Bill would mandate kids wear life vests in wave pools

Tag : Children's Wear

"Yes, I do, so it can prevent what happened to my son," she said.
Wave pools can contain about a half-million gallons of water, rangeup to 6 feet deep, accommodate hundreds of kids and produce rollingwaves for swimming or riding inner tubes.
Under Senate Bill 107, children under 4 feet tall would be requiredto wear a life vest, and kids under 3 1/2 feet tall would have tobe accompanied by a parent.
The bill would take effect in January 2009.
The measure also would require enough lifeguards to respond toemergencies within 30 seconds, and would set standards for warningsignals, rest periods and public notice.
Sen. Elaine Alquist, a Santa Clara Democrat who proposed SB 107,said she made a promise to Yolanda Flores.
"I just said to her, 'I'll do whatever I can in my power to seethat this does not happen to other children,' " Alquist said.
Wave pools are offered in about 15 water parks statewide. Flores'drowning is the first in such attractions since passage of a 1999law to regulate amusement parks, according to a Senate analysis ofAlquist's bill.
SB 107 awaits action in the Assembly after passing the Senate alongparty lines, 26-13, with Republicans opposed. Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger has taken no position.
Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said that government is no substitutefor good parenting and cannot eliminate every potential hazard.
"I do, in fact, believe that the Legislature steps into manysituations and assumes the role of a parent and relieves the parentof parental responsibility," Cox said.
Other opponents said SB 107 could provide fodder for frivolouslawsuits and creates a life vest standard based on height, notswimming ability.
Alquist's measure won support from the amusement park industry,however, after deletion of provisions that would have requiredchildren under 14 to be accompanied by an adult and kids under 6 tobe within arm's length of an adult in the water.
The amended SB 107 largely mirrors requirements imposed on GreatAmerica by state regulators after Carlos' death.
"I can't speak for other water parks, but it's worked well for us,"Al Garcia, Great America spokesman, said of the safety mandate.
When he drowned, Carlos Flores, a nonswimmer, was in GreatAmerica's wave pool without a life vest while his mother was onshore, about 50 yards away, according to a state report.
Investigators concluded that the 4-year-old boy, found unconscious,had been in distress for 39 seconds before being spotted by one ofthe pool's six lifeguards in water about 3 feet deep.
If SB 107 had been in effect during the time of Flores' accident,the boy would have been required to wear a life vest because of hisheight, 42 inches.
Great America, at the time, recommended but did not insist thatyoung children use life vests, the state report said.
Raging Waters, at Cal Expo, voluntarily imposed additionalwave-pool safety standards last year that are identical to ortighter than those in SB 107, General Manager Juan Richards said.
"Obviously, it's safety first," he said.
Patrons interviewed randomly Friday at Raging Waters applauded thepush.
"It doesn't matter if a kid is a great swimmer or not, or has beenon a swim team, something could always happen – they couldsmack their head on something," said Ray Shermantine, 35, ofStockton.
Kim Bateman, a 45-year-old Elk Grove resident, said government hasa responsibility to protect kids.
"Unfortunately, parents sometimes don't make the right decisions,"she said.
Supporters of SB 107 include the California State Sheriffs'Association; Saferparks, a nonprofit group promoting patron safety;and the California Attractions & Parks Association, the tradeassociation for amusement parks.
"Families get distracted," said Mary Ellen Peterson of ParentsHelping Parents, a nonprofit agency that supports SB 107. "All ittakes is one minute for a child to go under. It doesn't take long."
John Robinson, president of the California Attractions and ParksAssociation, said SB 107 represents the best practices of theindustry.
Robinson said technicalities of the bill – such as requiring awarning signal about 15 seconds before waves resume after a restperiod – could be grist for frivolous lawsuits. But publicsafety trumps other considerations, he said.
"You could have somebody out there with a stopwatch, saying, 'Did(the bell ring) 15 seconds before the wave?' " Robinson said.
"But we're not driven by fear of liability; we're driven by makingthe park safe." About the writer: Call Jim Sanders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5538.