The Water Advisory Committee scrutinized Gardiner’s Bay Country Club’s NYS permit request to nearly double its annual water withdrawal and discussed a related proposal to upgrade its irrigation system.
The state regulates wells and water extraction via the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Under state law, Towns and Villages may impose conservation measures to fine-tune the management of local water resources, with options that range from calling for voluntary reductions to imposing restrictions during drought stages.
During its water permitting process, the DEC takes into account local regulations. Currently, Shelter Island Town Code exempts golf course greens, tees, and fairways that existed in 2003 from its irrigation provisions. This exemption covers GBCC, a private 18-hole course, and Shelter Island Country Club, a public 9-hole course.
But GBCC has said that its state permit for 6 million gallons of irrigation water annually doesn’t suffice to water these allowed areas. Some of the additional withdrawal it’s requesting will enable irrigation in these areas; some will allow watering of expanded play or practice areas, and some will help the club to develop and maintain other aspects of the 154-acre property.
GBCC makes its case
Editor’s note: My husband, Eddie, is a longstanding Gardiner’s Bay Country Club member. We had a family membership early on but changed to a single membership long ago.
At Monday’s WAC meeting, Jay Card Jr., the club’s VP and chair of its greens committee, introduced other team members. They are Christopher Briggs, GBCC’s golf course superintendent, GBCC President Douglas Sandberg Sr., and consultants from WSP, an international professional services firm.
Among the company’s specialties is water supply and distribution. Karen Destefanis (a project leader and geologist) and Ken Taylor (a senior associate and hydrogeologist) represented WSP. Find their presentation slideshow on the WAC webpage.
Present for the WAC were Chair Peter Grand, Ken Pysher, Lisa Shaw, Doug Sherrod, and Gregory Toner. Town Board liaisons BJ Ianfolla and Meg Larsen also attended. Like other Town committees, the WAC welcomed a new clerk Catherine Ryan. Follow this link to watch the meeting on the Town’s YouTube Channel.
Card said the club, working since 2019 on a proposal to update the course, hired Tom Fazio, an eminent golf course designer, who developed a long-term renovation plan.
“To do this work, we have to be able to maintain the turf,” Card said. And that means replacing the outmoded, handed-down, 40-year-old irrigation system.
GBCC has 81.5 acres of developed property and irrigates 18.75 acres. Its DEC permit allows the withdrawal of up to 6 million gallons of water annually from one well to irrigate playing surfaces between April and October and another 500,000 gallons from three other wells to provide potable water at club facilities.
Card said the current DEC allowance doesn’t suffice for irrigation that’s exempt under Town Code. And the club wants to expand its irrigation capacity to 36 acres. Some of the expansion would go toward developing and maintaining new club infrastructure to improve its ability to retain rainwater on-site, Card said. Berms and swales could capture runoff before it crosses to neighboring properties, eventually ending up in Coecles Harbor.
Two speakers noted that GBCC had asked to expand its allowance in 1996, but the DEC denied the request due to concerns about the potential for saltwater intrusion.
Now, the club is asking the DEC to permit another 6M gallons annually for irrigation but spreading the withdrawal across three wells (the existing well at 83.5 feet deep plus two new irrigation wells, each at 70 feet deep), and another 100,000 gallons for potable water from the three existing drinking water wells (at the clubhouse, mid-course bathrooms and maintenance facility.)
GBCC will install additional monitoring stations — Destefanis said the DEC would probably require them — near the original irrigation well and at the northernmost edge of the property, where it abuts dense development in Hay Beach.
While the DEC permitting process is underway (it could take a year or more), Fazio recommended that the club improve its irrigation system. Card said GBCC purchased the used system from Noyac Golf Club, and the consultant hired recently to evaluate it “gave it a rating of D.”
“So we’re nursing along a very fragile system at this point,” Card said. “The club has determined that this is our number one priority, to deal with this irrigation system.”
Card said the club has reached out to various groups seeking input on its plans, among them the Hay Beach Property Owners Association, the Shelter Island Association, Group for the East End, Peconic Bay Keeper, and Mashomack Preserve; and to Town committees, including the WAC, Conservation Advisory Council, and Water Quality Improvement Projects advisory board; as well as Town Board members and representatives of the Suffolk County Water Authority.
“So there should be no surprise to anybody that we’re here,” Card said.
Aquifer recharge at GBCC
Destefanis described the aquifer below GBCC as an 88-foot thick freshwater lens above the saltwater interface and said the site’s aquifer recharge far outpaces the proposed water withdrawal. The club’s 154 acres of land annually recharge 100 million gallons from precipitation, she said.
If the DEC permits the expansion, the total withdrawal would grow from 6.5 M to 12.6 M gallons per year. Destefanis said that subtracting the withdrawal from the natural replenishment results in 87.5 M gallons per year in surplus recharge.
Under drought modeling, she said, a recharge of 70 M gallons per year would be expected, resulting in 57.4 M gallons per year in surplus. These figures, she noted, don’t include the estimated 85 percent of potable water returned to the aquifer after treatment in the club’s wastewater systems.
Destefanis said the current irrigation well could handle the additional 6M gallons per year of pumpage. “But the club wants to make sure that we’re not impacting off-site neighbors,” she said.
That’s why it’s proposing two additional irrigation wells located more centrally on the property. Spreading the pumpage over three wells would minimize the risk of saltwater encroachment due to “over pumping,” she said.
Mathematical modeling
The USGS provides guidance on anticipating aquifer behavior using mathematical modeling of hydrogeological information that indicates how water enters, moves through, and leaves aquifer systems.
The main components of such modeling are groundwater recharge from precipitation, return flow from septic systems, recharge basins, leaky infrastructure, and groundwater discharge to streams, estuaries, or subsea boundaries, the USGS says on its website.
The WPS hydrogeologist Taylor said he used USGS modeling explicitly developed for the Long Island region to analyze the existing conditions and make various predictions. The WPS slideshow included simulation results that he said demonstrate the proposed withdrawals at GBCC would not adversely impact neighboring properties.
Taylor’s description veered momentarily into highly technical jargon, including parameters for transmissivity and storativity, before concluding there’d be no adverse effect on neighbors.
The WAC’s Toner asked if Taylor had used the model for other projects on Long Island. Taylor said he had where unconfined aquifers exist, including projects in Sag Harbor and Nassau County. He explained that the USGS equations have assumptions built into them and that “as long as you meet the assumptions, the method is valid.”
Taylor based the three-day modeling on a July 1996 pumping test that demonstrated the aquifer recovered within the DEC’s required timeframe after the initial drawdown (lowering a water table due to withdrawal.)
Actual pumping at differing rates in three stages lasted eight hours. The drawdown of 10.6 feet had rebounded by 98.1 percent within 52 minutes after pumping ceased. In other words, it met the DEC definition of a stabilized drawdown, Taylor said.
Councilwoman Ianfolla asked whether 1996 test data was valid for modeling current conditions, given development in the past 27 years. Taylor said nearby residential development wouldn’t influence the rate of drawdown recovery.
Next, Destefanis showed slides illustrating how, based on further mathematical modeling, the club’s two new proposed irrigation wells — planned for deeper within the property — would minimize any potential impacts to neighboring wells.
Monitor wells
As a condition of approval, the DEC will likely require the club to install monitor wells and report regularly on water quality.
There was some back and forth with WAC members about what they might test for — chlorides that may indicate saltwater intrusion, nitrates resulting from fertilizers and septic systems. Briggs, the golf course superintendent, said the club had recently checked the old monitoring wells and found conditions were essentially the same as in 1996.
Ultimately Destefanis said the DEC would have the final say on monitoring and reporting but that the club was as interested as any neighbor in ensuring water quality.
“We certainly don’t want to be putting saltwater on the turf,” she said. Card said GBCC was open to testing recommendations from the WAC.
Grand asked whether GBCC would use a storage tank to buffer the system. Destefanis said the permit request calls for a 200,000-gallon underground vault. The irrigation wells would pump water in, and the watering system would draw from the tank as needed.
Toner’s turn
Toner asked if using 30-year-old data to model anticipated behavior was unusual. Taylor reiterated that the data were valid, absent significant change — such as installing a drainage basin or a major roadway.
And Toner returned to whether the old monitoring wells had been tested over 30 years. As if to suggest GBCC might have disappeared test data that didn’t support its case, he pulled a stack of papers off the board table and pretended to rip it up and discard it, saying, “You haven’t done [testing] and said, ‘OK, let’s pitch that data.'”
Standing at the back of the meeting room, Card said he wanted to respond. As he approached the mic, Toner said, “That was a joke!”
Card said that the question had come up in meetings with various groups.
“We took data in August, and the top of the well was in the same place as in 1996,” Card said. Results in December showed the level unchanged.
“It would be great to spread that information around,” Toner said. “I think people would like to see that.”
Toner also asked how the club tallied its developed acreage. Card said the area of the playing surfaces — tee boxes, fairways, and greens on the course and practice areas — are measured. Among the undeveloped areas are large swaths of tall fescue that line the fairways and require no irrigation.
Toner noted that the DEC asks applicants to list any “unavoidable negative hydrogeological impacts,” saying this may cause nearby property owners to wonder, “Should they worry?”
Taylor said the permit application under review would reduce the amount of water drawn from the current irrigation well, where, over many years of operation, no one has complained about impacts on their drinking water.
“That’s the sneaky thing about salt in your well,” Toner said. “You don’t notice that they’re getting saltier.”
Why, Toner asked, didn’t the consultants refer to the potential adverse impacts of climate change and rising sea levels?
Taylor said the permit would be for 20 or 25 years, and during that period, the club would collect data that would influence future decision-making. “In that time, the expected sea level rise isn’t going to be impactful enough to be seen.”
“Speaking as a hydrogeologist, it’s a very short time.”
Toner asked about a Suffolk County Water Authority request that GBCC move a proposed new irrigation well planned for about 1,200 feet from a Village of Dering Harbor well.
“Why shouldn’t everybody else that is within 1,200 feet be in a position to say ‘you should move [away from] my well, too.'”
Taylor said he’d demonstrated to SCWA, which provides potable water to the village’s 39 households, that the placement would not impact the authority’s well. However, Dering Harbor’s water system has experienced saltwater intrusion in the past, and “just to be extra, extra safe,” SCWA requested the accommodation.
Taylor pointed out that as a public utility, SCWA pumps significantly more water than the average homeowner. Perhaps, Toner suggested, Dering Harbor residents “irrigate too much land,” adding, “Oh, wait, that’s what we’re talking about.”
Whatever the outcome, Toner said he’d like to know the amount SCWA pumps for the village.
[The DEC’s online water withdrawal report says SCWA pumped 4.8M gallons for the Dering Harbor system in 2020, the latest year posted.]
Taylor said the club’s permit application and supporting documents will be subject to public inspection once the DEC completes its review. “And everyone will have a chance to comment.”
Irrigation upgrades
Toner noted that GBCC’s current irrigation system is about 70 percent efficient, and the club hopes to install a new system that would improve that to about 85 percent. “Is that as good as you can get?” he asked.
“It is, as far as I believe, right now,” Card said. GBCC has hired a leading golf course irrigation specialist to plan the new system.
Among the many causes of inefficiency, Card said, is the sprinkler heads turn too slowly,
“Which puts out more water than we want,” Card said.
A new system would have state-of-the-art electronic controls that could be monitored and adjusted from remote locations in real time based on automated data inputs for temperature, solar load, wind, humidity, and other factors. “Totally different than a homeowner system,” he said.
Card told the WAC that GBCC isn’t interested in overwatering, saying, “Golf courses fight water, most of the time. “
The club recently invested in pipe systems to drain excess rainwater from greens. “We’re trying to do those things to eliminate disease,” Card said. “To eliminate problems and having to put down pesticides.”
“We’re trying to manage the water the best we can.”
Mixed messages?
Shaw asked Card whether the club had contacted homeowners about potential impacts on their wells. When the question came at the Hay Beach Homeowners Association talk, he said GBCC pointed out that privacy issues surrounding well water results mean homeowners should test their own wells.
“So the onus is on the homeowner,” Shaw said. But if there are adverse results, what’s the best way for a homeowner to share the data? Card suggested that homeowners could present complaints to the WAC.
Pysher said he was concerned about the potential for mixed messages regarding drought restrictions.
“Every time we try to do something, we get pushback like you wouldn’t believe,” he said. “If we do get into a situation where we have a severe drought, and you guys are pumping water up there, and we try to restrict water flow for the communities here, this could become a political issue.”
Destefanis said that as part of its permit application, the club has to develop a conservation management plan specifying what to do under drought conditions. Pysher asked what would happen if the Town’s drought assessment differed from the club’s.
“We’re going to be watching the monitoring wells with you,” Card said. “So we’ll be watching, seeing how things are going, and communicating.”
“Gardiner’s Bay is a fast and firm golf course,” he added. “We’re not a wet, lush golf course. We’re linksy-style golf.”
During summer months, irrigation for fairway use is nil, Card said. “If you have real wet areas out in front and everything else is dry — you’re schizophrenic.”
Grand didn’t appear to be persuaded.
“If they’re watching you spinning out 1.2 million gallons in August, I’m just not sure how I’m going to ask somebody in Hay Beach to not irrigate their property.”
But, Card said, the use is likely to stay the same as what’s happening now, although there may be some water savings from efficiencies.
Grand seeks more storage
Grand asked whether the club would consider building more capacity to store water pumped in the off-season for use during peak demand.
Card said the plan calls for an underground vault of 200,000 gallons, but more significant amounts would require a pond, and that evaporative loss becomes an essential factor.
Grand said he believes the math favors such a reservoir. “Per year, we know we’re getting 9 billion gallons of rainfall, and we’re losing 4 billion of it because there’s no place for it to go.”
And he wasn’t referring to runoff, but groundwater that flows through natural processes into surrounding saltwater. He described the aquifer as top-heavy in the center, with water pushing out the sides.
“And the only time we have a problem is in the damned summer,” Grand said. “It’s the only time we don’t want you to pump. Why can’t we replace the summer pumping with off-season pumping and massive storage?”
“So are you suggesting that we pump out even more water out of season to fill the [pond] to make up for the 1 million gallons of evaporative loss that we’re going to have?” Card asked.
“I am,” Grand said. “Because we’re going to lose that water anyway through the saltwater interface.”
Grand noted that he was “speaking above his paygrade,” and his committee has called for hiring a hydrologist.
Town Engineer weighs in
Town Engineer Joe Finora said he understood a change to Town Code would be required for the club to irrigate beyond what’s allowed. “So we should be speaking about this application in terms of local approval rather than just this isolated DEC approval.”
[Asked about this at Tuesday’s Town Board work session, Town Attorney Stephen F. Kiely said he anticipated no such change.]
Finora questioned WSP’s use of the drawdown modeling, saying it was similar to formulas for residential well impacts, which are on a “much smaller scale.”
“We don’t typically see drawdowns anywhere close to what you’ve identified here in the 10-plus-foot range.”
As a result, Finora asked that WSP further investigate other possible broader effects, such as groundwater elevation changes and directional flow that may result from the pumping.
Finora said there’s not much difference in elevation changes in the groundwater under Hay Beach, which indicates the water “isn’t moving outwardly that quickly.” As a result, he said, any significant drawdown may be more impactful. “You’d be more prone to pull water or push water from one direction or the other.”
WSP’s Ken Taylor said the area of the 10-foot drawdown was within two feet of the well. “The drawdown decreases the further way from the well you get.” And, inefficiencies within the well and other factors exaggerate the drawdown, Taylor said.
Moreover, he looked at groundwater impacts and found the drawdown wouldn’t substantially change the flow but didn’t include the information in the slides presented to the WAC.
Another concern, Finora said, was that the modeling needed to reflect the intended use accurately. “What jumps out at me,” he said, “is that particular quick drop — 10-plus-feet — and that’s going to happen as you cycle your pumps on and off.”
“Correct me if I’m wrong,” he said. “The irrigation system is not going run for three straight days and then you turn it off.”
Finora said he didn’t expect some “massive” change in the assessment, but “I think it would be beneficial for everyone involved here if we could see some modeling efforts that demonstrate those issues to alleviate everyone’s concern.”
Taylor said the DEC had also requested modeling aligned with how GBCC will use the wells. “That’s in the hopper for us to do anyway and is not a huge ask.” He said analysis already underway shows the groundwater flow paths stay the same.
‘How low could you go?’
Referring to a slide that said the club’s irrigated area was below the national average of 80.6 acres and the Northeast average of 54, Councilwoman BJ Ianfolla asked how water use compares to other seasonal courses.
Briggs, the course superintendent, said area courses typically use about 20M gallons per year, and the 12M gallons per year requested is the bare minimum.
“We’re not a luxury golf course,” he said. “That’s not what the method of play is. With this irrigation, you’re not going to see a lush green golf course.”
Given that the club planned a significant renovation, Ianfolla asked, “How low could you go?”
Card said the additional 6M gallons per year is for more than just watering playing surfaces. “It’s mainly for maintenance.”
With the additional water, the club will be able to water in new grass seed or install sod as it makes repairs.
“We’re not trying to irrigate a full-blown golf course,” he said.
Briggs said the club aims for a minimalist footprint, leaving natural areas mowed twice yearly. “Our actual playing surfaces are minimal compared to other golf courses.”
How about a pond?
Grand returned to the idea of developing more storage capacity in a pond. He pointed out the harrowing results of recent heavy rains in upstate New York and Vermont, where possibly in a sign of things to come as global warming advances, infrastructure wasn’t sufficient to manage the volume.
“You would then be able to engage in the water capture effort.”
While the club wants to do more to retain water, Card said it can’t do the work necessary to build berms, swales, and other landscape features without additional water to support their development.
Toner said GBCC might apply to the Water Quality Improvements Advisory Council for grant funding for such projects.
“It seems to me,” Grand said, “that if you had a large reservoir, you would be able to turn off your pumps in August and not be pumping 1.2M gallons but be recharging 1.2M gallons and improving things for the people of Hay Beach and the surrounding communities.”
Public comments
Bill Mastro, president of the Hay Beach Homeowners Association, reiterated many points already raised and noted some of the discussion had to do with perceptions.
“There are optics questions here,” he said. The WAC has notified the community of moderate drought status and asked for voluntary reductions in water usage. “Yet at the same time, there’s an application to draw out 6.1M gallons more.”
“Gardiner’s Bay should be doing things to make their club better and get the irrigation system more up to speed, but we have to consider some of these other situations.”
But the most crucial question was what benefit the Town would receive if the additional irrigation were permitted. “What’s the reward?”
Stephen Jacobs, also of Hay Beach, said the WAC was “jumping the gun” by discussing the project before the DEC had made its decision. He noted the state regulators had rejected the club’s 1996 request.
Moreover, the club is only allowed under Town Code to irrigate the playing surfaces covered by the 2003 exemption. While some WAC members had discussed conditions as though talking about a possible Town permit, Jacobs noted that a change to Town Code was needed.
“This committee and the Town Board should be looking, if anything, to strengthen the environmental protection in Town Code and not weaken them.”
Dave Ruby, also of Hay Beach, brought a set of charts to highlight aspects of the club’s DEC permit application where “the use of averages … kind of raised my attenae.”
A request for 104,000 gallons per acre per month, he said, is “four inches of water over one acre for a month. That’s a rice field.” While the club frames the request as 12M gallons for irrigation over a year, he said the bulk of the watering — 11M gallons — will take place over four months.
Using what he called “a favorite unit of measure on the Island — the eternity swimming pool,” Ruby displayed a bar graph representing the club’s proposed irrigation schedule as stacks of 75,000-gallon swimming pools.
“This is how many swimming pools you’re going to be filling, not topping off, but filling,” he said.
Peter Neckles, who owns an undeveloped Dering Harbor Village parcel adjoining the club, also reiterated previously stated concerns. He asked if GBCC, a wealthy club, was “such a good steward of the land,” then why wasn’t it already doing more to retain water?
He said the club had diminished its credibility in its “application to the DEC. It asks in several instances do you require any other approvals for this initiative to go forward and the club basically glosses over and says no.”
“I don’t see the need to give them an additional 6M gallons of water when there’s such other pressing needs on Shelter Island,” Neckles said.
Card responded that the club is “looking to provide a product for the members that will encourage new membership because without a healthy base for our membership, the alternatives aren’t great.”
“Trying to make the club as good as we can make it is important.”
Summing up the comments, Grand told Card, “the community seems to be looking for 1) how can you assure no harm to the surrounding areas and 2) how can this be a deal that’s also giving to the Town?”
Regarding the effort to retain water on site, Card said, “We can’t do that work without the ability to water. So, one thing is kind of connected hand in hand with the other.”
“I would just encourage you to think that there are win-win solutions out there, but they don’t involve pumping water in the summer,” Grand said.
Toner interjected, “But they have to.”
Ping pong?
Grand said if the club were to build an irrigation reservoir, it might “get clever” about mitigating evaporative loss.
“Scattering ping pong balls across a reservoir is done as a way of preventing evaporative loss. And you have room there,” he told Card.
Shaw spoke for many who may have wondered how the nearly two-hour discussion had turned to the evaporation-suppressing properties of ping pong balls.
“So we’re suggesting, or perhaps proposing, more tanks in the ground to reserve water?” she asked.
“At some point, financially, you leave the cistern and go to the pond,” Card said. “At that volume we can’t maintain that storage.”
“The point is, they can’t get 6M gallons into a tank,” Grand said.
“It would change the rotation of the Earth,” added Toner.
GBCC President Doug Sandberg
“Obviously, this is not only about science, but about a much broader spectrum of things that the community wants to accomplish,” said GBCC President Doug Sandberg.
He said the irrigation system replacement was a $3.5M maintenance issue that club members would pay for through borrowing and assessments. Likewise, the club wasn’t seeking assistance for its long-term renovations.
“Really, we’re just maintaining the course,” he said.
But projects directed at retaining water on-site — the berms and swales — benefit the larger community, and the club would follow up on possible grants from the Town to “share the burden.”
He pushed back on the notion of the club having $2M in cash, as alluded to by a speaker. “That was an accumulation of money that took place over a 10-year period because when we purchased the land we put in an obligation for the club to put $200,000 every year toward repayment of the mortgage.”
“So that $2M evaporated overnight. I think it’s a misnomer to say that this club is floating in money. It’s not. It has a strong balance sheet. It’s got strong financial statements. However, we don’t have $2M on the books.”
“I think the course is important to the Island,” he said, noting that two-thirds of the members are from here. “I think its an important resource for the Island.”
