alt Hacker NewsThe amount of water used is somewhat less important than what the source of the water is.
And it's important to understand that "using water" isn't like "using coal". In other words, while coal can be burned once, water is in a cycle that means water can be "used" infinitly.
But back to the source. A golf course near me takes effluent water (ie treated sewerage) destined for pumping out to sea. They spread it over a large piece of land. What is not consumed by plants, or evaporation, ends up in an underground aquifer.
So it "uses" a lot of water. But it's not using tap water.
Obviously this is not true for all courses. Hence the issue of "source", not "quantity" is material.
Replies
"The amount of water used is somewhat less important than what the source of the water is."
Where I live, the golf courses are the largest and often only consumers of recycled water — in a water stressed city. This directly subsidises indigent water use.
It doesn't stop the easily-offended from agitating to convert them into low-cost housing.
For sure, I posed the question as it is often asked about data centers. Nuance is important, as is accurate data.
The relative comparison is a potent one as we have a national debate about how we use our resources effectively and responsibly. I've seen similar mappings for data centers and thought OP's project might be a good starting point. The golf world is also aware about this issue and looking at ways to be more balanced with nature. I've seen some articles within the golf world discussing their water usage from before the data center debate began, which was very nice to see.