The Salt Free Water Softener Experiment

With the problem going on with salt-based water softeners, we need to make a push for moving in a new direction. There is a great system out there that I love and works great and it doesn't waste water or use salt. It's a NuvoH2O system, and you should check them out.

HELLO REED

I WOULD LIKE TO POST THIS ON THE ECOSMARTE WEB SITE AS A BLOG WITH AN UPDATE TO THE SIGNING OF THE NEW BILL ON OCTOBER 12TH YOU DO A GREAT JOB OF LAYING OUT THE EVENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA. PLEASE CHECK OUT ECOSMARTE.COM AND POST THIS OR IF YOU TELL ME I CAN I WILL CUT AND PASTE IT

THANK YOU
JOE CANTIN
REGIONAL SALE
ECOSMARTE PLANET FRIENDLY

In the raging battle over wastewater, a hot topic in recent years has been the affect of water softener brine discharge on chloride levels. In short, water softeners use salt to regenerate the resin that removes hardness (mostly calcium and magnesium) from the water. As the softener regenerates some of this salt is sent down the drain and into wastewater treatment plants.

So, the simple water softener has become a target for those trying to decrease the chloride levels at wastewater plants (and elsewhere). Many communities have attempted to ban softeners altogether and a recent California Bill, rejected by governor Schwarzenegger, would have allowed communities to ban softeners without any research to prove that the ban would be effective. The Water Quality Association (WQA) has long fought against bans on water softeners stating that they provide much more benefit (lower energy cost of soft water versus hard water) than harm to the environment. The water treatment industry believes that requiring greater efficiencies with softeners is a much better solution than an outright ban. Moreover, it is not clear that softeners are a significant source of the chlorides that the bans are supposed to be reducing. There is no doubt that some older softeners use way more salt than is necessary, but modern softeners are extremely efficient and through good research and development can get even better.

Santa Clarita is probably the most famous softener ban in the U.S. largely because it was one of the first (and also because there is not much fame in banning softeners). Now the California State Senator who helped get the ban approved says voters were duped and, surprise, the ban did not eliminate chlorides or even reduce them enough to forestall the rate increases that the ban was supposed to eliminate. So, now they have banned softeners so residents are living with extremely hard water, which does increase energy cost and soap and chemical cleaning supplies usage. And they still get the rate increase from the wastewater district. It’s a lose-lose for the consumer, as usual. Hopefully we all remember this when the next knee-jerk softener ban is proposed.

http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71929

SANTA CLARITA, CA — A California state senator says he and the voters of this community were victims of a “bait and switch” by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which is now saying that Santa Clarita’s new ban on water softeners won’t prevent the likely tripling of sewer rates in that community.

Sen. George Runner, a Republican representing the district that includes Santa Clarita, was instrumental several years ago in sponsoring and getting enacted a law that required homeowners to be compensated for softener removals. The law also set in motion a local referendum in which voters had to decide whether they wanted a softener ban.

That referendum was held in November 2008, with a majority of voters favoring the ban that took effect January 1. Prior to the election, a key argument advanced by the county sanitation district in favor of the ban was that it would prevent major tax increases required to build new wastewater treatment facilities to handle chlorides entering existing wastewater plants. Recently, however, sanitation district officials have said that, even with the softener ban, they’ll still need to install new wastewater treatment equipment to remove enough chlorides to satisfy requirements of the regional water quality control board, a move that will more than triple local sewer rates.

In an opinion piece published May 17 by Santa Clarita’s local newspaper, The Signal, Runner wrote: “One wonders if voters would have voted down [the referendum] had they been told the truth. If voters knew that rates would be increased whether the measure was approved or not, they may have chosen to keep their water softeners.”

Voters “got duped,” Runner stated.

Voters themselves were irate to learn recently about the proposed rate increase despite the softener ban, as The Signal reported. In a May 6 public meeting, sanitation district officials told residents that the district learned after the election that the regional water quality control board would not agree to raise its allowable chloride level during drought years, which has necessitated spending for new wastewater treatment systems.

We’ve all been victims of a bait and switch: a sales tactic in which an item is used to attract customers who, once lured, find themselves receiving something different than what was offered.

It’s never a pleasant experience, but there is something particularly offensive when public officials engage in this dishonest tactic — they are supposed to be working for us.

Unfortunately, L.A. County Sanitation Districts — a collection of 24 agencies including one in the Santa Clarita Valley — were guilty of this behavior when they recently reneged on their promise to keep sewer rates low if residents voted to ban the use of water softeners.

Measure S, which voters approved last November, required homeowners to remove home water-softening systems within the local sanitation district’s service area in order to lower chloride levels in the Santa Clara River, as required by the state of California.

For years, sanitation officials have claimed that sewer rates would increase substantially unless water softeners were removed from Santa Clarita Valley homes.

In fact, one official said, “if it (Measure S) doesn’t pass, residents could face a hefty property tax hike — as much as $400 a year — to finance a $350 million desalination system.”

The Sanitation Districts used this argument to convince me to author Senate Bill 475, which put in motion Measure S.

This legislation was designed to avoid the drastic rate increases and address chloride levels in a way that empowered voters to be involved in the decision making.

As expected, voters dutifully passed Measure S, believing that sanitation representatives were telling them the truth. However, despite the passage of Measure S, the Sanitation Districts announced recently that the average sewer assessment rate would be increased from $14.92 to $47 per month — more than triple the current rate!

District officials claim that the rate hike is necessary to install new micro-filtration systems in Santa Clarita’s two treatment plants to address chloride levels in the Santa Clara River.

Guess what? That cost is $385 a year, which looks remarkably similar to the cost voters were told they would be able to avoid by voting for Measure S.

One wonders if voters would have voted down Measure S had they been told the truth. If voters knew that rates would be increased whether the measure was approved or not, they may have chosen to keep their water softeners.

In fact, a Sanitation Districts news release stated emphatically, “If all automatic water softeners aren’t removed now, sewer bills may be higher forever.”

Does that mean the rate increases of the same proposed levels are somehow going to be temporary now? I don’t think so, and voters got duped.

If the L.A. County Sanitation Districts were banking on the fact that removing the water softeners would prompt the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Board to change the rules for them to avoid treatment costs, they should have been honest with the voters about that.

I agree it is an outrage that the Regional Water Quality Board did not send representatives to informational hearings to help explain the problem to Sanitation Districts customers.

But what’s more troubling is that the Sanitation Districts abused the trust of the voters when they sold Measure S as the only way to avoid higher sewer assessment rates.

Sanitation officials were either insincere with voters or engaged in clear bait-and-switch tactics, and I think our public officials should be held to a higher standard.

George Runner is a Republican representing the 17th District in the California Senate. His district includes portions of the Santa Clarita Valley.

Unfortunately this ban will not guarantee that expensive upgrades to the Sanitation Districts waste water treatment plants will not still be necessary. What the public does not know is that the chloride problem in Santa Clarita is actually on the tap water side. That is to say that the salts in the tap water are already too high to meet their discharge permit requirement. Softeners were simply an easy to identify contributor. Removing them will do nothing to address the underlying problem of escalating groundwater salinity. By attacking softeners the District is able to appear as though they are doing everything possible to mitigate the problem. This is mainly to appease the Regional Water Quality Control Board who has final say so over their discharge permit. As drought conditions continue and tap water salinity continues to increase, taxpayers will be told that they must pay for a half billion dollar RO system to treat waste water. My question is this; If you are going to spend that kind of money to treat sewage, why would you not invest it to improve the quality of the tap water so that residents who are going to be paying for it might benefit. With improved tap water quality the need for softeners is eliminated and the problem of high salinity at the waste water plants is addressed as well. I suppose this makes too much sense

So, what will happen if the city is not able to meet chloride discharge levels...even after all the softeners are removed? Will they then need to build a very expensive treatment plant for wastewater discharge? If so, does that mean that they (the city and the LACSD) unfairly discriminated against softener owners? Time will tell, but if that is ultimately what happens, the City and the LACSD will have some legal issues on their hands. Eminent Domain is s very serious issue, especially if the forced removal of softeners was not truly the right direction to solve the District's poor source of water quality.

Interesting to note is that the City "recommends" salt-free units , but when i called and asked if the city has tested any units, theiranswer was that they do not have the money or man power to conduct such experiments.

I believe the city knows that no other product works 100% as a salt based water softener. To think that later on they will increase our taxes to build the very same plant that should have been part of the plan all along...