---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON WATER SALINITY ISSUES
Minutes of Interim Meeting
House Hearing Room 1 -- 1:30 p.m.
Chairman Fann called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Gail Griffin, Vice-Chairman Representative Karen Fann, Chairman
Senator Jack Jackson Jr. Representative Lynn Pancrazi
Barry Aarons Tom Poulson (ex-officio)
Phillip Bashaw Brandy Kelso
Michael Brewer Tim Lawless
Marshall Brown Gustavo Lopez
Henry Darwin (Linda C. Taunt) Robert Lotts
Troy Day Dave Loveday
Sandra Fabritz Whitney (Michael J. Lacey) Doug Oberhamer
Maureen George The Honorable Gary Pierce (Steve Olea)
Harold “Chip” Howard Lori Roman
Members Absent
Matthew Garlick Sandi Sutton
Dave Richens
Presentations
Brandy Kelso, Water Services Department, City of Phoenix, provided a handout, Overview of Current Water Softener Control Programs (Attachment 1). She said the water in Arizona is considered very hard because the Salt River contains sodium chlorides and Central Arizona Project (CAP) water contains calcium, in higher quantities than found in other places in the United States. Salt from water softeners amounts to approximately 10 percent of total dissolved solids (TDS) at wastewater treatment plants.
She discussed TDS control programs, noting that approximately half of the states have local controls on water softeners with California being the “hotbed” where 30 plus years have been spent dealing with salinity issues. States that have controls mainly deal with septic tanks and not necessarily discharge to sewer systems; there is much controversy as to whether or not salts from water softeners harm septic tanks, for which studies are underway.
Ms. Kelso reviewed legislative and court actions taken in relation to water softeners in California beginning in the 1960s with a ban in certain areas and adoption of statewide technical standards in the 1970s, both of which were reversed. In the 1980s, efficiency standards were adopted in the health code for the kinds of water softeners that can be used, such as high efficiency, specific ratings, etc. AB1366 was passed in 2009, which allows sewer system owners to ban water softeners if justification is provided.
She related that regulations were imposed in Santa Clarita, California to ban water softeners because the area is under a state mandate to control chloride and the water is reused for agricultural purposes. The ban helped to some extent, but costly water treatment plant controls will still have to be implemented to reach the required levels. In July 2011, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency adopted a regulation stating that anyone in the district can ban new, replacement or expansion of self-generating water softeners. There is some question about how the regulation will align with AB1366.
Ms. Kelso added that Ellman
Companies in Arizona included self-imposed bans in
the homeowners’ association rules and regulations in Fountain Hills and Goodyear,
partially because wastewater is reused for golf courses and other purposes.
She provided a handout, Summary of Salinity Management Programs by State (Attachment 2), which shows regulations by local jurisdictions in other states in relation to discharge to sewer systems and to septic tanks.
In response to a question, Ms. Kelso elaborated that some current studies regarding discharge from septic tanks focus on whether the natural “bugs” that live in the septic tank are harmed by the amount of salt, and whether water that is not treated in the septic tank that goes into the leach field and soil affects plant growth.
Mr. Loveday related that research
is being conducted by Virginia Tech University and the
Water Quality Association, which will take about one-and-one-half years to
determine the impact water softeners have on septic systems. Many septic controls
are at township and county levels. Some jurisdictions completely banned
discharge into septic tanks, but many jurisdictions require the use of a trench
drain so the discharge goes directly into the ground.
Chairman Fann asked if the amount
of land makes a difference because an acre or more would have a vast amount of soil
to absorb the discharge, whereas a smaller lot would not.
Mr. Loveday replied that is not being considered; however, there has been some
debate within the septic industry about sizing septic systems according to the dimensions
of the home and the number of occupants.
Ms. Kelso stated that with regard to wastewater treatment plants, most of the TDS goes right through the treatment plant, but a few controls are used to monitor the healthiness of the treatment system, some of which can be intolerant to elements like chloride. Not only is the healthiness of plants considered, but also how the water will be reused and tolerances or intolerances.
In response to a question, Ms. Kelso elaborated that Ellman Companies was in charge of the wastewater system, so wastewater was collected from the homes and used on the golf course that was built within the community. The developer is attempting to keep the sodium levels low so the grass will grow without more treatment or more water. It is the only prohibition she is aware of in Arizona.
In response to a query about California, Mr. Loveday stated that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency passed an ordinance suggesting that its communities impose a ban, but only one community has done so; the others are debating what to do. He met with two of the municipalities and he has been asked to return and discuss options. That is the only action taken by a community since AB1366 was passed in 2009. Santa Clarita was different and had to be voted on. Ms. Kelso added that Santa Clarita had very specific state-mandated regulations to meet; she is not aware of any other entity in a similar situation.
Mr. Howard stated that newspaper articles in California suggest that equipment manufacturers are trying to cause the bans to be repealed. Mr. Loveday remarked that the Water Quality Association and the Pacific Water Quality Association were neutral on AB1366.
Chairman Fann revealed that she personally will never sponsor or support a bill banning water softeners. If too much salt is beginning to affect wastewater treatment systems, water systems, infrastructure, golf courses and the Palo Verde Power Plant, the Committee will need to decide on an acceptable level and determine how it can be obtained.
Mr. Howard commented that the issue is more serious in Arizona than California because the state has already exceeded salinity limits according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards in some domestic water and golf courses. For example, the City of Scottsdale utilizes reverse osmosis (RO) treatment to remove salinity from effluent before it will be accepted by golf courses.
Chairman Fann remarked that establishing guidelines for acceptable water softeners is only part of the salinity issue. In the future, RO treatment and other processes may need to be addressed.
Vice-Chairman Griffin pointed out that there is a difference between rural and urban areas. She lives on eight acres of land and she has a water softener in which she can use salt or an alternative. One size does not fit all, which needs to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Howard stated that Ms. Kelso, Mr. Poulson and others have done extensive studies on salinity, which suggest that commercial and residential water softeners are a problem.
Paul Hendricks, representing self, stated that this is a complex issue and there are costs associated with the benefits of conditioned water. What policymakers will be challenged with is who pays the cost, how to encourage people to do the right thing and the fact that various jurisdictions within the state may have differing rules. He reviewed a handout, Reducing Salinity and Water Waste from Water Softening (Attachment 3). He discussed the salinity problem in Arizona and water hardness levels in Phoenix. He indicated that 50 percent of the homes built in the Phoenix area use water softeners, and new communities provide water softeners as an incentive or add-on so it is incorporated into the home purchase. There are aesthetic and economic values to soft water.
Mr. Hendricks noted that an undersized
self-regenerating water softener can use as much as
912 gallons of water and 169 pounds of salt per month. Many developers are considering
building reclamation facilities in communities to gather water for reuse within
the local area, which is good sound water management, but the impact of highly
concentrated salt loads from new developments is starting to take its toll. In
some cases, jurisdictions are making decisions about the use of reclamation
facilities based upon the impact to water. Cities like Scottsdale must
condition water for turf irrigation that previously did not have to be
conditioned.
He said the individual homeowner only pays for a fraction of the privilege of having soft water by purchasing the water softener, salt, water and sewer discharge, whereas the cost of the salt load and waste water that has to be replaced with a new water supply is shifted to the general society. He indicated that alternative technologies are available, some of which are more traditional than others; some are regulated and legitimate, but some are not:
Mr. Hendricks discussed technology options and likely results:
· banning time clocks: small reduction in salinity and water waste
· enacting high salt efficiency standards: small reduction in salinity; increase in water waste
· twin tank models: significant reduction in salinity; higher cost to consumer
· whole house RO: no increase in salinity; significant increase in water waste
· distillation: no increase in salinity; high energy usage; high operating cost
· exchange tanks with near ZLD: no increase in salinity; significant water conservation benefits; use waste stream as resource; consumers cannot “own” the system because it is a service contract
In conclusion, Mr. Hendricks recommended that policymakers and industry representatives work with water service providers to determine what steps should be implemented; if it is not done in a broad-based, collaborative manner, people will game the system and nothing will be accomplished.
Mr. Poulson questioned the statistic of 169 pounds of salt use per month by a water softener, noting that a water softener survey cited about 40 pounds per month for the average household. Mr. Hendricks responded that if it is four times less, the annual number of tons of salt per year at the reclamation plant would be one-fourth of 13,182, which is still a significant amount.
Mr. Oberhamer cited the following industry statistics based on the Central Arizona Salinity Study (CASS):
Mr. Hendricks related that the information he provided is based upon four people in the home and represents an inefficient water softener, not the new water softeners sold today unless the unit is cheap or not properly adjusted or maintained.
In response to a question, Mr. Lotts answered that the flow of TDS is always monitored at the Palo Verde Power Plant. During the 30 years he has been at the plant, the amount of salt has slowly increased. The plant has 650 acres of evaporation pond space, and unless something can be done to decrease the salt load into the system, another pond may have to be built in the future, which is very costly.
Chairman Fann asked what will
happen if nothing is done to reduce the amount of salt, the economy improves
and another onslaught of homebuilding occurs. Mr. Hendricks speculated that it
will be challenging for communities to build reclamation facilities to reuse
water in the area because the cost of desalting will become very significant.
He recommended that policymakers, industry and utility representatives decide
where the state should be in 20 to
50 years and develop a plan for a sustainable growth model that does not hurt
anyone in today’s economy. Business models, practices and engineering plans
can be adjusted to implement the plan in a three-to-five-year time period.
Mr. Brown clarified that the City of Scottsdale constructed a RO facility at a cost of $60 million to remove sodium from reclaimed water to irrigate turf; some of the water is recharged so there are multiple end uses. If something is not done to minimize the salt load into the system, it is anticipated that another $60 million facility will be needed to deal with brine, which is accumulating.
In response to a question, Mr. Loveday related that Santa Clarita had a unique situation where the water going into the area was already out of compliance, so an ordinance was passed through a referendum banning water softeners to avoid building a secondary treatment plant. Chlorides decreased somewhat, but the water is still out of compliance and a secondary treatment plant will have to be built anyway.
Mr. Hendricks stated that an item
not discussed is the environmental impact of salinity on
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing and the discharge requirements to the Salt
and Gila River Watershed based upon water quality standards, which is another
set of criteria that may drive this issue sooner. Arizona has not yet been
informed by any regulatory agency that it is necessary to reduce constituents, but
that is expected.
Chairman Fann asked about the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) minimum standard for salt in Arizona. Ms. Taunt stated that in WET testing, when a wastewater treatment plant or water
treatment plant discharges to navigable water or surface water, there is not a salinity
standard per se; WET testing is done to see how the effluent will affect aquatic
life in the stream and items of that nature. The only stream in Arizona with specific
TDS numbers is the
Colorado River, which is a function of the Colorado River Salinity Control
Forum whereby seven states that obtain water from the river worked together to adopt
standards. It is up to the community or water system to conduct further study on
what is impacting effluent and streams; however, many facilities do not
discharge surface water, so then there is the recharge issue and impact to the
aquifer.
Public Testimony
Marty Jessen, Rainwater
Corporation; President, Pacific Water Quality Association, said Rainwater
is a 60-dealership water treatment network with employees in California,
including
Santa Clarita. Regarding Mr. Poulson’s question about the 160 versus 40 pounds
of salt use per month, he said the nuance of water softeners is that they can
be set for different concentrations of salt in terms of regeneration. There
have been discussions about adopting California’s high salt efficiency
standard, which means 4,000 grains of hardness is removed per pound of salt
used, but water waste is increased by twice or more and cannot be decreased unless
new technologies are implemented.
He remarked that since AB1366 was passed in California, there has been more innovation in the water softener business than in the previous 30 years because everyone began to realize that the old way might be in jeopardy. New electrochemical deionization technology will be introduced in April 2012 by Pentair, which will reduce TDS and hardness by 80 to 85 percent without using a grain of salt. Also, whole house RO will be improved and become more efficient waterwise. He added that Rainwater is the company with the ZLD project that is a viable alternative.
Mr. Jessen noted that in relation to setting standards for grains of salt per gallon, etc., it is important for the technician to install the water softener correctly based on the volume of water that will be used per day and the number of people in the house.
He pointed out that California enacted high salt efficiency standards 30 years ago when it was using Arizona’s Central Arizona Project (CAP) entitlement and water conservation was not so important. It is a little more important to California today, but he does not know if that is what is driving the people trying to ban water softeners in communities.
In response to a question, Mr. Jessen answered that a number of states are considering regulatory frameworks such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Texas, which has a certification program for technicians and installers that would be a good model to use.
Mr. Jessen asked the Members to address consumer protection. He said all kinds of devices to replace water softeners will be marketed when there are only three ways to obtain soft water. Those are ion exchange (either self-regenerating water softeners using salts [potassium or sodium chloride]) or exchange tanks, RO or distillation. Santa Clarita lists 80 plus devices on its website and people are being misled. He added that if the Committee “pushes the bar” to dual tanks, for example, which is where the biggest short-term payoff is obtained, the cost to consumers will increase $400 to $500, but as Mr. Hendricks suggested, the cost will be placed on the people who benefit rather than society as a whole.
Senator Jackson requested examples
of what a few other states are doing for the next meeting.
Mr. Jessen indicated that he will provide information on Texas.
Chairman Fann recalled that there was discussion at the last meeting about consumer protection, and the Attorney General’s Office (AG) and the Registrar of Contractors’ (ROC) Office were going to be contacted.
Justin Riches, House Majority Research Analyst, said he did call, but he has not heard back.
Committee Discussion/Recommendations for Draft Legislation
Chairman Fann expressed the intent to look ahead 10 to 30 years and develop reasonable requirements that could be phased in during the next 5 to 10 years. After that, depending on technology and input from Salt River Project, CAP and municipalities, a determination can be made whether there is a need to go any further or if the problem is solved. If the consensus of the Committee is that water softeners are causing problems, the Members can decide what to include in legislation, i.e., define soft water, the maximum amount of water and salt that should be used in a month based on how many people live in the house or whatever experts determine, how to reach that goal, phase it in and what to do about old, expired water softeners.
Mr. Day said he is not convinced that a ban in small or large increments will result in a significant reduction or avoid future costs to the public for additional treatment. He pointed out that the Committee has not heard from the farming or mining industries, etc., who have issues with salinity in the aquifer. Chairman Fann reiterated that the Committee is not going to ban water softeners, but noted that the Members are from many different industries.
Discussion followed about replacing
water softeners with twin tanks to reduce the salt load.
Mr. Poulson indicated that the slight reduction could be the difference between
passing or not passing EPA scrutiny.
Chairman Fann noted that the
amount of water that is being wasted is also important and should be reduced.
Water in Arizona is not only precious, but it is becoming expensive.
Mr. Hendricks clarified that within the context of his presentation, the
definition of waste water is if water is softened by using more water than is
necessary.
Mr. Brown stated that water loaded with sodium chloride is very difficult to reuse in most applications, so there is an added cost depending upon what the water is loaded with when it goes to the treatment facility. Sodium is more of a challenge in Arizona than chloride. He argued that the 10 percent is based on a number of assumptions. Some communities are probably closer to 25 percent from sodium and chloride water softening; it depends on the demographics of the community, but 10 percent is probably a good overall representation.
Mr. Aarons asked what the percentage would be if commercial water softeners were included. Ms. Kelso replied that she believes the overall 10 percent includes the total watershed, but she will have to check. Many businesses use water softeners such as restaurants, car washes, hotels, laundromats, municipal swimming pools, etc.
Mr. Aarons submitted that if the
Committee applies definitions, phase-outs and requirements for new technology, it
is not fair to place the financial burden on commercial users or homeowners; it
should be done across the board. Chairman Fann speculated that commercial
users will want to use new technology because money will be saved by using less
water and less or no salt.
Mr. Aarons said if people are going to be encouraged to use more efficient systems,
the long-term cost should be known. It may be more costly today, but money may
be saved over the lifetime of the system, which will probably increase as
technology improves.
Mr. Loveday related that some water softener systems were upgraded, at minimal cost, at large laundries in California. In one case, over 600,000 pounds of salt per year was saved. He indicated that he will email the examples to the Members.
Mr. Howard stated that the Marriott Desert Ridge Hotel and the Desert Marketplace consume 620,000 pounds of sodium chloride per year. Mr. Brown stated that there is a high cost for removing sodium from the waste stream that could be avoided or approached differently to minimize costs on the back end, but ultimately the consumer will end up paying the cost on the front end or the back end.
Mr. Howard said according to everything he has read, the driving force behind most of the bans, except in Santa Clarita due to its peculiar environmental issue, has been to make waste water suitable for a secondary use on golf courses or agriculture so potable water does not have to be used. In order to mitigate the effects of sodium chloride on the soil, whether it is on golf courses or for agriculture, as much as one ton per acre of gypsum salt must be added, which ultimately could result in several tons of salt added to the system.
Vice-Chairman Griffin requested a
breakdown of residential and commercial water softeners. She said the average
homeowner does not know what unit to use and makes purchases because of affordability.
Perhaps a tax credit for installation of specific systems will be possible, but
right now the public needs to be educated about good and bad units, water and
salt usage, etc.
Mr. Loveday said manufacturers partnered with the City of Madison, Wisconsin to
educate customers about the impact of salts and best practices.
Mr. Hendricks recommended that
the Committee work with the Homebuilders Association on the type of water
softeners to include in new home purchases when homebuilding picks up.
Mr. Brewer remarked that in today’s marketplace, anything that costs additional
dollars is a non-starter. There will be another boom and something needs to be
done as to what types of water softeners are installed in new homes. If the
unit has a clock and someone is not living in the home for six months out of
the year, it is probably not a good choice; however, the residents would not be
adding salt either, so at some point it would be regenerating, which leads to
wasted water. He added that starting the shower, walking off to get a cup of
coffee and returning is a bigger waste of water than any water softener.
Vice-Chairman Griffin noted that homes with energy-efficient ratings are being built, so rating water softeners could be advantageous.
In response to a question, Mr. Bashaw remarked that salinity issues in relation to agriculture are different than with wastewater treatment plants and septic systems. Mostly surface water is used in Arizona for agricultural production, so he is mainly present to hear about water softeners and the impact on municipal water treatment facilities, Palo Verde, etc.
Mr. Oberhamer stated that good public policy should address commercial, industrial and residential users. Electronic and chemical deionization will reduce hardness 80 or 85 percent, but RO may still be needed to remove the last 10 or 15 percent because businesses and industry need zero soft water on many applications. Public policy can help homeowners do the right thing. He opined that the Committee should create a standard to reduce the amount of salt and water that is used, but not prohibit new technology.
Chairman Fann asked Mr. Riches to find out where the AG’s Office and the ROC stand on defining a water softener and who is qualified to install them because the point was made that if the installer does not know what he is doing, everything the Committee does will be moot. As to setting parameters on the acceptable amount of water, there are some issues. She asked how far Texas has gotten with legislation. Mr. Loveday replied that Texas regulates who can install through licensing, which has been in effect for a few years, and he will obtain information for the Members. Texas has no regulations on salt water softeners.
Chairman Fann asked how the Committee wants to define the parameters of an acceptable level, whether old systems that waste too much water or use too much salt should no longer be acceptable in five or ten years. Ms. Kelso said technology is moving forward so the Committee could start with what California has done and improve on that. Mr. Loveday indicated that he can provide literature on innovations in the industry.
Chairman Fann asked how old water softeners will be phased out. She indicated that consumer protection will be part of the educational process and endorsed the idea of rating water softeners. Mr. Day pointed out that consideration should be given to funding for an educational program.
Mrs. Pancrazi said the Members should know what the ratings are on different water softeners before the next meeting. Mr. Loveday explained that water softeners are certified and tested to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certification, of which he will obtain a copy. It is a third-party standard for residential users only.
Discussion followed about the use of potassium in water softeners rather than sodium chloride. Concerns were raised about the potential impact to the agriculture industry, the higher cost of potassium, availability and potential poisoning of the environment, which Mr. Poulson said he will research.
The Members discussed large industrial manufacturers, which Ms. Kelso agreed to research.
Chairman Fann questioned how to determine whether the Committee is doing the right thing and to what extent it should be done. Ms. Kelso stated that some salt models were developed during the CASS study and the water softener study that could be used as a starting point. She agreed to develop a presentation.
Mr. Day asked if the Committee will be making decisions about regulation of other sources that create salinity. Chairman Fann responded that the Committee was established to address problems caused by soft water softeners, but after the first few meetings, she realized it is only a fraction of the bigger problem. The Committee expires at the end of 2011 and may be extended or some of the Members changed, depending on the subject that is broached.
Mr. Brown indicated that the Committee did not discuss enforcement, which he assumes will fall to the more localized entities. Chairman Fann said that is the reason she asked Mr. Riches to contact the AG’s Office and the ROC about what is currently done as far as penalties for false marketing.
Set Date for Next Formal Meeting
The Members agreed to meet on Monday, December 19, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. in House Hearing Room 1.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:57 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
December 8, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
JLSC ON WATER
SALINITY ISSUES
November 28, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------