---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON WATER SALINITY ISSUES
Minutes of Interim Meeting
Thursday, October 27, 2011
House Hearing Room 1 -- 1:30 p.m.
Representative Fann called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Senator Gail Griffin Marshall Brown Linda C. Taunt (for Henry Darwin) Troy Day Michael J. Lacey (for Sandra Fabritz Whitney) Matthew Garlick Maureen George Harold “Chip” Howard Tom Poulson (Ex-Officio)
|
Representative Karen Fann Representative Lynne Pancrazi Brandy Kelso Gustavo Lopez Robert Lotts Dave Loveday Doug Oberhamer Steve Olea (for The Honorable Gary Pierce) Dave Richens
|
|
|
|
|
Senator Jack Jackson, Jr. Barry Aarons Phillip Bashaw Michael Brewer
|
Tim Lawless Lori Roman Sandi Sutton Vacant (Ex-Officio) |
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE CHARGE:
Gina Kash, Majority Research Analyst, related that the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Water Salinity Issues is charged with considering the following:
She advised that the Committee is required to make a report of its findings and recommendations on or before December 31, 2011. Additionally, it must elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN:
The motion was made and seconded to nominate Representative Karen Fann as Chairman. The motion carried.
The motion was made and seconded to nominate Senator Gail Griffin as Vice-Chairman. The motion carried.
Chairman Fann discussed the salinity problems in the state’s water. Water softeners are contributing to the problem, including some of the old, outdated systems that are putting a significant amount of salt back into the aquifers and wasting water. She noted that there are additional issues that need to be identified.
PRESENTATIONS:
Presentation on Water Treatment 101:
Doug Oberhamer, representing Arizona Water Quality Association, advised that the Association is a not-for-profit trade association whose members are manufacturers or retail distributors of water treatment equipment and chemicals. He related that water is often called the universal solvent because of its ability to dissolve most compounds either quickly or over time. Calcium and magnesium ions are dissolved by water trickling down over strata of rock and soil. Water containing these minerals is called “hard water.” Public water is treated at a central treatment plant and distributed through distribution piping, while water delivered by members of the Association begins at the point of entry (POE) or point of use (POU), only in the quantity that is needed. POE is full-service water at the inlet to an entire building or facility. POU is water treatment at a single outlet or a limited number of outlets in a building. POU is often used to treat water for drinking and cooking only. Products made by members of the Association include water softeners, filters, reverse osmosis systems, distillations, deionizers, ultraviolet and disinfection products. One of the core products is water softeners. Water softening is the reduction or removal of calcium and magnesium ions which are the principal cause of water hardness. Water conditioning equipment or water treatment equipment is defined as the treatment or processing of water by any means to modify, enhance or improve its quality to a need or standard. Soft water is water which contains less than one grain of calcium or magnesium per gallon (GPG); a grain is measured in milligrams per liter or parts per million. Hard water is water which contains dissolved compounds of calcium and magnesium, as well as other metallic elements. Hardness prevents soap from lathering and causes scaling in pipes. Only three technologies are available today to treat hard water to meet the definition of soft water:
He said that adding chemicals to hard water will counteract its effects; however on a large scale, ion exchange is the only practical way to soften all of the water in a home system.
He explained the two regenerates: sodium chloride, the chemical name for table salt, and potassium chloride, the chemical name for potassium salt. Potassium chloride releases more salt into the sewers and costs three times as much as sodium chloride. The advantage of potassium chloride is that it plays a vital role in plant life: turf irrigation and agriculture.
He advised that homeowners and businesses soften water because of savings in energy. A recent study showed a 22-percent savings in energy in electric water heaters and a 30-percent savings on gas water heaters. The study also noted the following: tankless water heaters fail prematurely on six or more grains of hard water; longer life cycle for water-using appliances and plumbing pipes; use of less detergent and soap; and longer-lasting textiles (clothes).
Representative Pancrazi queried whether the Association is working on newer methods of delivering soft water. She wondered whether the old equipment is still being sold or whether it is being replaced by newer equipment. Mr. Oberhamer related that most of the manufacturers are constantly striving to improve technology that will meet the definition of soft water without using as much water or any salt whatsoever.
Mr. Howard mentioned that the State of California is ahead of Arizona in this. Mr. Oberhamer replied that some areas of California have restricted the use of water softeners. The primary problem being addressed there is the chloride issue. He said he is unaware of any specific chloride issues in Arizona.
Mr. Loveday commented that because of legislation, California has banned clock timers; it also has higher-efficiency water softeners.
In reply to Representative Pancrazi whether the industry is working on large desalination plants for public use, Mr. Oberhamer explained that his industry is limited to small communities (approximately 25,000 people), not the larger communities.
Presentation on the History and Details of the Central Arizona Salinity Study:
Tom Poulson, Civil Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Department of the Interior, gave a slide presentation on the Central Arizona Salinity Study (CASS) (Attachment 1). The study was initiated in 2001 by the City of Phoenix and the Bureau of Reclamation in partnership with the Cities of Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe. Other participants included the Cities of Goodyear and Tucson, as well as private water companies, industry, agriculture, researchers, consultants and government. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the extent and nature of the salinity problem. He reviewed the report relating to salinity and Phase I of the study. Discussion on salinity included the following:
He related that CASS Phase 1 relates to study findings: salt balance, salinity in the Phoenix area, economic impact and challenges in Arizona.
It was brought up that some of the challenges of salinity in Arizona that need to be addressed are brine/concentrate management, loss of water resource, regulatory, environmental, cost and energy.
Brandy Kelso, Deputy Planning Director, Water Services, City of Phoenix, discussed Phase 2 of the study. She stated that after the information was collected in Phase 1, technical subcommittees were formed to look further at a planning model, brackish water, wastewater treatment plants, and concentrate management. She reviewed the findings of each subcommittee and brought up some issues found by the subcommittees:
Representative Pancrazi asked whether these cooling towers are used for refrigeration units for big corporations. Ms. Kelso replied in the affirmative and explained these are on very large buildings.
Ms. Kelso advised that smaller reclamation facilities were looked at to quantify how the different residents and businesses in the area are contributing salt to the system. A questionnaire was sent out by the Bureau of Reclamation to see how people are using water; one of the questions asked was about water softeners. It was found that prior to 1980, there were few water softeners built. After the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, the numbers started to rise dramatically. She noted that the areas with water softeners built before the 1980s have smaller reclamation plants and will probably be the first to have issues with salinity problems.
Mr. Poulson related that with the completion of Phase 2, the USBR continues to hold meetings, write papers, and conduct research.
In response to Representative Pancrazi’s question on whether any good uses for the salt have been found, Mr. Poulson said there are arsenics, seleniums, etc., in the water in addition to sodium chloride. Ms. Kelso revealed that there are some companies that have been trying to do selective removal; however, they have not come up with a good solution for Arizona water.
Mr. Howard raised the issue of removing salt from water. He said that salts are not actually removed but replaced because the end-stream water going back into the sewer has all the original salts in it. He brought up alternative salts to sodium chloride, i.e., potassium and acids, and said that part of the discussion should include the use of alternative salts in water softeners even though it is more costly. Ms. Kelso noted there are only a few sources of potassium worldwide; she agreed that it is expensive.
Mr. Garlick asked about the smaller wastewater treatment plants and the costs associated with processing water over 2,000 mg/L. Ms. Kelso stated that not a lot of treatment plants have hit those high limits, so it has not been a priority. Mr. Poulson said the real issue for water treatment plants is that if the content gets to about 1,000 mg/L, effluent cannot be used for re-use.
Representative Pancrazi asked whether there is any research on less expensive, more modern ways to desalinate. Mr. Poulson stated that is being worked on every day. Everything is improving, so the costs are being driven down. In the Valley, there is a lot of brine but no place to put it, which is a problem that has to be resolved. Ms. Kelso mentioned that brine costs can be equal to or more than the treatment cost.
NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Chairman Fann said that although she has been dealing with water for the past 20 years, she was unaware of the salt problem in Maricopa and Pima Counties. The issue was originally brought to her as a water softener issue, so her intent is to concentrate on water softeners and technology. She asked members if they are comfortable with starting with this issue before tackling more complex issues. Mr. Poulson commented that focusing solely on water softeners will be contentious enough.
SET DATE FOR NEXT FORMAL MEETING:
Chairman Fann asked for comments and whether members would like to have further presentations at the next meeting. She proposed having a draft bill brought forward at the next meeting to keep the process moving.
Mr. Richens suggested that it might be more efficient to establish some basic principles prior to drafting a bill.
Vice-Chairman Griffin stated that she is comfortable with that suggestion. She would like to know the cost of the old versus new systems and a comparison of advantages and disadvantages.
Representative Pancrazi said she would like to see a timeline of when new models will be phased in, cost analyses, regulations or requirements, such as what California has done, etc.
Chairman Fann expressed the need to be cognizant of big box stores and manufacturers that have inventories on hand, and where industry will go in the future.
Vice-Chairman Griffin recommended that everyone submit to staff a list of questions and issues to be discussed at the next meeting, as well as suggestions for legislation. Chairman Fann concurred and asked members to email their list to staff. Ms. Kash advised that Justin Riches will staff the Committee in the future. Chairman Fann advised that staff will organize the information submitted by members to be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Richens said he would like to see a presentation on other states’ regulations and successes or failures, before the list is composed. He said that will be helpful in determining whether regulation in Arizona will be effective. Mr. Poulson agreed to update members on regulation in other states at the next meeting.
Representative Pancrazi suggested
that all issues/comments be sent to staff by
November 15, 2011.
Chairman Fann advised that an email will be sent to members informing them of the date of the next meeting. She mentioned November 28, 2011 in the afternoon as a probable date.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
______________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
November 9, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
2
JLSC ON WATER SALINITY ISSUES
October 27, 2011
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------