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
Kinda neat what is possible for humans to do, shame it is only doable by and for the rich.
Golf is actually a sport that should be perfectly playable without grass. Like use different grades of rocks.
I’ve never really understood why golf courses always needs to look the same. Wouldn’t they be more exciting if they reflected the local ecology. I’d think it would be more interesting to play a desert course, a swamp course, beach course, forest course, bog course, etc. Then again, golf isn’t exactly known for being an adventurous sport.
You are mad and calling this dystopic but … it’s specifically been made to work in its location? Isn’t this exactly what we want our environmental changes to support?
Shouldn’t this be a sort of utopic example? "Look what we can do if we think carefully about interacting with our environment.’
If it’s all lies or something, bring the evidence and I will be there supporting you. Otherwise, what is it you want, exactly?
Well they’ve also denied an oasis to the entire local ecosystem. They can claim that golf course ponds fulfill the same purpose all they want but nothing wants to live next to golf carts and flying golf balls if it’s big enough to recognize it. People think deserts are wastelands but in reality that water is even more critical because animals can’t just pop a mile down to the next spot. Then there’s the effect on local plants, they’re diverting all of this water and they probably killed the entire local plant system.
Sustainability also means taking care to build in places you won’t impact as much. There’s no world in which growing grass in a desert is sustainable. It doesn’t matter how much technology you throw at it unless you figure out how to get everything you need from the air itself.
It doesn’t need to exist. It is a tourist location. That’s why this is here. People charter flights to fly out to there to see Death Valley and play golf at the lowest golf course on Earth. I’m not discontent with a golf course being there, more that people insist on going to see the hottest place in the world and the driest place in North America because there’s more to do that just say, “Hoo boy, sure is pretty and hot and pretty hot.” It just adds to an ever-worsening climate. And, I know…corporations, not people, are mostly responsible for climate change…I get it. But surely there are better uses for this runoff water than a golf course.
Wouldn’t something like a botanical garden bring even a more diverse range of people therefore more of the issues you have with?
If anything a golf course limits the people there while providing this oasis that’s far more protected.
I never mentioned a botanical garden. The fact is that there are fewer than 15,000 people in that whole county, and almost 90% of the people who live in that town have jobs in accommodations, food service, or retail. The area was a curiosity, and then capitalism got a hold of it.
You said surely there are better uses, there are, but wouldn’t they bring in more traffic conversely though? No matter what you do, it would be a tourist destination almost definitely. So why not do something to effectively limit the the people that would go there, while also being a pseudo reserve.
Guess everyone should just stay home until the whole world is bland and homogeneous but equitable.
I mean people don’t have to just stay home to get close to a golf course that isn’t *literally siphoning the only source of sustainance for hundreds of miles."
There’s a golf course down the street from me, on a main road to one of two local hospitals, surely you can find one within the nearest 10mi and if you can’t? You probably have bigger things to worry about than swinging a club at a 1inch sphere at your feet.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
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?
So to be clear, unless you’re playing golf at the hottest location on earth, you must stay home? Solid reasoning.
This doesn’t sound like a dystopia to me. Having a sustainable oasis in the middle of the desert is actually pretty badass.
They could build a Starbucks in the rainforest and as long as they claim it’s somewhat “sustainable” you’d probably endorse it.
False equivalency. There’s a huge difference between a rainforest and a desert.
Not really. Visiting either is ecologically destructive and should probably be illegal.
After thousands of years of my ancestors living in a desert, I guess we have to move now. Europe looks nice.
/s I would never move to Europe.
Why do you hate Europe?
I don’t. Europe has fertile lands and ample water. But I don’t want to contribute to the rising anti-immigrant sentiments when I have no valid reason to emigrate.
I encourage you in particular to live there.
Thanks, I was thinking of leaving, needed your approval.
That’s not what we’re talking about. This isn’t part of a city in a well situated area. It’s a resort in a national park. An area that’s supposed to be preserved.
It was a sustainable oasis all on it’s own. Now it’s just a golf course.
If we could financially exploit the desert we’d have companies pushing climate change along. Zero thoughts as to how many people die because of it. Capitalism does not care about people, only profit.
No no no. You don’t get it. Forget the fact that this place reuses water to conserve massive amounts of pipe fed water as most other golf coarses do. Forget the vast amounts of water they use, vs the sustainable model this coarse uses.
The point is, we’re supposed to be MAD!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!
Agreed
This place sounds awesome. I still don’t think I’d want to go to Death Valley, but they’ve clearly built something incredible
Or they just hired a really good marketing team and now a bunch of people who should know better think that an air conditioned compound with a swimming pool and a golf course at the hottest place on earth can be anything other than ecologically reprehensible.
I see nothing wrong with this, at least they conserve the water, which would normally run off. They probably use graded slopes for water retention. Seems way better then 90% of golf courses, but I dont know the specifics
It’s supposed to run off. Humans aren’t the only things that need water.
