Regional board urges control of salinity in groundwater
Restrictions on self-regenerating water softeners could come to
San Benito County after the Regional Water Quality Control Board in
December considers a resolution calling for a reduction in salts
released to the local groundwater supply.
The proposed resolution supports the county’s work to control
salinity inputs from residential and industrial water softeners
while noting that a new state water code authorizes local agencies
that own or operate a community sewer system or water recycling
facility to take action to protect water quality.
Regional board urges control of salinity in groundwater
Restrictions on self-regenerating water softeners could come to San Benito County after the Regional Water Quality Control Board in December considers a resolution calling for a reduction in salts released to the local groundwater supply.
The proposed resolution supports the county’s work to control salinity inputs from residential and industrial water softeners while noting that a new state water code authorizes local agencies that own or operate a community sewer system or water recycling facility to take action to protect water quality.
Specifically, the code gives local agencies like the county the authority to regulate water softeners, especially in areas of the state where there are bodies of water with high salinity – such as those in San Benito County.
In its proposed resolution, the water board says that salinity input from residential use of self-regenerating water softeners “is a significant source of controllable salts within the County of San Benito and there are regional economic impacts if residential use” of the softeners is not controlled.
The resolution encourages, but does not require, greater regulation by the county or other agencies.
Public Works Administrator Steve Wittry told the Board of Supervisors last week that the expected passage of the resolution on Dec. 8 “allows the county to (regulate water softeners) if you so choose.”
Such an ordinance, if enacted, would not cover individual septic users in the county, which Wittry said would be “onerous.”
Supervisor Margie Barrios said that if the county were to consider such an ordinance, she would be opposed to putting penalties on individual users. Wittry noted that any penalties for excessive release of salt to groundwater would fall on the jurisdiction – in this case, the county or its water districts – not customers themselves.
With so many water release exemptions granted by the state to non-residential water customers, Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz said, “you are penalizing the residents for other exemptions given to other” customers, who may be releasing more higher-salinity water than residential homes.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho said he has, over the years, “noticed the deterioration of the San Juan water basin” due to percolation of treated water in the county.
“Salinity is a problem and an issue,” he said, asking Wittry how any such ordinance would impact homes that already have water softeners installed.
Wittry suggested that the county could limit its regulations to homes that are being sold or newly constructed or by requesting that businesses that sell water softeners refrain from selling particular models to residents within the county.
Such rules would “require honesty” from the buyers and sellers,” Wittry said, adding that he doesn’t “envision a process in which we go door to door” checking on compliance to water softener mandates.
Botelho praised the water board’s call for regulation as “forward-thinking.”
