City of Morris water treatment plant: conundrum

What to do with these now? ("water geeks" image)

The new ownership of the newspaper tells us, in a manner that might seem like preaching, that the press is essential for reporting on government. It's the "watchdog" meme. Without doubt it has merits.
The young-uns who say "OK boomer" should know that people my age have insights from Watergate. Disco isn't the only thing we cared about in the 1970s. "The press" was a defining feature of Watergate. That must have made the legal profession jealous. Or, "making the flowers jealouth" as the great composer/humorist Peter Schickele once penned. (He composed as "PDQ Bach.") "My bonnie lass she smelleth."
I offer this attempted levity so as not to make this post overly depressing in tone. But we're talking about depression in connection to government and its machinations. Right now what we have going on in our Morris MN is this water treatment plant thing.
What a grand building out on the eastern outskirts of town. Well it's a building. I couldn't care less. But now we're thrown into limbo for understanding how to proceed with our water. We're supposed to depend on the newspaper? In situations like this frankly I'd like to depend directly on communications from our City of Morris. The sense of limbo has become frustrating.

Who to listen to?
There is an apparent tug of war between the area water quality companies and the City. The water quality companies are private business. This is not to assume they would do anything untoward to make money. Not that that sort of thing should be ruled out. To quote the guy who runs the "Pawn Stars" place: "It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I don't trust anybody."
I take no pleasure in saying "I don't trust anybody." But I guess that's true. The paper would like to think it's the most virtuous party, "pure as the driven snow" I guess. I was shocked in my visit to our public library Tuesday where I always glance through the new Morris paper. Some quite stark language was on page 1. It was directed at people with "old" water softeners, and how old is old?
What's wrong with something being old? We had an old Kinetico water softener in our place but as I explained to a city official recently, it was built like a brick outhouse and worked fine. I use the past tense "was" because on Thursday I had it replaced by a water quality company. I want to be a responsible homeowner. That's why I acted when it seemed the pressure was great to act, sort of like having a gun pointed to my head.
 
My, sounds dire
A front page article in the Morris paper proclaimed there would be legal consequences for people with old softeners. So I asked a city official if the city would dispatch people with law enforcement credentials. Would citations be issued?
Even before I had my new softener installed, I had been through a pretty maddening process of trying to find out what the heck to do. Call it an odyssey. Time and again I called people. I thrashed around. Our softener was Kinetico so I thought it best to contact Kinetico at some point. I got online and communicated with someone in an office who knows where. Was I naive in assuming this "pro" would come and assess and simply make sure my softener was "adjusted?" That's what I thought was in store. Very routine.
So often we find out things are not so routine. The guy looked at the softener and said he couldn't really evaluate it. He seemed stumped. IMHO he was not impressive with his grasp of things. Finally I filled the void by saying "should I just leave things the way they are?" He did not dispute that and so after I paid the bill of about $100, it was over. "It was over" until I saw the front page article in the Morris paper. Very sharply worded in regard to legal ramifications. I figured I better well take action again.
So I called the local water quality company and I cannot fault them, based on any and all information I have gleaned. But I feel insulted by the City of Morris pronouncements about how we'd "save money on salt" with the new treatment plant. Problem is, this benefit is negated in spades if you have to buy a new water softener, an up-to-date "on demand" softener.
I shared a concern with a city official about the tone of the newspaper article. He responded pretty bluntly by saying this was not the city's position. He did this by saying "I don't write the newspaper articles." The suggestion is that the article lacked credence. So much for the platitudes about how we have to rely on the paper as a "watchdog" or whatever.
The city official came right out and questioned what I had been told by the water quality company. So then I contacted the company and implied some pretty obvious skepticism. Fortunately the company spokesman came across as very knowledgeable and sincere, and I must say I cannot feel skeptical about what she told me. Our water was perfect before, she said. It would no longer be up to those standards, had I just chosen to disconnect the softener, she said. We must take proper care of our hot water heaters.
I have an on-demand softener installed and cannot express regret at this point. But it appears a lot of local residents are taking the plunge and just disconnecting. Are they throwing caution to the wind?
 
City has its own agenda, yes
Are there any "bad guys" in this confusion? I'm an old press person and I never rule this out. Might it be the City of Morris itself? You see, the city does have an agenda here that might be described as narrow. The city is having to "sell" its water treatment plant. I think it's a more difficult process than they expected. I suspect some frayed nerves. "I don't write the newspaper articles." Flat-out contradiction of the advice given me by water quality professionals.
Looking to the city's side of things, it is under pressure to get pollutants down in the river. I guess we're talking about chloride. And they must meet a certain standard for this - a bar is set - to get considerable financial help from the government. So yes, there's an "agenda." At some point they could simply plead for as many city residents as possible to simply disconnect their softeners - whatever it takes, as it were. However, is this really the most prudent thing?
Based on my experiences and communications re. this, I think there's a nebulous area. It's a pretty personal matter because we're talking about managing our homes properly. And the big bad government is involved. Shudder.
The city official indicated that if the pollutant level isn't adequately reduced, people might start getting real directives on how to proceed. They will be given time, so it's not as if onerous legal sanctions are looming, not like what was so sharply implied in the newspaper's page 1 article.
The point I'd like to make here, is that the city should have communicated better all along. Why wouldn't it? Hmmm. Maybe because the city is scared to just outright tell everyone "disconnect your softener." Down deep this is what they'd want, I suppose, to get the (expletive) government money. But as homeowners we might wish to exercise caution. I'm upset because of the sheer confusion and head-scratching this process has entailed so far.
City Hall - you can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.
"My bonnie lass she smelleth, making the flowers jealouth."
-Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com