AB 2409 is intended to separate pools, spas and hot tubs from the definition of “water feature.”

John Norwood, President of SPEC, the California Spa & Pool Industry Education Council, announced the introduction of AB 2409 in the California Legislature, intended to separate pools and spas and hot tubs from the definition of “water feature” for purposes of the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

AB 2409 is co-authored by Assemblyman Brian Nestande, a Republican from Riverside, and Assemblyman Jerry Hill, a Democrat from San Mateo.  As currently drafted, AB 2409 would require any model ordinance or any ordinance adopted pursuant to AB 1881 (enacted in 2006) to exclude swimming pools, spas and hot tubs from the definition of “water feature.”  

AB 1881 required the state Department of Water Resources, by regulation, to adopt a model water efficient landscape ordinance by June 1, 2009.  In addition, the bill required every public entity to either adopt their own water efficient landscape ordinance by January 1, 2010, or mandate that the state model ordinance go into effect by default.

The problem with the model ordinance is that the definition of “water feature” includes swimming pools, spas and hot tubs.  “This is a dangerous precedent,” explained Norwood.  “We are concerned that this definition of “water feature” could be adopted by local agencies for drought ordinances and inadvertently lead to all public and residential swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs being ordered to shut down in certain emergency situations.”

Such a result could cause homeowners thousands of dollars in damage to their pools and spas.  In addition, such actions would adversely affect pool and spa service contractors, product suppliers, and thousands of public pool facilities who attract people for swimming lessons, therapy for the injured and disabled, family togetherness, and healthy activities including swimming and warm water immersion.  The fiscal impact to the state would also be considerable, as revenues from these facilities may be dramatically reduced.

“There is nothing in AB 2409 that would undermine the purposes of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance,” noted Norwood.  “We just believe there should be a separate definition of pools, spas and hot tubs under this ordinance that is consistent with the current definitions in the California Health & Safety Code.”

SPEC has met with representatives of the Department of Water Resources and is confident that, working together, they can reach a compromise resolution.  SPEC is fortunate to have this legislation authored in a bipartisan manner with Assemblymen Hill and Nestande.  The year 2009 was the year of the California water deal in the Legislature.  Both political parties, the Governor, and hundreds of interest groups came together to pass compromise legislation to rebuild California’s water system.  “Water is such a high profile issue that it is very difficult to address issues like AB 2409 which appear to affect water conservation.  This is why SPEC has made AB 2409 its number one priority issue for 2010,” Norwood emphasized.  


The news release is attached. Please pass along.

You need to be a member of Pool Genius Network to add comments!

Join Pool Genius Network

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Scott, thanks for explaining :) I hear you.

    Regarding SPEC, SPEC appreciates membership and donations from around the globe. As you well know,
    what happens in California does not remain in Calif. So your support of SPEC will ultimately help you in your region.

    Cheers.
  • Laurie, I was referring to AB 1881. California has a habit of being self destructive in it's legislation. AB2409 is definitely necessary. I am not a member of SPEC, mostly because while I was born in California, I haven't lived there in 25+ years.
  • and thus, the purpose of this new bill, Scott. Are you a member of SPEC?

    Scott Heusser said:
    And California continues to legislate itself out of business.
  • And California continues to legislate itself out of business.
This reply was deleted.