California Bill Defining ‘Water Feature’ Passes Senate

Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 1:50 p.m. EDT

California Bill Defining ‘Water Feature’ Passes Senate A California bill that directs local public agencies to analyze and define “water feature” separately from swimming pools and spas passed the Senate late June and now awaits the governor’s signature.

Specifically, Assembly Bill 2409, co-authored by assemblyman Brian Nestande (R-Riverside) and assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), revises the Urban Water Management Planning Act to direct cities and counties in urban water management, for purposes of developing a water shortage contingency analysis, to analyze and define “water features” that are artificially supplied with water, including fountains, ponds, lakes and waterfalls, separately from swimming pools and spas.

Assembly Bill 2409 would commence with the urban water management plan update due on Dec. 31, 2015. In addition, each urban water supplier would need to update its plan at least once every 5 years on or before Dec 31, in years ending in five and zero.

Assembly Bill 2409, which is sponsored by the California Spa and Pool Industry Education Council (SPEC), was introduced in February to ensure that agencies treat swimming pools and spas differently than decorative water features. The main concern, according to John Norwood, president of SPEC, is that the all-inclusive definition could lead to swimming pools and spas being ordered to shut down in certain emergency situations, if adopted by local agencies for drought ordinances. This, in turn, could cause damage to homeowners’ pools and spas, Norwood said.

Give us your opinion on
California Bill Defining ‘Water Feature’ Passes Senate

Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.

Reader Comments

Will rare, native species living in the pond warrant a waiver??? I never quite understand why spas and pools, both chemical sink holes, outrank living ecosystems!

Kelly, Jarrettsville, MD
Posted: 8/16/2010 2:00:08 PM

Here we go again. Doesn't the California politicians have anything better to do then to stick their noses into each and every bit of peoples lives? Now don't get me wrong. I understand about water shortages and droughts but, having the STATE tell me I could no longer have a pond or eco system on my property,after paying for and designing it for a number of years .,or to drain it and for all practical purposes destroying it.
The politicians are taking payoffs from special interest directing their opinions on the general public by buying the political direction of the state. The pool companies just want to preserve their business(rightly understood),but selling off the pond and eco system dealers isn't the way to go.
Once again the little guy ,(me and you) are left holding the bag and having to pay fines and higher taxes for beautifying our properties.

paul, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Posted: 8/11/2010 4:35:08 PM

In wanting to protect pools and spas, are they suggesting it would be better to "shut down" a pond in an emergency drought situation? We have both a pond and a pool/spa. I would be less concerned with having to "shut down" the pool and spa in an emergency than I would with having to shut down the pond. The lives of our koi would be at risk, and that is a much bigger investment than the pool is. I don't think the brief article (and I read the related articles, too, which say nothing different about the issue) goes far enough explaining the situation or the reasoning behind the bill.

Peggy, Riverside, CA
Posted: 8/11/2010 12:19:50 AM