California Poised to Pass Softener Ban

Radical bill expected to go to Governor's desk soon

LISLE, Ill., July 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The California state legislature will
almost certainly pass a sweeping water softener ban law very soon, observers
say.
The bill, AB 2270, passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee by
party line vote yesterday. It is expected to pass the whole Senate as early
as next week and move to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk. The State
Water Resources Control Board told the legislature that bans will not cost
state government significant amounts of money. However, the law could cost
homeowners untold sums.
"Those in the industry and homeowners need to make sure the governor knows
how damaging this law would be," said Peter Censky, executive director of the
Water Quality Association. "This drastic bill would do very little good for
the environment and cause a lot of problems for homeowners throughout
California."
The bill gives unelected water boards the power to decide whether towns
can ban softeners. If a town chooses to announce a ban, policing power to
enforce it would be necessary.
Water softeners often make a convenient target for regulation, said
Censky, since they are so visible. However, studies have shown that the vast
majority of salinity in the ground in California -- close to 90 percent
-- comes from natural processes, mainly farming techniques and other sources.
Water softeners contribute only slightly more than one-tenth of the salt.
The proposed bill would overturn decades of efforts that have been looking
for sensible solutions to the issue of salinity, said Censky.
The state and researchers in the water treatment industry began looking at
the problem together in 1978. That is when California created efficiency
standards for water softeners. The state set up guidelines to make sure that
before a community bans water softeners, independent scientific studies show
such a measure will significantly improve local ground conditions.
The current proposal to ban water softeners would overturn this approach.
Under the bill, water boards -- which are not answerable to the voters --
would be able to simply issue a "finding" that they believe bans would be
helpful. In fact, the statewide board could issue a finding to allow any
community in the state to implement a ban.
The industry has been vigorously opposing the Resource Board's contention
that the bill will not cost the state money, according to Mike Mecca,
Past-President, Pacific WQA.
Most consumers don't realize it, but a water softener bought today will
use much less salt per gallon of water than one purchased thirty or even ten
years ago, Censky said. Millions of dollars have been spent to invent and
develop greener softening technologies, and companies have committed even
more. In fact, in Arizona, which faces similar problems to those in
California, a partnership of regulators and industry researchers has begun
setting forth an ambitious agenda to go even far beyond today's improvements.
With a ban, law enforcement resources would likely have to be directed to
combat a new black market in illegal water softener sales and installation.
Illegal softeners would probably not feature the salt-saving elements of
contemporary devices.
While salinity is a serious problem, the benefits of softeners should also
be considered, Censky said.
According to a New Mexico State University study, water heaters can
require up to 30 percent more power to operate with hard water. Large
appliances wear out faster when forced to operate with hard water. Clothing
and household linens are harmed by hard water. The minerals in hard water act
as an abrasive on clothing, causing fibers to break. Hard water can cut the
life of clothing by as much as one third and linens can wear out twice the
normal rate, depending on how hard the water is. For local comment, contact
Mike Mecca, past president, Pacific Water Quality
Association, 714-736-0137.
SOURCE Water Quality Association

Mike Mecca, past president of Pacific Water Quality Association,
+1-714-736-0137