BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 470 Hearing Date: 6/14/2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Chu | |----------+------------------------------------------------------| |Version: |6/8/2016 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Sarah Carvill | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Public health: drownings DIGEST: This bill requires newly constructed or remodeled swimming pools at private single-family residences to incorporate at least two of seven specified drowning-prevention safety features. It also requires home inspections conducted as part of the transfer of a property with a pool to include an assessment of whether the pool is equipped with adequate safety features. ANALYSIS: 1)Existing law defines a "swimming pool" as a structure intended for swimming or recreational bathing with a water depth of over 18 inches, including in-ground and aboveground structures, hot tubs, spas, portable spas, and nonportable wading pools. 2)When a building permit is issued for the construction or remodel of a swimming pool at a private single-family home, existing law requires that one of the following seven drowning prevention features be installed: a) An enclosure separating home access points from the pool and meeting specific requirements with respect to height, gaps, latches, and any features that could serve as handholds or footholds b) A removable mesh fence meeting specific standards set by AB 470 (Chu) Page 2 of ? the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and equipped with a self-closing, self-latching gate that can accommodate a lock c) A pool cover meeting specific ASTM standards d) Exit alarms on all doors that provide access from the home to the pool e) Self-closing, self-latching devices, with release mechanisms placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor, on all doors that provide access from the home to the pool f) A pool alarm designed to sound in the event of an unauthorized entrance into the water and independently certified as meeting specific ASTM standards g) Another feature providing as much or more protection than the above devices and independently verified as meeting ASTM or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards 3)Existing law requires local building code officials to inspect drowning-prevention features installed to comply with these requirements, and give final approval for the completion of construction or remodeling only if no violations are found. Any person who agrees to build a swimming pool or spa, or to engage in work on a pool or spa that requires a permit, must give the consumer notice of the above described drowning-prevention requirements. The Department of Health Services is required to make pool safety information available on its website beginning January 1, 2007. 4)Existing law exempts public swimming pools from these requirements. Hot tubs and spas with locking safety covers that meet specified ASTM standards are also exempt, as are residential settings other than single-family homes (e.g., apartment complexes) and pools within jurisdictions that adopt a swimming pool safety ordinance that is at least as strict as existing state law. 5)Existing law also defines a "home inspection" as a noninvasive physical examination of a property, performed for a fee in association with a home sale, designed to identify material defects in key systems and components, and describes what must AB 470 (Chu) Page 3 of ? be included in home inspection reports. This bill: 1)Makes findings regarding the prevalence of drowning as a cause of death among young children in California, the potential for lasting brain injuries as a result of near-drowning incidents, the effectiveness of pool barriers as a means of preventing drowning, and the importance of informing the public of the risks posed by swimming pools and of reducing those risks by promoting the installation of drowning-prevention features. 2)Requires that when a pool at a private, single-family residence is constructed or remodeled, at least two of the drowning prevention features described in existing law must be installed. 3)Specifies that a pool alarm includes devices that use a verbal warning (e.g., a repeating notification that "the door to the pool is open") as well as devices that use an alarm noise. 4)Requires that when a property with a pool is transferred: a) The home inspection must include a physical examination of the pool to determine which, if any, of the seven drowning prevention features described in existing law it is equipped with. b) The home inspection report must identify which of these drowning prevention features the pool is equipped with and specifically state if fewer than two are installed. 5)Repeals the exemption in existing law for pools in jurisdictions that adopt more stringent swimming pool safety standards. 6)Authorizes the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts if the Commission on State Mandates finds that this bill imposes mandatory costs on local government entities. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, residential pool drowning has been the leading cause of death for California children ages 1-4 for more than two decades. The author notes that AB 470 (Chu) Page 4 of ? water safety, drowning prevention, public health, and other children's safety advocates, as well as the pool and spa industry, agree that one of the most effective ways to prevent pool drowning incidents involving very young children is to prevent children from accessing pools when there are no adults present to supervise them. This bill is intended to support this objective by addressing deficiencies in California's existing Pool Safety Act. Specifically, it increases the number of drowning prevention features required under the act from one to two; adds requirements to the home inspection process that inform new homeowners of whether their pools are equipped with adequate safety features; and expands the types of pool door alarms that qualify as a drowning-prevention feature under the act. 2)What's covered? Both the existing Pool Safety Act and this bill cover swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and nonportable wading pools, provided they contain over 18 inches of water and are associated with private, single-family homes. Neither the existing act nor this bill applies to public swimming pools, swimming pools at apartment complexes, or hot tubs with locking safety covers meeting specified standards. They also do not apply to facilities regulated by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that are also the private residence of the operator. Pool safety in those facilities is regulated by the CDSS. 3)Background. California's original Pool Safety Act (Setencich, Chapter 925, Statutes of 1996), which went into effect on January 1, 1997, required all new swimming pools constructed at private, single-family homes be equipped with either a permanent fence; a pool cover meeting certain safety standards; exit alarms or self-closing, self-latching devices on all doors providing access to the pool; or another safety feature providing as least as much protection as the specified four. The act was amended in 2006 (Mullin, Chapter 478, Statutes of 2006) to reflect the availability of two additional drowning-prevention features: Removable mesh fencing and pool alarms that sound when a person enters the water. The 2006 act also expanded the scope of the law to include pools that undergo a remodel requiring a building permit. 4)A big intervention for a big problem. Requiring owners of private homes to purchase and install drowning-prevention AB 470 (Chu) Page 5 of ? devices for the protection of a population that may not be represented among that home's residents or regular guests is likely to strike some as a classic government overreach. From a public health and safety standpoint, however, drowning deaths among very young children are a persistent and serious problem that justifies major state intervention. Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 1 and 4, and drowning is the most common cause of these accidental deaths. While the rate of drownings among these children has declined slightly over the past two decades, the relative prevalence of drowning as a cause of death has not changed. And for every child in this age cohort who dies from drowning, five or more suffer "near-drowning" injuries, 20% to 50% of which cause permanent brain injury and lifelong disability. In addition to the emotional and financial impact these deaths and injuries have on individual families, the disabilities associated with near-drownings impose major, long-term costs on the state. As of June 2015, 717 individuals were receiving care from the California Department of Developmental Services for permanent disabilities incurred in near-drowning incidents. For very young children, the majority of drowning deaths and near-drownings occur in residential pools. 5)At what price? The safety measures referenced by this bill encompass both low- and high-cost features. Door alarms are inexpensive enough ($20-$70 each) that multiple access points can be secured for less than $100. The costs of self-closing, self-latching doors vary from $15 (for use on gates; self-installation) to over $200. ASTM-approved pool alarms can be purchased for between $55 and $500. Removable mesh fencing and manual pool covers generally run between $1,200 and $3,000, depending on the size of the pool. The most expensive drowning prevention devices (permanent fencing and automatic pool covers) may exceed $5,000. It is also important to bear in mind that under this bill, drowning prevention safety features would only be required on a newly constructed swimming pool ($25,000-$50,000) or as part of a substantial remodel ($5,000-$20,000). While the bill does impose a burden on homeowners, the costs are triggered by elective expenditures of a much greater magnitude. 6)The case for redundancy. The International Building Code and most U.S. states require only one barrier restricting access to residential pools; however, the author notes that AB 470 (Chu) Page 6 of ? unintentional injury prevention and public health advocates support the use of two drowning prevention safety features. The primary rationale for this position is that a single safety feature may malfunction or become disabled. This contention makes sense when one considers that at least two of the allowable safety features are designed to be disabled: Pool entry alarms can be put into "sleep" mode when the pool is in use, and removable fencing is, as the name suggests, removable. Similarly, door alarms may run out of batteries, and latches may break. A second safety feature would provide "backup" to busy families that forget to replace an alarm or a removable fence, or who cannot immediately fix a malfunctioning latch or alarm. 7)Do more safety features mean fewer drownings? The state does not currently track the number and type of drowning prevention features that were installed on a pool where a drowning or near-drowning event occurred. In the absence of this data, it is impossible to know whether the single barrier required under existing law is providing adequate protection. A bill that would have provided this information, AB 299, died in the Assembly last year. Another measure currently before the Senate, AB 2425, would direct the State Department of Public Health to develop standards for collecting data from unintentional injury incidents involving children. One goal of this legislation is to ensure that the most relevant data are collected for each unintentional injury type. AB 470 uses a different approach, placing the burden of pool safety on pool owners by requiring them to control access to their pools. This may be a more direct and cost-efficient response to residential pool drownings than imposing extensive data collection requirements on state and local governments in order to inform future policy interventions. Ultimately, however, better protecting children's health and safety will require more and better information about drowning accidents as well as additional safety requirements for residential pools. 8)Point-of-sale as a point of intervention. The requirements of the Pool Safety Act have always been applied prospectively, leaving many pools out of reach of the law. Pools built before 1997 that have not undergone a significant remodel since 2007 are currently not required to install any drowning prevention safety features, and the findings of the 2006 Pool Safety Act suggest that as many as one million pools were AB 470 (Chu) Page 7 of ? constructed in California before the first drowning prevention requirements went into effect in 1997. An earlier version of this bill attempted to extend the act's protections by requiring pools to be brought into compliance at the time of a property sale. In response to concerns cited by the California Association of Realtors, the author took amendments to remove this requirement. Rather than making pre-1997 pools comply with the Pool Safety Act when they are sold, the current version of the bill imposes minor changes to the existing home inspection process intended to inform prospective home buyers whether a property's pool is equipped with safety features that meet the standards in current law. These amendments make use of the point-of-sale as an educational opportunity without imposing additional requirements on pool owners. 9)Repealing the exemption for jurisdictions with more stringent regulations. Existing law provides an exemption from the Pool Safety Act for local governments that adopt more stringent pool safety requirements. This bill, as amended by the author, removes that long-standing exemption. Local jurisdictions would still be free to adopt their own pool safety ordinances. However, any requirements they imposed would be additional to the requirements in state law rather than a substitute for them. Local governments would therefore not be constrained from adopting more stringent pool safety policies, but they would face a disincentive to developing policies that differ strongly from the state's approach. Related Legislation: AB 2425 (Brown, 2016) - would require the State Department of Public Health to develop standards for collecting data from unintentional injury incidents involving children, including drownings. This bill is pending in the Senate Rules Committee. AB 299 (Brown, 2015) - would have required the State Department of Public Health to create a submersion incident report form including information on key attributes of drowning events, including barrier types in use. This bill was held on suspense in Assembly Appropriations. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes AB 470 (Chu) Page 8 of ? Assembly Votes: Floor: 74-3 Appr.: 12-0 Hum. S.: 7-0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 8, 2016.) SUPPORT: California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health (co-sponsor) Drowning Prevention Foundation (co-sponsor) Advocates for Health, Economics and Development The Arc Health Officers Association of California United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration OPPOSITION: None received -- END --