The Product Police, Part Two

Patrick Dorinson's picture
Communications strategist specializing in political communications and government relations.

When I was a boy, my folks owned a farm in Upper Lake in Lake County where we raised walnuts. It was managed by an aunt and uncle and I used to love going to visit. Every fall, we would go as a family to help with the harvest. The one thing I used to hate about it was drinking the water at my Aunt Betty’s house. It tasted horrible and there were always stains in the bathtub and the sink that looked like rust.

I remember asking my mother why the water tasted so bad and why there were those stains. It was the first time I ever heard the term hard water.

Hard water is water with a high mineral content. The United States Geological Survey states that 89.3% of homes in America of have some degree of hard water and some of the hardest water in the country is right here in California, including the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, Ventura, and San Diego.

Hard water is hard on your clothes, hard on your appliances, takes more energy to run them and leaves a scum called scaling, which is the left over mineral deposits after the water has dried up. It can clog pipes, ruin water heaters, coat the insides of tea and coffee pots, and decrease the life of toilet flushing units. It can also leave salt residue in your hair after shampooing leaving it coarser and harder to manage.

Sounds like we need to do something! Why is the legislature not doing something about this environmental disaster?

Well, the Legislature is doing something about it. But as they always seem to do, they want to take away the only thing we have to combat the ill effects—water softeners. They want to ban them.

Not only do they want to ban them, they want to give largely unelected local water agency bureaucrats the ability to develop a “finding”, which is a government word for “excuse”, that will allow them to enter your home and remove your water softener.

That is what AB 2270 would do if it is passed and signed by the Governor. Where Assemblymen Mike Feuer and John Laird came up with this one I haven’t the foggiest idea. Suffice it to say, it yet another example of a solution desperately looking for a problem.

And how will you be compensated for removing your water softener?

Will they compensate you for your water softener? Don’t be silly. You have violated the law and the Wrench and Faucet Division of the Product Police don’t have to compensate you for anything.

Will the State of California compensate you for having to replace pipes, get new washers and dishwashers and buy new clothes after the mineral rich hard water has destroyed them? There you go being silly again. The government is doing this for your own good although they never tell you what that good is!

And what will the state do to compensate all those Hollywood stars that will be forced to deal with frizzy unruly hair caused by hard water? Maybe they will be given a waiver by the Shampoo Division of the Product Police.

Water softeners have been used effectively for years -- so why now, all of the sudden, do they want to ban them?

And if it is such a dramatic problem with regards to our water supply, why isn’t it being discussed as part of the larger discussion on the future of California’s water supply?

Assemblyman Feuer comes from Los Angeles County, which has some of the hardest water in the nation. Wait until he tells them he is going to take their water softeners. I would love to see the reaction of his constituents. Cue the tar and feathers.

Finally, who is going to enforce this ban? Will there be special plumbers assigned to local police forces to go in and forcibly remove your property?

If this wasn’t so serious it would just be one of those “only in California” moments. But it is serious and it should be rejected by the Legislature and the Governor forthwith.

And if it is so dad burned important, its impacts need to be studied far more than it has been and as I said before it should be a small part of the larger issue of water.

Let’s not try to “solve” an alleged problem while at the same time creating new ones.

Tell Your Legislators NO on AB2270: www.savemysoftener.com

This is such a bad piece of legislation, there is a website where you can email your legislator a petition against it: http://www.savemysoftener.com

Water Softener Ban

The Product Police article contradicts itself by stating that "water softeners increase the proportion of salts that are in our treatment plants"...and "increase the cost of water treatment". If these salts are in our plants and are adequately treated why then would they be in "our rivers and our environment"? Has anyone addressed the cost of water treatment at the sanitation districts? What about the use of Potassium instead of Rock salt for regenerating the water softeners? The levels of chlorides may be greatly reduced at a slightly higher cost to the homeowner but achieving the same soft water results in a more eco friendly manner.

Brine Discharging Water Softeners

AB 2270 needs to be passed because of the chloride pollution caused by the Brine (salt) discharging water softeners. Each softener, discharges 1 full pound of salt (sodium chloride) into your city's wastewater system. Here in Fillmore, we're in trouble cause of approx. 450 homes (that's only 10% of all Fillmore households) which use these brine softeners. Due to the 450 pounds of salt discharged daily into Fillmore's wastewater (which goes into our freshwater Santa Clara River), we're over the limit imposed by our local Regional Water Quality Control Board. Limit is 100mg chloride/liter of water. Fillmore discharges 140 mg chloride/liter water. Even if you don't care about what this extra salt is doing to a freshwater river eco-system, California is planning on FINEING Fillmore $3,000 a day for this extra chloride. That works out to about $20 to $25 EXTRA each month added to our water bills! We're already paying $66 to $72 a month for our sewer bills, which will go up to $90 a month in 2009. And sewer WAS $27 a month in 2006!!!! So for the sake of our POCKET BOOKS, no more brine discharging water softeners, and thus, PASS AB 2270!!! Thanks for READING THIS ON AIR.

Let's Find an Alternate Solution Before Banning the Old One

If he is uninformed about the subject of hard water, that is one issue. But what about the information given about the ban of water softeners and the removal of these from homes? Is that part correct? You fail to address that.

I am concerned that this will turn out to be like when they banned aerosol sprays, barbecue lighter fluid, and A/C freon because of environmental concerns. They made a drastic decision to ban these items before providing a "practical" solution first.

This is known as a "typical knee jerk reaction" by us conservatives. That I believe was his MAIN point here.

Lawmakers tend to make decisions on issues with environment concerns in mind, but not for the economic impact. Can you say "Ethanol" & "Improved Fuel Emission Standards". Both put in place without considering the final economic impact on consumers.

Instead of lawmakers immediately banning things, how about working with private industry first to find alternative solutions. Let the marketplace determine which will survive economically. Then you can ban the SALE of the older water softeners. The old ones will eventually die out and the only alternative will be to use the replacement solution.

To us conservatives - We believe that private industry is our friend. Liberals who find problems but no solutions are our enemy.

The Product Police

In the future you should probably avoid writing about things that you do not understand. Your use of the word "mineral" is, in this case, a euphemism for the word "salts," which in some cases lead to things like "selenium." Water softeners increase the proportion of salts that are in our treatment plants and thereby our rivers and our environment. As a result they have the potential to decimate our environment (Does Kesterson ring a bell?), and increase the costs of water treatment. Let's try to be a litte more honest in the future and not, just for the sake of conservative piety, present only one side of the issue, shall we? Or are you all hat and no cattle?

Please note, statements and opinions expressed on the Fox&Hounds Blog are solely those of their respective authors and may not represent the views of Fox&Hounds Daily or its employees thereof. Fox&Hounds Daily is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the site's bloggers.