|
|
On the Spelling
of Ground Water (February, 1995)* The spelling of the term "ground water" has evolved over the last 150 years. From the mid-1800's through the early 1900's, German engineering professors developed and taught many of the early geotechnical principles and techniques used in the construction of the day. Science and engineering were, for all practical purposes, combined as one endeavor. The scientist developed the principles of light, sound, heat, energy, materials strength and many other subjects including subsurface flow of water in a porous medium by analogy with heat flow. The scientist and engineer worked from opposite ends of the problem at hand. One developed, characterized and applied the principles while the other constructed, operated and commercialized the resulting structure or machine driven by the principles developed. Darcy, for example, was an engineer, who applied work done by other researchers, such as Laplace, etc. to improve the predictability of the ground-water supply to the Paris (France) system. As time progressed, the basic research of the scientist was extended forward into field applications and development, while the engineer followed the research back to evaluating principles. Major developments were made by German professors in geotechnical engineering which naturally included considerations of dewatering for construction purposes (see note1). Of course, the water in the subsurface had to be temporarily removed so that cement footers, foundations and anchors of all sorts could be installed in a relatively dry environment. In the German language, underground water is "Grundwasser;" and, as the influence of German engineering professors spread to the U.S., the term "groundwater" was used by these engineering professors and subsequently by their assistants and students. Before the 1920's, geology was established as an independent scientific field of endeavor and became separated from engineering auspices for a number of reasons, mostly related to philosophy of approach2. Concurrently, the U.S. Geological Survey formally adopted "ground water" as the official usage3, and introduced the use of a hyphen for the term ground water to modify another term such as in ground-water monitoring, ground-water chemistry, etc. The analogy here is: little red house, where "little" modifies "house", not "red"; whereas "ground" modifies "water", not "chemistry."In order to prepare the mind, the hyphen reminds the reader which word gets modified.
With regard to the latter issue, to hyphenate or not to hyphenate depends on the editorial policy of the group involved. However, in dealing with the first issue, as the 1950's and 60's came and went, the spelling "ground water" was adopted by the geology field4, while through the continued influence of the German geotechnical engineering professors as well as geotechnical engineering companies and consultants, "groundwater" continued to be used for dewatering and related geotechnical (and environmental) engineering activities, which of course was consistent with their engineering training while in college In the late 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, however, the environmental field was established and developed; and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted "ground water" in their publications 5, 6, 7, 8 until that is, the early 1980's when the Cincinnati Office of EPA's Engineering Group9 began to release publications using the term "groundwater." As time went on, engineering consulting companies expanded into the environmental field and the usage became widespread in opposition to many years of adopted custom in the US, except in consulting companies and other companies and agencies where geologists or hydrogeologists established policy or set the tone for the organization. There are, of course, exceptions where the appropriate spelling is used in a number of companies lead by "enlightened" engineers who have senior geological and hydrogeological personnel within their organizations. However, many engineering professors and engineers still believe geology is a subordinate field within the engineering field, not having had the benefit of the pronouncements by the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA, other academia, state regulatory agencies and other groups who had removed geology from engineering (and commercialization) controls as early as the 1900's. Even today, professionals in the environmental field will have the tendency to spell the term as they are taught, trained or instructed to spell it. Those with geological and hydrogeological backgrounds should spell it according to protocol; while others who have been influenced inappropriately, will spell it incorrectly, regardless of protocol. The question should always be asked however: is the spelling of ground water or any word, for that matter, really important? If we believe that nomenclature rules are important to follow, we should take this issue as serious although clearly irritating to everyone involved. This issue is important to hydrogeologists and environmental geologists because it typifies the problems between the two professions and because it highlights and underscores the primacy problems present in establishing separate state professional registration of geologists and engineers. Most state professional registration programs for geologists are designed to keep improperly trained engineers from practicing geology (especially as it effects human health and the environment) just as registration programs for engineers are designed to keep all others from performing engineering activities. Very clearly, the problem involves the definition of the glass containing 50 percent water. One group will claim it is half full, while the other half empty. The answer is that both groups are correct based on their particular perspectives.The subject, in the environmental field at least, requires multidisciplinary cooperation. No one discipline
should be responsible for any final decision on remediation. Only
the individual deemed by management to be capable of assimilating
all input should be made responsible for such decisions on behalf
on the company or agency after consideration of all perspectives.
This would be individual-dependent, not discipline-dependent. However,
one can still reasonably predict that when a textbook (or report,
article, etc.) deals with "groundwater", one could also
expect a limited geological foundation and an engineering perspective
or influence in the treatment of the subject. Geological Influences: In general then, the inappropriate spelling is usually permitted out of ignorance and/or expediency. There is no "turf battle" on this matter because the use of the term: ground water has historical precedence in the US and is within the domain and technical expertise, training and experience of the hydrogeologist and environmental geologist. In the environmental field today, assuming the responsibility of a professional endeavor without appropriate foundation is insupportable, and in some states where such professionals must be registered, these activities are against the law. It is imperative, therefore, that the appropriate professions are brought to bear on technical issues at the appropriate time to ensure that the proper interdisciplinary mix is realized in environmental projects;. otherwise, ineffectiveness and wasted budgets will result. The P.E.10 engineer should certainly also have technical guidance from the hydrogeologist or geologist (P.H.11 and P.G.12) when preparing to design remediation systems. Without such guidance, conditions could be established where economic inefficiencies, imminent danger and or potential damage to human health and the environment could result from inappropriate system design and operation. In a similar
manner, site characterizations should have input from the P.E. on
subjects that relate to subsequent remediation and other engineering
activities. So it seems that the spelling of a word is important
because the very action indicates whose influence is being applied
to a project. References |
|
|
© 1998-2006 Institute of Environmental Technology Last Update: November 12 , 2006 
|