Bill would allow agencies to ban water softeners if salt threatens recycling efforts

Daniel Zarchy
Sacramento Bee
08/11/2008

The Culligan Man could soon join the Maytag repairman in California, as regional water agencies seek more authority to remove home water softeners if they threaten local water supplies.

Assembly Bill 2270, by Assemblymen John Laird and Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, would allow cities, counties and special districts – whichever entity oversees wastewater – to ban water softeners.

Bill supporters say the volume of salt dumped into the sewer by water softeners – as much as a pound per day per softener – compromises efforts to recycle water.

Water softeners are currently unregulated, so it is hard to know how many softeners exist in the state, but their trade association estimates at least 800,000 softeners are sold nationally each year, more than 15 percent of them in California.

Current law allows local agencies to prevent the installation of softeners but not to order mandatory removal of existing devices.

Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, described the bill as a way to "level the playing field" by holding residences to the same standard as agriculture and industry for salinity in water.

Supporters believe the state's groundwater reserves are at risk because recycled water from residences is often used for agriculture, which allows the salt to seep underground.

"It's not time to protect somebody that's polluting groundwater at a time that we have to rely increasingly more on groundwater as part of a comprehensive solution," Laird said.

Water softeners replace calcium and magnesium – minerals that make water "hard" – with sodium. Alternatives exist, such as using potassium, but they are not as common and are often more expensive. The law would not apply to devices that don't emit salt.

Hard water decreases soap's effectiveness and leaves sediment in pipes and appliances. It does not pose a health risk.

The bill has support from several city governments and water agencies throughout the state, including Davis, Dixon and Roseville, as well as the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.

But the measure faces opposition from water softening companies.

Peter Censky, executive director of the Water Quality Association, which represents water softener manufacturers on this issue, said that the bill had been rushed through the Legislature and would be an unwelcome surprise for many consumers.

"Once a community does something like (a ban on softeners) … they're going to end up with a lot of consumers who rely on water softening to protect their property who are going to be caught completely by surprise," Censky said.

The city of Dixon is currently under a cease-and-desist order from the regional water quality control board to control its pollution, particularly the sodium content.

"You can either pay a lot of money for new improvements, very expensive treatment plant improvements, or you can try to do something at the source," said Royce Cunningham, a city engineer for Dixon.

The bill would require agencies to compensate residents for their softeners if they had to be removed. The bill cleared the Assembly and is pending in the Senate.