It opened in 1931 and underwent a major renovation in 1997. Apparently, the water usage is sustainable (see below), but it still doesn’t excuse the fact, in my mind, that continuing to support the upkeep of a green-ass golf course at the edge of Death Valley shows how out-of-whack its patrons are with the changing climate.
“In an area as hot and dry as Death Valley, balancing water usage with conservation requires significant planning. Furnace Creek and its namesake resort exist in their location because natural spring water flows from nearby mountain ranges to create an oasis. By routing the water from one point to others, the resort’s goal is to use the same molecules of water for several purposes. The spring-fed water is first used at the Inn to irrigate gardens and supply the swimming pool which was designed with a flow-through system that minimizes chemical use. That water then continues downhill to the Ranch where it fills the ponds on the golf course, providing habitat for local and migratory wildlife. The water in the ponds then irrigates the golf course.” - How Xanterra’s Furnace Creek Resort is Sustainable, greenlodgingnews.com
I’m not sure I understand? Did you mean county?
It sounds like this course is located at a natural oasis fed by a natural spring. If the course wasn’t there the water would probably feed some plant life and a bit of wildlife. With proper management it’s likely that their water use is more efficient than it would have been naturally. It isn’t unusual for resource aware golf courses to actually improve biodiversity in a region while being water consumption neutral.
Yup, sure, it increases biodiversity by using foreign plants in a monoculture. That grass wasn’t there before, so it’s more diverse now you see?
Golf courses aren’t just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.
Then it wasn’t native was it?
You must be trolling.
Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.
If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.
This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.
You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.
Yes, that’s the point. But if you divert the water then you’ve killed them. Bringing in different ones isn’t a value add, it’s just green washing marketing. You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature. The local ecosystem has spent thousands of years developing around that water source.
It’s thinking like yours that got us into the position of having to remove dams and concrete river channels.
If you actually believe this then there’s nothing anyone can say to help you.
If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn’t naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.
The golf course in question is not a dam, it’s putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.
Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.
“Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it” is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.