| 
|
By Sam Masson
Looking back, I think
that the most important
thing I learned
in school was how
to use the word “depends.” I
learned to use it as much as
I can, everywhere I can. For
me, the answer to any question,
“Is x true?” became,
“Well, is it true for whom?
Where? Why? Under what
circumstances? According
to whom?” And on, and on...
the constant deconstruction
of others’ claims was exhausting,
and now I’m grateful
to have that diploma on
my wall and to have retained
my sanity in the process.
Still, the academic “tool”
that I use the most in my
daily life is my appreciation
for this word, “depends,”
which can shed light on the
subjectivity that’s inherent in
most things, if you take the
time to look for it.
In this issue, we have an
article about small-scale,
wetlands-based treatment
systems, which perfectly
illustrates this subjectivity;
what’s good for the goose
might not be good for the
gander, and the “perfect”
wetlands system for one
situation might fall far short
of perfection somewhere
else. Climate issues, soil
types, vegetation types,
O&M issues and more come
into play in this story. A
big part of what makes our
industry so diverse is the
fact that there really isn’t a
one-size-fits-all solution for
everything.
That’s also what makes
it a dynamic and sometimes
contentious industry, and
I definitely received some
feedback on our commentary
about nitrogen in
the September/October issue
of OWT. Its author is a
well-respected consultant
in the wastewater treatment
business, and I personally
approved the column.
However, it’s proved to be a
bone of contention for one
of our Editorial Advisory
Board members, who is
similarly well-respected in
the industry. I’m happy to
give room for his rebuttal
statements, and if we cover
a subject in Onsite Water
Treatment that doesn’t jibe
with your perceptions, or
contradicts something you
know to be true, I’d certainly
like to know about it. I can
be reached at sam@forester.
net, or 805-679-7613. Productive
dialogue from the
diverse voices of our industry
will help to make future
issues of Onsite Water Treatment even better.
Clearly, matters of perception
are very
important in
both of these
situations. Another
important
issue having to
do with the word
“depends” has to do with
the word “onsite.” In my
conversations with people
in the industry, “onsite”
can have a very specific
meaning, and if we went
by NOWRA’s definition of
that word, then our editorial
focus certainly extends
beyond the framework of
their Model Code. However,
I’m happy to keep our focus
broad, because the diversity
that comes from examining
industrial, agricultural, and
food and beverage manufacturing
serves to complement
possible solutions for
septic and ATU treatment
systems. Many companies
involved with F&B or
process-water treatment
also have projects in the
residential and commercial
wastewater markets, and I’m
excited to cover all of these
subjects. It still gives me
pause, though, when representatives
from “multifaceted”
companies tell me that
they “have a project with a
winery, and an installation
at a farm,” but that they’d
“prefer to focus more on the
onsite stuff,” as though the
latter were completely separate
and different from the
first two.
For me, any treatment
process that happens onsite,
as opposed to getting
shipped away and dealt with
elsewhere, is fair game for
us to discuss. The focus
of our magazine has to do
with dealing with a precious
resource: water. There are
many ways to treat that resource,
some of which are
offsite, and some of which
are onsite. We are committed
to being “the Journal for
Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Solutions,” and
there are so many interesting
things happening in so many
aspects of the decentralized
wastewater treatment industry,
that I wouldn’t want to
limit our readers to just one
piece of the onsite pie.
That’s just my perception;
whether you agree or not,
depends on where you’re
coming from.
Send an email to sam@forester.net
OW - November/December 2006 |
