Sep
2
We Need a National Policy: Is ‘Ground Water’ One Word or Two?
September 2, 2008 | Posted by Michael "Aquadoc" Campana
8 Comments
We’ve had some great posts here about national flood insurance, a national water vision or strategy, the role of the Federal government versus the state governments vis-a-vis water, etc. But we’ve failed miserably to address the ”elephant in the room” of hydrogeology.
Is “ground water” one word or two?
A Middle East peace settlement pales in comparison to this issue. Georgia will swallow Russia before this argument is settled. Heck, the USA will have a national water plan first.
My esteemed opinion: it doesn’t matter, as long as you are consistent.
I generally use “ground water” as two words, although when I recently looked at my 1975 PhD dissertation, I was surprised to discover that I had spelled it “groundwater”. This I attributed to my dissertation advisor, the late Dr. Eugene S. Simpson. Gene was a master of the English language. In fact, he had originally planned to get a Bachelor’s degree in English from City College of New York (now City University of New York), but World War II had turned him towards civil engineering and he got his BSCE.
When I started writing my dissertation, I used “ground water”; Gene changed it to “groundwater”. When I tried to make my case, citing that since we spelled the following as two words - surface water, lake water, ocean water, soil water, etc. - we should be logical and spell it as ‘ground water’, Gene replied, “English is not a logical language.” No response to that.
He then explained that much of the early work in ground water hydraulics had been done by German-speaking scientists and engineers: Philipp Forchheimer, Gunther and Adolf Thiem, Karl Terzhagi, et al. As is the custom in German, “grund” and “wasser” were combined to form “grundwasser”. Many of the early English-speaking water engineers and scientists adopted this convention. But many didn’t, following my logic.
In retrospect I have flip-flopped throughout the years. Whether I used “groundwater” or “ground water” largely depended upon which ground water book I was using for my classes: Groundwater by R. Allan Freeze and John Cherry; Groundwater Hydrology by Herman Bouwer; Applied Hydrogeology by Bill Fetter (who used two words); Hydraulics of Groundwater by Jacob Bear.
I should also note that the world’s premier ground water organization, the National Ground Water Association, and its flagship journal Ground Water, use two words, although Editor-in-Chief Mary Anderson prefers one word. I kid NGWA Executive Director Kevin McCray that in the logo, “ground” and “water” seem to be creeping inexorably towards each other. You can click on one of the above links and see for yourself. Does “ground water” in the logo look like two words?
The USGS also uses two words.
One advantage to using one word: there is no ambiguity about hyphenation when it is used as an adjective. Is it “ground-water hydrology” or “ground water hydrology”? Again, be consistent. But don’t ever write “surface and groundwater” when you mean “surface water and groundwater”. However, “surface and ground water” is okay, as is “surface water and ground water”. Ah, English!
There actually has been a fair amount of discussion on one word vs. two, including a brief article by A. Ivan Johnson (1986), which comes down strongly on the side of two words (the article starts at the bottom of the first page):
Then Allan Freeze, one of the world’s foremost hydrogeologists, penned this “allegory” several months later in 1987:
Freeze is telling us not to take this too seriously, which is good advice.
If you are still reading this, you’re no doubt wondering, “Does this guy have too much time on his hands or what?”
And I’d be willing to bet this post will generate more than the usual number of comments.
[Note added on 5 April 2009: the USGS has decided that 'groundwater' is one word.]
“And that, my children, is why ‘ground water’ is always two words, or one.” — Michael E. Campana
Related posts:
- Report on the National Water Policy Event: We’ve ‘Been There’ But Haven’t ‘Done That’ It was more like ‘Night of the Stars’ than an...
- National Water Policy Event, 28 July 2009 in DC Jim Thebaut, friend and filmmaker extraordinaire,and the man behind the Running...
- 35 Years of Water Policy: The 1973 National Water Commission and Present Challenges Betsy A. Cody and Nicole T. Carter of the Congressional...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
8 Comments so far
Subscribe
Thanks for the explanation. I have been working on publications and can never figure out which to use. I will use either or maybe just grundwasser.
What a great idea to seek a common name. Many of us in the water business struggle on terminology (i.e. Storm Water, stormwater, reuse, recycled water, reclaimed water, microconstituents, emerging contaminants, etc). Standardization of terms is one way we can help communicate our information to our publics.
Mike, I am for saving energy and space, so, if we can form two words into one and everyone understands what the word means, sobeit. ;>)
Now, distinguishing the floodway and the riparian zone, this has become a problem (if you catch my drift).
Hi, folks.
Thanks for your comments. Just further proof that the big issues don’t elude us here!
Lisa – I like your solution.
L. Kelly -I agree, but think we’re a long way off.
Jane – your comment reminds me of an episode 25 years ago. I was writing a proposal with a consulting geologist. He asked me to proof the final draft, and when I returned it, he noted that wherever he had written “permeability”, I had crossed it out and inserted “hydraulic conductivity”.
I gently explained to him that “hydraulic conductivity” had supplanted “permeability” as the preferred term. “Silly me! Why use one word when two will do?” was his response.
I kept my mouth shut after that.
Mike -
Seems to me that I read somewhere that when used as an adjective (as in “groundwater quality”) the phrase is one word, while when referring to the material itself, (as in “the ground water resource”), the useage is two words.
Earl
I agree that we should save space and use “groundwater.”
Also to save space, can we use “hydrologic” instead of “hydrological?”
“Ground water” could conceivably be misunderstood by a non-native English speaker. “Groundwater,” not likely.
Don’t get me started. While googling for an authoritative reference on the spelling of “ground water” or “storm water,” I came across Dr. Campana’s post.
Dr. Stan Davis taught that “ground water” is two words. As far as I know, the USGS standard is also “ground water.” On a related matter, I believe a two-word noun should be hyphenated when used as an adjective.
It will be “ground water” and “storm water” for me until the day that “surface water” is spelled as one word, or pigs fly — whichever comes first.
Marc