A better name
After spending over 37 years in the water and wastewater industry, I would agree that if we call it sewage or wastewater, most people still have a negative image of our profession. Almost all professions have had a name change over the years, and it is probably time for the wastewater operators to go through a name change once again.
The name of water resource recovery facility and water resource recovery operator are names that I believe would bring a positive image to our behind-the-scenes profession.
Brent E. Frazier, Retired
Utilities Superintendent
Pelican Rapids, Minn.
Preference for ‘specialist’
I myself, as I am known as an operator, would like to see the name changed from wastewater plant to water resource recovery plant. To me, this name says it all. Also I prefer the name specialist over operator. For all we do, specialist is more fitting, and I believe this title is more attractive for a younger generation coming into the water and wastewater industry. That’s just my opinion.
Doug Allen
Water/Wastewater Manager
Village of Viola, Wis.
Get over it?
I say just get over words. Sewage, wastewater — no big deal. But if a change must happen, I say: water recycling plant.
Vince Summers
Lovingston, Va.
Shorter and simpler
I am with you — I prefer “clean-water plant” for its simplicity. In my opinion, your point about “water resource recovery facility” needing further explanation is the main reason I dislike that version (although, having a bureaucratic tone is a close second).
Simple and to the point is better on a facility sign by the side of a highway anyway. Consider the following:
- Wastewater treatment plant — 26 characters
- Water pollution control facility — 32 characters
- Water reclamation plant — 23 characters
- Clean water plant — 17 characters
- Water resource recovery facility — 32 characters
If simplicity (shortness) were the only criteria, “sewer plant” only contains 11 characters. But that does nothing to evoke images of fishing, swimming, canoeing, pleasant beaches or sunsets on the water. Of course, who knows where texting acronyms will leads us. Maybe we should be discussing the merits of CWP and WR2F.
Vick Pedregon
Plant Superintendent
Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant
El Paso, Texas
Don’t muddy the waters
I dislike the terms put forth in the April TPO as names for wastewater treatment plants (specifically “clean water plants” and “water resource recovery facilities”). They literally muddy the waters.
High-minded people in positions of influence seem to have decided that terms with negative connotations are to be avoided; this must have arisen from studying politics and advertising. Supposedly, terms such as “pollution” and “waste” cause negative thoughts and unpleasant images. While I appreciate this concept, we are not selling a product and we are not promoting a candidate. We are a public utility (is that now a negative term to be avoided?). The term “water pollution control plant” used by some facilities brings a positive image to my mind, as pollution control is good.
The analogy to dairy farms misses the mark. A dairy farm’s primary purpose is to raise animals to produce dairy products, not to produce manure; manure is a byproduct — it’s used as fertilizer. At best, you might make the argument that it’s a dairy farm and fertilizer producer.
Wastewater plants were created to take in and treat wastewater (and other waste streams that might otherwise end up in surface water or groundwater), remove nutrients and pathogens, and prevent pollution to the receiving waters. I recall a test question for my operator’s license asking, “Why Treat Wastewater?” The answer was “to protect the environment and to protect public health.” We have the ability for some excellent resource recovery with what we take in, but I think it’s ridiculous to shy away from why we exist in the first place.
Where does the name-changing end? Will septic tanks become “water resource recovery tanks” and septage haulers “water resource recovery haulers”? Will I now work for the “Water and Clean Water Department”? Does the sewer collection system become “water resource recovery mains”? Rumor has it that even the term “facility” or “plant” is not positive enough — it connotes concrete and piping. The wastewater plant is now some type of “recovery center.” Good karma abounds.
Boy, is everyone in for a surprise when they tour the plant and visit influent screening and septage receiving! When I tell people I work at the wastewater plant, about half the people immediately mention the name of (or something related to) the local water treatment plants, requiring me to explain that I work on the used water side. I’d prefer “sewer treatment plant” to what’s being proposed — it leaves little room for confusion there.
As a final thought, on the Letters page in the April issue, a writer bemoaned being thought of as Ed Nortons. I admire the character of Ed Norton, and I’d be proud to be thought of as an Ed Norton. He was an honest, hardworking man with a great sense of humor.
Consider the Idea of the Month, “Can’t Argue With Success?” right next to your editorial. Potty humor, and its success. I say, embrace what we are, what we do and what we treat. That’s why I admire the show “Dirty Jobs,” its host Mike Rowe, and the people and professions showcased. These people aren’t shying away from what they do. The show educates the public as to what they do, and hopefully brings respect to what they do — without requiring an alias. I suggest we work more on education and information and less on renaming and branding.
CJ Kilgore
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator
Ithaca, N.Y.
Why not ‘recycling’?
During all the years I worked as a treatment plant operator, I constantly got “the look” when I told people what I did for a living, but I knew I performed a valuable service for the environment. The current trend is to reuse as much as possible to save the environment, so why can’t plants be referred to as water recycling centers?
Roger Campbell
Utilities Superintendent, Retired
Glendale, Ohio
Excellent name
I just read your comment in the April TPO. Very interesting. I think you hit the nail on the head — clean water plant is an excellent name. It is succinct and clear. It is what we do (or hope to do). Yes, let’s call these places for what they strive for and not away from.
Derek Albertson, MPA
Operations Manager
Town of Branford (Conn.) WPCF
Truth in advertising?
I find that if you call a wastewater plant by some other name, like water reclamation or anything with water in front of it, the general public thinks of clean water. I have seen where new plants have been constructed and people see “water” in the name and assume it is clean water. They build homes next door and then complain about the odor and noise.
Unless the general public is educated on the different names for treating wastewater, the name should clearly relate to what it really is. A pig farm should not be called “bacon in the making.” So a “sewer plant” should have a name that clearly states what is really going on.
Lyndon Johnson
Superintendent
Village of West Jefferson, Ohio
