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 --