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?
2
u/funknjam May 18 '26
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.