Santa Clarita Valley bans water softeners

Santa Clarita Valley homeowners will have to get rid of their automatic water softeners next year under a measure approved by voters last week. The softeners discharge a salty mixture into the sewage system and eventually the Santa Clara River, causing problems for downstream agriculture.

Rather than embark on an expensive upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant to remove the salts, the local sanitation district has been on an anti-softener campaign. Installation has been barred since 2003 and several thousand softeners have been removed under a rebate program. But there are still an estimated 3,000 units in use.

The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District now gives residents 100% of the "reasonable value" of a unit, in addition to paying for its removal and disposal. Come Jan. 1, the rebate falls to 75% of the softener's value. The link above also provides information on water-softening techniques not affected by the ban.

— Bettina Boxall

Photo: The Santa Clara River after a winter storm. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

 

Comments

[Michael]

Let’s forget the fact that this law is unconstitutional… You’re really going to try and tell me that water from my toilet goes into the agricultural supply line of the Santa Clara River after it leaves the treatment plant? When I asked SC Water this question, I was told “uhhhh well no”.

[S. Samis]

So the 3000 water softeners are causing the sanitation plant problem even though the chroride comes from the tab water? I doubt it. New tax for new sanitation plant will more likely be imposed to all homeowners anyway very soon. What about water soteners that use potassium and not salt? Why are they being banned? They do not produce any chroride. Also the changable softener tanks can be discharged by Rayne and Culigan in Van Nuys and that's OK? What about risk of putting chroride in their sanitation system? And what about the massive increase in used water filter elements form the non-salt units in Santa Clarita landfills that are being sold that do not soften the water? It appears no one has tested these replacements or even looked at their environmental impacts to the landfills and nearby sewer systems. It is just a shifting of problem to somebody else within the city and the region. In the end, new sanitation plant will be needed anyway because the current one is so antiquated (1960?). Voters should have demanded more facts before they voted for something that does not solve but shifts around the chroride problem.

[Noel Masson]

It appears to me that one agency of government (the sanitation dept.) is penalizing the taxpayer for trying to rectify a situation caused by another agency (the water district)
If residents of Santa Clarita were provided decent water in the first place, then we wouldn't have to soften it.
And I'm not being nit picky. Let me run a few numbers by you.
The world has standardized the measure of hardness using mg/liter of calcium carbonate. The U.S has not defined hard water as unsafe for health...but there are guidelines. The average hardness in the U.S is around 110. Even in areas of very hard water like Arizona, the hardness can reach up to 200.
Other western countries governments put limits on the hardness of water. Usually around the 200 mark.
And how hard is the water in Canyon Country? 400! (from the Water Districts own website)
Twice the legal limits imposed in other developed nations. More than twice that of other hard water ares that consider 200 as "extremely hard".

When the local government can deliver water that does not ruin my infrastructure (pipes, heaters, pumps, nozzles), then I will be happy to get rid of my water softener.

I'd be happy to contribute (pay a tax) to fix the problem at the source (pun intended) rather than treat the symptom.

Next we can talk about how much more we (the river, the treatment plant etc) would benefit if we had softer water because we (the taxpayers) would use MUCH less detergents.

That's right, one of the greatest risks in "run off" is detergents. We would use an estimated 1/3 the amount of detergents we currently use.

All this by fixing the problem....not the symptoms.

[S. Lancaster]

I waited 14 years to purchase a water softener...until it was legal in Santa Clarita and in fact had it installed it by permit..... For many years it was not legal because we were considered an agricultural area... Shame on the City and County for ever allowing them.....it surely didn't take a genius to know that it would add salt to the river....

Noww I am beign given about 1/2 the value of my softener, which is a stainless steel lifetime guaranteed model.... I will do the proper thing and have this removed but now am hesitant to purchase any other kind of water conditioner /filter suggested by the water control board as what happens if these too are found to be illegal down the road....

We actually had our house replumbed and specifically had the softener installed inside ...which I would never do with a rental.

The truth of the matter is they will end up having to build a plant anyway as so many people have illegally installed softeners and our one sanitation plant cannot much longer accomodate the growth in homes out here....So I feel like we the few who did this legally are being punished.......... Hard water is not healthy the minerals add to kidney stones as well as causing wear of water heaters, dishwashers, pipes, etc.

If they are going to ban softeners the County should take steps to remove or change the hardness and minerals in the water at the water sourdce. Most people out here would welcome such a change and it could be very reasonable on a customers water bill if done by the water companies... thereby insuring an effective system..... They charge us for pumping our water to us so why not charge for something we truly need......... water with no hard water scale.... It is possible and the county would give them incentive to do so.... However, they prefer to leave the problem on the consumer and we can only guess if we are getting a good system... Being retiirees we find soft water tank rental expensive...

Very disappointed that this situation exists and that it has been handled so poorly by the county. I will remove my softener as required by feel betrayed.

[John Foley]

Unfortunately this ban will not guarantee that expensive upgrades to the Sanitation Districts waste water treatment plants will not still be necessary. What the public does not know is that the chloride problem in Santa Clarita is actually on the tap water side. That is to say that the salts in the tap water are already too high to meet their discharge permit requirement. Softeners were simply an easy to identify contributor. Removing them will do nothing to address the underlying problem of escalating groundwater salinity. By attacking softeners the District is able to appear as though they are doing everything possible to mitigate the problem. This is mainly to appease the Regional Water Quality Control Board who has final say so over their discharge permit. As drought conditions continue and tap water salinity continues to increase, taxpayers will be told that they must pay for a half billion dollar RO system to treat waste water. My question is this; If you are going to spend that kind of money to treat sewage, why would you not invest it to improve the quality of the tap water so that residents who are going to be paying for it might benefit. With improved tap water quality the need for softeners is eliminated and the problem of high salinity at the waste water plants is addressed as well. I suppose this makes too much sense.

[Billy Thompson]

Interesting Article. So, what will happen if the city is not able to meet chloride discharge levels...even after all the softeners are removed? Will they then need to build a very expensive treatment plant for wastewater discharge? If so, does that mean that they (the city and the LACSD) unfairly discriminated against softener owners? Time will tell, but if that is ultimately what happens, the City and the LACSD will have some legal issues on their hands. Eminent Domain is s very serious issue, especially if the forced removal of softeners was not truly the right direction to solve the District's poor source of water quality.

[john]

It's about time!

Why should those of us with no softener pay to clean up the water of those few with one.