Bullock Texas State History Museum
Utilizing the Water
RECEIVED Tue., Dec. 29, 2020
Dear Chronicle,
RE Lina Fisher’s piece “As Wastewater Plants Fail, TCEQ Fails to Regulate” [News, Dec. 25], the basic problem is well stated, but the solutions reviewed are “truncated.” Understanding the rather cursory nature of the piece, still the sole “prescription” offered is to append on changes in operation at the end of the pipe, while the real long-term solution to the problems due to stream discharge noted in the piece will be to fundamentally reorganize the whole system architecture. In short, to move away from the conventional centralized system architecture, essentially the 19th century response to the problems posed by wastewater at the time, the whole aim of which was to pipe the problem “away.” Today we have a bit more respect for the impacts this water creates at “away” – the focus of Ms. Fisher’s piece – but we have not stopped to question if we have to send this water RESOURCE “away” to begin with!
Understand that the whole predicate for even considering stream discharge to begin with is that we have gathered the flow from miles around to one point source; thus, the conventional centralized system architecture is the essential problem. We can – and should – consider instead pursuing the “decentralized concept” strategy. Essentially, that is to treat the “waste” water – and beneficially reuse it to the maximum extent feasible – as close to where it is generated as practical. We can’t detail all that within the word count limit of this letter, so for a rundown on how, and why, to pursue the decentralized concept, see “This is how we do it” and “Let’s Compare” and similar pieces in the Waterblogue. Bottom line, in places like Blanco and Dripping Springs, and all over the Hill Country, we need to fundamentally transform our water infrastructure resources model, focusing on utilizing this water RESOURCE, not on just piping it “away.”
RE Lina Fisher’s piece “As Wastewater Plants Fail, TCEQ Fails to Regulate” [News, Dec. 25], the basic problem is well stated, but the solutions reviewed are “truncated.” Understanding the rather cursory nature of the piece, still the sole “prescription” offered is to append on changes in operation at the end of the pipe, while the real long-term solution to the problems due to stream discharge noted in the piece will be to fundamentally reorganize the whole system architecture. In short, to move away from the conventional centralized system architecture, essentially the 19th century response to the problems posed by wastewater at the time, the whole aim of which was to pipe the problem “away.” Today we have a bit more respect for the impacts this water creates at “away” – the focus of Ms. Fisher’s piece – but we have not stopped to question if we have to send this water RESOURCE “away” to begin with!
Understand that the whole predicate for even considering stream discharge to begin with is that we have gathered the flow from miles around to one point source; thus, the conventional centralized system architecture is the essential problem. We can – and should – consider instead pursuing the “decentralized concept” strategy. Essentially, that is to treat the “waste” water – and beneficially reuse it to the maximum extent feasible – as close to where it is generated as practical. We can’t detail all that within the word count limit of this letter, so for a rundown on how, and why, to pursue the decentralized concept, see “This is how we do it” and “Let’s Compare” and similar pieces in the Waterblogue. Bottom line, in places like Blanco and Dripping Springs, and all over the Hill Country, we need to fundamentally transform our water infrastructure resources model, focusing on utilizing this water RESOURCE, not on just piping it “away.”
David Venhuizen, P.E.
