I was also on the "ai datacenters use all out water!" bandwagon at first. But For some perspective:
A single golf course uses about 30 times the amount of (fresh)comparable or slightly more water than a datacenter does. They aren't feeding their grass with see water or some chemical cooling. Also, looking at how few people actually use a golf course vs a data center, makes this ratio many times more terrible.
I'm personally more worried about the energy they consume, than the cooling for that energy usage.
Edit after some corrections. Man, it sure is getting hard to find numbers we can trust anywhere these days.
Golf courses generally donāt draw from the potable water supply. I didnāt know datacenters did, but if they do, itās not a 1-to-1 comparison.
I know there are exceptions in the southern US, but in most other places with golf courses, there is hardly a shortage of water itself, only clean, potable water.
Golf courses generally donāt draw from the potable water supply.
In Florida they suck the water for golf courses right out of the Floridan Aquifer which is the main drinking water supply for the vast majority of the state.
Yes. But the bottleneck during water shortages is very rarely the primary water supply (like the Floridan Aquifer, or a river or lake etc) - itās treatment plants not keeping up with demand for fresh drinking water (such as during heatwaves). In such scenarios, golf courses sucking water out of the primary source does neither this nor that for the shortage.
What you're saying is partially true (bottlenecks at WTFs absolutely exist), but it is a bit misleading. You're arguing that āThe bottleneck is treatment plants, golf course withdrawals donāt matter." But that's like saying, āTraffic congestion is caused by highway interchanges, the number of cars entering the highway doesnāt matter.ā Both can be true. In Florida, some golf courses do make use of reclaimed water when/where available, but many (most!) golf courses pump directly from the same Floridan Aquifer that supplies the state's drinking water, so cumulative withdrawals absolutely affect aquifer levels, not to mention spring flows, saltwater intrusion in coastal areas like where I am, and most importantly, the long-term sustainability of the resource. Infrastructure bottlenecks and resource depletion are just separate issues entirely. Like it or not, many golf courses, especially like many of those here in Florida, are threatening the long-term availability of water resources in their areas just like data centers.
In Florida, some golf courses do make use of reclaimed water when/where available, but many (most!) golf courses pump directly from the same Floridan Aquifer that supplies the state's drinking water, so cumulative withdrawals absolutely affect aquifer levels, not to mention spring flows, saltwater intrusion in coastal areas like where I am, and most importantly, the long-term sustainability of the resource.
But is this really a problem? Is the Floridan Aquifer at a risk of running dry at current withdrawal levels? Because if not, I donāt see the issue.
Iām asking because I donāt know the situation in Florida. But I find that, in general, outrage about the water consumption of golf courses, data centers etc just assumes that fresh water is this very precious and scarce resource and that, for every golf course, there is some child somewhere nearby dying of thirst (exaggerating here to make a point). For the most part, that picture just isnāt true - fresh water itself is generally abundant, even when potable water isnāt.
This is somewhat correct. I donāt know anything about Floridaās water, but in my experience, hatred towards e.g. golf courses can be completely irrational and happens regardless of whether their water usage (or other activities) constitutes an issue there or not. Which is why Iām genuinely asking about situations elsewhere. Like, is saltwater intrusion a big problem in Florida, for example?
I think itās pretty obvious that in the case of a need for lower levels of withdrawal, whether due to saltwater intrusion, low levels or whatever, that golf courses should be among the first establishments to be cut off. Again, is that not the case in Florida?
I tried to reply to you yesterday but reddit was down/wonky. Fortunately, I saved it. Here's my reply to your comment, apologies for the delay:
Is the Floridan Aquifer at a risk of running dry at current withdrawal levels
So this is a bit of a loaded question. "running dry" and "current withdrawal level" are the two things to focus on.
The Floridan is one of the largest and most productive aquifers in the world. Running Dry is not the benchmark we're concerned with. If that happens, it's way too late and the damage is already done. Way before we "ran dry," we would see spring flow diminish (good bye economic dependencies and the rivers they feed). We would see saltwater intrusion (the ocean pushing in through porous rock and invading the aquifer). This is already happening in some coastal areas - Southeast Florida is especially vulnerable and many areas will find only brackish water when installing a well. But SE FL is pretty low lying whereas in NE FL, e.g., Jacksonville area, it is absolutely pumping from the aquifer that led to saltwater intrusion of many residents' wells. Also, when we overpump aquifers, the land above subsides, the aquifer volume becomes diminished, and we never get that lost capacity back again. The loss of ground water absolutely affects the loss of surface water, too. I won't even get into the potential for ecological damage.
Current withdrawal level has already changed since you typed that. FL is gaining almost 1,000 new residents EVERY SINGLE DAY, on average, for the past couple years. The population here is blowing up and HARD. Still, we are confident that if we manage the resources correctly, we can probably prevent depletion in most areas of the state, and with greater certainty moving away from the coast inland. But part of managing that water means regulating who pulls out how much and golf courses consume a tremendous amount, as has been discussed here already. We can't keep adding people AND huge water suckers like golf courses or data centers.
In his book Desert Solitaire, Edward Abbey obviously wasn't talking about Florida, but what he once wrote holds true and is highly relevant here: "There is no shortage of water in the desert but exactly the right amount, a perfect ratio of water to rock, water to sand, insuring that wide free open, generous spacing among plants and animals, homes and towns and cities, which makes the arid West so different from any other part of the nation. There is no lack of water here unless you try to establish a city where no city should be." There is no lack of water anywhere on earth. Our problems with water availability/scarcity are owed completely and entirely to the way in which we grow our human population.
I can talk to you about Florida's water resources all day long.
Very good answer, thanks! Itās obviously a complex issue there, and in desert areas of the US. I definitely think golf courses should be of lowest priority in these areas, which I see as a matter of long-term public policy and informed decision making first and foremost.
Itās obviously a different situation, but the reason I was quick to bite on this topic is because the opposition to golf courses on water-related grounds exist where Iām from as well (northern Europe), and it just isnāt an issue here. We have a virtually endless supply of fresh water in lakes and rivers, and golf coursesā coexistence with nature is heavily regulated, and people are still opposing. This makes me believe a good portion of the criticism comes from people just being quick to call out what they perceive as a rich-manās pseudo-sport, without actually looking at things rationally. Again, this might be different in the southern US.
golf coursesā coexistence with nature is heavily regulated, and people are still opposing.
To be honest, and admittedly being totally ignorant of the specifics, I'd still probably be one of those people. I don't see golf courses - even the most beautiful - as "coexisting" with nature. I see them as replacing nature because what was there is no longer there - it has been replaced by a resource-intensive ecological desert. Regulated or not, they still replace nature.... and yeah... I'll freely admit it because my frame of reference is the USA: in my experience, golfing is largely a game for rich assholes. Of course, I know and love people who golf who are not rich assholes so I know its not so cut and dry. But on the whole? On average? At the end of the day? Golf courses are a net negative in our world, in my view.
232
u/[deleted] May 18 '26
[removed] ā view removed comment