Series B Investment Proposal

1
SOLUTIONS CENTER PRECISE WATER
MANAGEMENT WATER SAVINGS
2
Industry Issue

• With rising costs, shortages, governmental
  regulations, and the movement to be better
  stewards of the environment Turfgrass managers
  are faced with greater pressures than ever to
  conserve water
• Many golf maintenance facilities are being forced
  to reduce costs improve efficiency of applied
  irrigation

• Southern California
• Courses using effluent or reclaimed water have
  seen an increase of 27 from 2001 to 2006.
• Paying as much as 350,000 per year for effluent
  water

• Nevada
• Increasing water costs and stringent regulatory
  controls
• Some courses paying as much as 600,000 per year,
  or almost 15 per round in Las Vegas

• Arizona
• Water costs a major line item in yearly budget.
• Phoenix Scottsdale water costs for effluent
  water can be as high as 25-30 of the overall
  maintenance budget (between 1-2 per 1,000
  gallons)

3
Customer ProblemCase Study Desert Mountain (AZ)

• Desert Mountain Golf Communities (DM)
• Golf community north of Phoenix with 6 six golf
  courses
• Mandated to use discharge from the sewage
  treatment plant for irrigation
• 800-1400 ppm for discharged water (ideally less
  than 1000 ppm).
• Negative impacts to soil and quality of playing
  surface occurs without stringent management
  practices
• Despite use of effluent water, average water
  costs range from 1-2 per thousand gallons

• Customer Objective
• Develop more efficient water management program
  to offset increasing water costs
• Reduce salinity buildup rates from effluent water
  source
• Refine salinity flushing program which could be
  utilized
• throughout DMs 6 golf courses
• Refine overall course irrigation practice based
  on accurate soil moisture information

4
RZ-Wireless SolutionCase Study Desert Mountain
(AZ)

• Customer and AST agronomist evaluated current
  irrigation practices and programs based on
  utilizing soil sensors
• Customer and AST agronomist established desired
  soil conditions in greens based on actual
  subsurface sensor readings
• Measured soil moisture levels at 2 inches and 6
  inches
• Identified baseline moisture level from existing
  practices showing averages of 22
• Carefully monitored moisture level changes as
  irrigation run times and irrigation frequencies
  were reduced
• Flushing practices, irrigation cycles, and
  precipitation events were monitored over several
  months

5
ResultsCase Study Desert Mountain GC (AZ)

• Insights gained from using RZ-Wireless sensor
  system

• Water Insight 1
• Initially, Customer believed that 20-22
  moisture level was appropriate for his greens
• RZ-Wireless sensors showed that a lower moisture
  level could be achieved without reduced turf
  quality

• Water Insight 2
• AST sensors allowed Customer to experiment with
  different moisture levels in a precise manner not
  feasible without AST
• Weather stations or infrequent usage of handheld
  measuring devices

• Change Practice Results
• Lowered his target moisture level from 22 to 16
  with no loss of turf quality and resulting in 20
  reduction in water use
• Adjusted run times on individual heads to produce
  more uniform moisture levels on undulating greens
  and fairways.
• Stretched irrigation intervals from 4 days to 6
  days after establishing confidence in a lower
  soil moisture level

6
Customer ResultsCase Study Desert Mountain GC
(AZ)

• Irrigation water
• Attributes a reduction of 40 ac./ft. (approx. 13
  million gallons) with sensory feedback. At 1 per
  1000 gallons, this was a 13,000 savings.
• Gypsum
• Reduced flushings due to sensory feedback from 24
  events per year down to 12.
• 12 fewer events x 1500 lbs. of gypsum / event
  18,000 lbs. (9 tons) less Gypsum needed, which at
  225/ ton was a 2,025 savings.
• Labor
• Required to apply gypsum, at 8 man/hours x 12
  applications x 10.50/hr. for a 1,008 savings
• Fertilizers
• Not flushed through due to reduced leaching
• Potassium Reduction Down by 8 lbs./1000 sq.ft. K
  applied 8 lbs of K / 1000 x 150,000 sq.ft. of
  greens applying 0-0-50 2,400 lbs product x
  .35/ lb. 840 saved
• Nitrogen Reduction Down 2 lbs of N / 1000 x
  150,000 sq.ft. of greens applying a 13-15 greens
  grade product 1,950 lbs. product x .37 / lb.
  722 saved

First Year Savings Water (13,000) Gypsum (
2,025) Labor ( 1,008) Fertilizer (
1,562) Savings Yr 1 (17,595)
7
Additional Insights

• Irrigation Uniformity
• Customer identified areas where individual heads
  were physically relocated to produce more uniform
  wetting
• Particularly important on greens with significant
  undulations
• Over-watering with Weather Station
• Customers weather station registered a watering
  need of .150 inches per day
• Actual soil readings from sensors (at 16
  moisture threshold) showed a need of .125 inches
  per day
• Differential was 20 implied water savings
• Accuracy vs Weather Station
• Customer used real time feedback from root zone
  versus predication of irrigation needed from
  aerial instruments which are effected by
  micro-climates and calibration
• Irrigation Intervals
• Customer stretched both the intervals between
  flushing events and between course-wide
  irrigation events

8
Water Savings Conclusions

• Identify Optimum Moisture Thresholds
• Fine Tune Sprinkler Run Times for Greater
  Moisture Uniformity
• More Precise Than Calculated ET Values from
  Weather Station
• Flush Salts Based on Fact versus Feel
• Remote Access to monitor moisture levels from the
  Office, Home, Trade Show, or on Vacation