| 
|
By Sam Masson
I was recently having lunch with a couple of consultants, and the conversation turned from water treatment and project engineering to what we liked to do for fun. One of my guests was bemoaning the uncertain future of his preferred winter recreation; he had been riding and racing snowmobiles—“snow machines,” he called them—for nearly 30 years, but it was now unclear, he said, as to how much longer he’d be able to ride in the backcountry that he so enjoyed. Although we don’t have a lot of snow on the coast of southern California, his story sounded familiar to me. He explained that the attitudes and political climate in his hometown had changed over the past couple of years; although most residents were indifferent to snow machines, a few cross-country skiers and snowshoers were lobbying for legislation to restrict snowmobiling to certain designated areas or to eliminate it altogether. My friend told me that these other “snow sport” enthusiasts cited multiple reasons to support their cause. Not being a snowmobile rider myself, I could understand their arguments. However, I also understood my friend’s point of view, and I believed him when he said that, for the most part, most people in his community didn’t care one way or the other.
The reason this sounded familiar was because I’ve been caught in a similar situation in my own extended “neighborhood.” I have been hiking since I was old enough to stand, backpacking from the time I was big enough to carry my own gear, and I was riding a bike just as soon as I could reach the pedals, and I’m still hiking or biking nearly every opportunity I get. The past couple of years, my enjoyment of the great outdoors has been tempered by the same ominous cloud that’s marked my friend’s enjoyment of his snowmobile, as several vocal groups of trail-users have been demanding that our government agencies address the question, “To whom does Nature belong?” Some members of my community would like to see bicyclists removed from our local trails; as an outdoorsman who equally enjoys hiking and cycling, I can’t easily get behind this cause. But, it’d also be hard for me to dismiss their issues out of hand...I see my own point of view, and I see theirs as well. I think that the great outdoors should be available to everyone, provided that one person’s enjoyment doesn’t come at the cost of another person’s safety. Ours isn’t a problem that affords an easy solution, and neither is my snowmobiling friend’s.
My friend and I agreed that in both of our situations, the first priority ought to be the preservation and enjoyment of nature, rather than squabbling over who ought to claim dominion over our local backcountry. Rules and regulations are definitely important, and certainly should be heeded—especially if they are established thoughtfully, in ways that reflect best practices and sustainable solutions. Also, there’s room enough for different types of technology. There ought to be places for tires and for boots, for skis as well as snowmobiles...and, if properly planned and implemented, I believe that diverse technologies such as these can peacefully coexist with one another.
We had a good laugh when we noticed the similarities between our recreational activities and our shared area of work. My friends advocate a specific type of decentralized water treatment solution, which can be adapted to work in a wide variety of situations. Naturally, they have competitors who would pitch a different type of solution for a particular site...and advocates of centralized, municipal water treatment systems stand at odds to a wide variety of onsite systems, for a wide variety of reasons. What is easily forgotten is that our business really shouldn’t be about one technology being the be-all-end-all solution... the overall goal for all of us ought to be clean water. I think that we would all agree that the most important piece of the puzzle—and why we do what we do—ought to be improvement of water quality in order to maintain and protect our environment...and we should remember that there’s more than one way for that puzzle piece to be placed. Obviously, competing technologies will promote the benefits of their solutions and point out the shortcomings of others...but, in point of fact, if a solution simply didn’t work, it wouldn’t be on the market for very long. And, looking at the water treatment industry in a mercantile, “my-piece-of-the-pie” way is to ignore the overarching goal of environmental protection. When I’m hiking in the Sierras or riding my bike in the Rockies, I smile at everyone I meet, because I recognize myself in the people that are out there doing the same as I, on the same day, in the same place. When I see bicyclists while I’m hiking, I remember that they’re out there because they’re enjoying the same thing that I’m enjoying: We’re excited about the same thing. Similarly, I am excited about the future of the water treatment industry—something that we’re all in on together.
Editor's note:
In "Grease 'Traps' Making (new) Names for Themselves" (March/April 2006), a company called EEC is listed as a manufactuerer of FOG devices. EEc is not affiliated with Environment Engineering & Contracting Inc., the firm that devised the new gravity grease interceptor sizing formula with plumbing engineer Tim allinson.
The heading above the sizing chart is incorrect. it should be divided so that "DFU" is over the left column and "HGI Flow (gpm)" is above the right column. The chart is out of date; it has been revised to add extrapolated interceptor sizes. The correct chart can be found in chapter ten of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
In the discussion comparing small and large inceptors, the assertion that tradeoffs are irreconcilable, and the possible implication that smaller interceptors don't allow sufficient time for FOG separation to occur, are points of controversy; neither statemnt shouo dbe interpreted as reflecting Mr Shaffer's views.
Send an email to sam@forester.net
OW
- May/June 2006 |
