BILL ANALYSIS
AB 334
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 334 (Goldberg)
As Amended April 10, 2003
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Laird, Chu, Levine, | | |
| |Lieber, Lowenthal | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Aghazarian, Maddox | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes local agencies to adopt regulations
governing water softeners or conditioning appliances that
discharge to the community sewer system. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Eliminates the findings requirement with which a local agency
must comply in order to regulate self-regenerating water
softeners.
2)Authorizes a city, county, city and county, district, or any
other political subdivision of the state, by ordinance, to
limit the availability or use, or prohibit the installation,
of water softening or conditioning appliances that discharge
to the community sewer system.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes local agencies to adopt ordinances regulating
self-generating water softeners if the ordinance contains the
following findings:
a) Local agency is out of compliance with its waste
discharge permit;
b) Self-generating water softener control is the only
available means of achieving compliance; and,
c) Non-residential saline discharges have been limited to
the extent technologically and economically feasible.
AB 334
Page 2
2)Requires the findings to be substantiated by an independent
study of all sources of salinity that quantifies each source
and the actions taken to reduce discharges.
3)Required the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
convene a 2002 Recycled Water Task Force (Task Force), with
specified membership, to advise DWR in investigating the
opportunities for using recycled water in industrial and
commercial applications and in identifying impediments and
constraints to increasing the industrial and commercial use of
recycled water, and requires a report to the Legislature, with
recommendations on specified topics, no later than July 1,
2003.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 334
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Water softening process: Natural waters contain minerals
which give water its characteristic physical and chemical
properties. The minerals are dissolved in the water, and if
water is evaporated, these minerals will remain behind as a
crust or film. Minerals that can be readily re-dissolved by
water are called "soft," such as common table salt or sodium
chloride. Minerals that do not readily re-dissolve in water
are called "hard," such as calcium carbonate, or chalk. With
repeated evaporation, calcium carbonate can build up and
appear hard and crusty, or spot glass and other highly
polished or transparent surfaces with a milky white haze,
which is not easily removed.
Calcium carbonate can be removed from natural waters with a
water softener. Water softeners contain ion exchange resins
which trap the calcium in water and release sodium in its
place. For every calcium ion trapped, two sodium ions are
released. This is because the calcium ion has a double
positive charge while sodium ion has a single positive charge.
In ion exchange processes, the charges must balance out.
When a resin has exchanged all of its sodium ions for calcium
ions, it needs to be recharged. In the exchange process, a
very high salt concentration floods the resin which causes the
resin to release its hold on the calcium ions and grab two
sodium ions in its place. The final step in the process is to
flush the brine from the resin to restore its calcium trapping
capacity. This brine contains all the calcium ions previously
trapped plus the excess salt needed to ensure that the resin
is fully recharged with sodium ions.
2)Water softeners can be divided into two general categories.
a) Exchangeable tank water softeners: The first category
consists of devices that use exchangeable tanks containing
the ion exchange resin. When the resin requires
regeneration, the tank containing it is exchanged for
another, and the first tank is sent to an offsite
commercial facility for regeneration. This bill does not
affect the use of exchangeable tank water softeners; and,
b) Self-generating water softeners: The regeneration of
these appliances is initiated manually, by a timing device,
AB 334
Page 4
or by a system that senses when the ion exchange resin is
close to exhaustion and regeneration is required.
Self-generating water softeners discharge the waste brine
from the regeneration process directly to the sewer. This
bill would allow local agencies to regulate this category
of water softeners.
3)According to the author, over the last few decades, increasing
numbers of residents in California have installed
self-generating water softeners in their homes to reduce
problems, primarily aesthetic in nature, caused by hard water.
On average, each self-generating water softener adds
approximately 40 lbs. of salt per month to the sewer. The use
of self-regenerating softeners has led to increased salt in
the water discharged to the sewer, which is subsequently
reused for various purposes or discharged to local waterways
following treatment. However, the treatment processes used by
a majority of local agencies do not remove salts and adding
treatment to do so is costly.
AB 334
Page 5
4)Brief history:
a) The conflict of this bill began decades ago. In 1978,
SB 2148 (Campbell) was passed, in favor of the water
softener industry and water consumers. Senator Campbell
stated that the intent behind SB 2148 was threefold:
i) To ensure that water consumers would be able to
enjoy the benefits of softened water at a reasonable
cost;
ii) To require that water softeners meet a statewide
numerical efficiency standard - namely the removal of 6.5
ounces of the dissolved solids that cause hard water for
each pound of salt used to regenerate the water
softeners; and,
iii) To prohibit local jurisdictions from outlawing the
sale and use of self-generating water softeners by
enacting a state statute that preempts local ordinances.
b) Since the enactment of SB 1248, local agencies around
the state enacted ordinances or rules regulating or banning
the use of self-regenerating water softeners. These
ordinances were challenged in court and were found to be
invalid by at least two state district courts of appeal in
Water Quality Association vs. County of Santa Barbara
(1996) and Water Quality Association vs. City of Escondido
(1997). In both cases, the courts held that local
ordinances regulating or banning self-regenerating water
softeners to be void because state law regulating water
softeners preempted local control by occupying the field.
The courts went on to say that if local agencies desired to
further restrict on-site regenerating residential water
softeners, they must seek amendment or repeal of existing
state statutes. These cases resulted in the invalidation
of over 140 local ordinances that previously curtailed the
use of these water softeners in California communities;
c) SB 1006 (Costa), Chapter 969, Statutes of 1999,
partially followed through on the courts' recommendations.
SB 1006 required higher efficiency levels for residential
self-generating water softeners and put in place a set of
criteria under which local agencies are able to regulate
softeners. Supporters contend that even the most efficient
AB 334
Page 6
softeners still allow an excessive amount of salt into
local wastewater and the criteria for local regulation is
incredibly onerous in practice; and,
d) AB 331 (Goldberg), Chapter 590, Statutes of 2001,
established the Task Force to identify impediments to the
use of recycled water. At its January 10, 2003 meeting,
the Task Force approved the following recommendation for
legislation: "Adopt legislation to increase local
flexibility to regulate water softeners." The Task Force
has released a draft of its final report incorporating the
approved recommendation and it is scheduled to approve the
final report for submission to the Legislature on April 29,
2003.
5)Opposition contends that the criteria set forth in SB 1006
should remain. Opposition argues that supporters of this bill
are going back on SB 1006 which they considered a bi-partisan
coalition and a "meeting of the minds" of both sides.
However, supporters of this bill assert that they are not
breaking any deals. Rather, they are carrying out the
recommendations of the Task Force.
6)Recycled water is viewed as an important component of
California's future water supply. Excessive quantities of
salt added to recycled water can push recycled water agencies
into non-compliance with their water quality permits and make
the recycled water unmarketable for irrigation and industrial
uses. According to supporters, a recent study suggests that
self-generating water softeners alone contribute about
one-third of the salt load in recycled water. The only other
larger source is the freshwater supply itself, which cannot be
directly controlled by local agencies.
7)The author states that concerns about salt in wastewater are
not only related to impacts on recycled water use. Local
agencies, primarily in the coastal plains and isolated inland
valleys, are concerned about the accumulation of salts in
groundwater basins that are used for drinking and irrigation
purposes. The author asserts that this bill will help these
local agencies reduce the salinity of their wastewater
discharges and protect their water supplies.
8)The author states that while it is convenient for homeowners
to soften water with a self-regenerating water softener, such
AB 334
Page 7
softening can adversely impact the entire community through
the loss of valuable water resources or vastly increased
wastewater treatment costs. Although use of a
self-regenerating water softener may appear to be
cost-effective for a homeowner, the economics are shifted when
the environmental cost of removing the softener's brine waste
from wastewater is considered.
The author cites an example at a southern California agency
serving a community of 150,000 people. The agency estimates
that if chloride levels in wastewater (and recycled water) are
not cut in half in the next five years, an advanced treatment
system (microfiltration and reverse osmosis) and brine
disposal facilities (45-mile brine line and ocean outfall)
will have to be built at a cost of over $400 million. The
rate impacts on the community would be severe, no matter how
the costs are apportioned. To increase the rates on the
entire community would be four to five times the current
level. To require only these residents using
self-regenerating water softeners would cost each household
about $2,000/year. A question arises as to whether an entire
community should bear the burden of paying for the
consequences of actions by those who choose to use
self-generating water softeners.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanne Wong / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0000612