golf courses are much more utilized than public parks."
In March, leaders from 191 cities and six counties comprising the Southern California Association of Governments voted for a plan to add 1.3 million new homes by 2029. Municipal golf might be considered low-hanging fruit, but it will not go very far in helping Southern California meet its housing needs. The City of Los Angeles owns seven regulation golf courses, three nine-hole facilities and two par-3 layouts.
Hsieh, who has a background in local politics and public advocacy, says AB 672 is bad for golf and does not go far enough to accomplish its stated goals.
"This bill concerns me a great deal," Hsieh said. "There are many other options to accomplish home-density goals, but instead this bill targets low-hanging fruit, and that's the golf industry; specifically the municipal and public golf industry.
"I think the assembly member has ample ability to introduce or support measures that increase the housing density that we need in California to meet the housing needs, but it's obviously a little bit harder, because it has to go into existing neighborhoods, or rezone existing places."
Hsieh points to legislation, such as Senate Bill 10, which was introduced by State Sen. Scott Wiener and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 21. SB 10 calls for increased high-density housing on existing transit corridors and provides bonuses for increasing density in existing structures.
"In many ways, Assembly Bill 6-7-2 is in exact opposition to the stated goals of California to reduce emissions and to get people out of their cars.
If you don't play golf, a 150-acre golf course doesn't do you much good, but a park does, even though we know golf courses are much more utilized than public parks.
"Golf courses are Fortunately, during the pandemic we were able to showcase why golf is important from a holistic community point of view, beyond just affinity for the sport. This measure eliminates that opportunity. It eliminates it. And it contributes to urban sprawl. And it contributes to increased CO2 emissions. It's going to make people drive. Most golf courses are not in the center of a city. I think San Francisco is the only place that has them in the center of a city. It's an ill-advised, not thoughtfully crafted piece of legislation."
Kessler said state golf associations are busily preparing a marketing campaign to educate the public on the merits of the game, namely public golf. With $50 million dangling in front of local leaders, that might be a tall order, especially in times of drought. Hopefully, recent weather systems that have dumped rain throughout much of the state and snow by the foot in the Sierra Nevada, which is critical to feed water supplies during spring thaw, continue and are not an anomaly, Kessler said.
"We want to give golfers a reason to take a few minutes to make a call, or send an email," he said. "It's going to be a challenge, but I'm optimistic. It's bad policy that creates a lot of problems and doesn't address the problems it is designed to solve."
"You can't hide a golf course in a drought, and you can't hide it when others covet it for other uses."
Hsieh hopes the public and state officials see golf courses for what they are, valuable recreational outlets that played a key role during the pandemic, and that taking any of them away for high-density housing is misguided - at least in California.
"Municipal golf courses are recreational outlets not unlike a softball field, or a public swimming pool, or tennis court, and we saw the benefit of open accessible public space like a golf course during the pandemic when everything else was closed and the safest way to recreate as a family was on a publicly managed golf course. Unfortunately, it took a pandemic to realize that," he said. "So, the whole trope that golf is an elitist sport and golf courses are not widely used is just not true. So, I think it's a misguided piece of legislation, and I hope the rest of the assembly sees it for what it is."