Kelly Slater Wave Company recently helped author a bill in California that could make it easier to build public facilities. Not everyone is thrilled. Photo: Cestari/WSL
For now, Waco, Texas holds the title as the public surf park capital of the United States. That’s by default because, well, Kelly Slater Wave Company’s Surf Ranch in Lemoore is technically closed to the public, and NLand in Austin was recently shuttered and swooped up by the World Surf League. But, Kelly Slater Wave Co. apparently has big plans for California and is currently working with state legislators to change the California Health and Safety Code to define wave pools instead as “wave basins” – the specifics of which have created a stir within the burgeoning wave pool industry.
According to a bill authored by KSWC and introduced in the State Assembly earlier this year by Assemblymember and Democratic Majority Leader Ian Calderon, the new provisions would define a wave basin as “a constructed body of water with a wave generation system used for surfing-related activities, constructed with an impermeable surface, with more than 100,000 square feet of surface area, and may cover a minimum of 10 acres and contain a minimum of 15,000,000 gallons of water.”
Those specific dimensions – 100,000 square feet, and a 15,000,000-gallon minimum – have some California-based developers anxious to bring competing technologies to the state concerned. Wavegarden declined to comment, but according to its website, the company’s “Cove technology” can be adapted to sites smaller than 1 hectare (or about 107,000 square feet) and therefore would be too small to legally be considered a “wave basin.”
Wave pools like Wavegarden’s Cove that operate with a smaller footprint than stipulated by the bill could theoretically fall outside the auspices of the newly-created regulations and be subject to stricter protocals the state already has in place for wave pools you’d find at a waterpark. On its face, it appears KSWC would gain a competitive advantage in California by defining wave basins around its own technology.
One Northern California developer who asked to remain anonymous told me the legislation in its current form would effectively put a stake in his business plan. “They’re trying to change the code in a way that pretty much makes this not financially viable for me to pursue any longer,” he said. “It’s putting the kibosh on my plan to put a wave in my backyard.”
According to Assemblymember Calderon, though, the primary goal of the legislation is to create a new category of attraction that previously didn’t exist and create regulatory standards to keep visitors safe.
“What we’re trying to do is differentiate a wave pool from a wave basin,” Calderon told The Inertia. “The reason is there are certain standards that come along with operating a pool where there are waders, even if it is a wave pool and people are just hanging out and there are waves moving by, like you have at waterparks or at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas as opposed to a wave basin. They’re extremely different.”
Hearing on AB1161 Wave Basin Bill in CA Assembly Appropriations Committee by The Inertia on Scribd
Waterpark wave pools, like all public California pools, are subject to strict water quality standards based around occupancy rates. Because surf-specific wave pools like Surf Ranch, Wavegarden’s Cove, or American Wave Machines’ tech have much lower occupancy rates by design, the argument of Kelly Slater Wave Company, among other holdups, is that treating and filtering water pursuant to existing regulations makes a public surf park in California not viable.
“We want to continue to see wave basins like Kelly Slater’s wave pool be built,” Calderon told me. “But, from a regulatory standpoint, it’s been difficult for them to do so because of the different regulations that surround operating a pool that they’re currently under.”
In addition to text in the bill outlining the minimum size of a wave basin, the new stipulations also suggest a maximum occupancy of 40 persons at any given time. That, in particular, struck a chord with the Northern California developer I spoke with. “The occupancy they’re saying in the bill – 40 people at a time – seems rather low to me,” he said. “I would like to see 100 people surfing at a time like Wavegarden says they can do.”
Another concern is there’s no language in the bill suggesting what maximum occupancy might be if the wave mechanism is turned off. If a park wants to do SUP yoga or some other activity that could potentially allow for more people in the water, the developer explained, there’s no specific language in the bill that addresses that.
Marco Gonzalez is an Encinitas-based environment and land-use attorney that’s also a development partner with Desert Wave Ventures LLC., an entity pursuing a project in the Coachella Valley. He told me he’s also working with Calderon’s office to amend the bill and get it to a form that wouldn’t be so specific to Kelly Slater Wave Co.’s language, including changing the term “wave basin” to “surf pool” and addressing issues around the number of surfers allowed in the water at once. If those amendments go through, he says, it would be a meaningful step toward making it easier for developers to construct surf-specific wave pools in California.
“The Surf Pool industry is still very much in its infancy, and its future looks promising on a lot of fronts,” said Gonzalez in an email to The Inertia. “It’s encouraging to see that our State Legislature has already recognized the need for consistent regulation in a manner different from the swimming pools and water parks we’ve had around for decades.”
Other wave pool industry insiders are cautiously optimistic about new regulations so long as California legislators solicit input from an array of stakeholders.
“Currently, most groups are working with local city and county regulators and are using the federal guidelines provided by Model Aquatic Health Code (under CDC) to seek water safety approvals,” explained Skip Taylor of Surf Park Management, a San Diego-based surf park consulting firm. “Taking this next step of creating formal state regulations would be very helpful to the surf park industry and we are pleased to see that this has been initiated. We would hope, though, that this early draft of the bill will have the opportunity for further input from a range of industry experts to ensure that the final bill that is passed would best represent the interests of all stakeholders engaged in the surf park business in California.”
Whatever the final form of the bill, according to John Luff of SurfParkCentral.com, a site focused on surf park-specific news and educational resources, new regulations must make three key considerations for public safety: create standards for water quality clarity, stipulate the need for a water treatment and disinfection system, and establish operational safety protocols and reasonable capacity. For a football field-sized surf pool, for example, Luff suggests a maximum of between 38 and 57 surfers.
Luff also stressed the need for language addressing standardized water-quality monitoring systems that provide real-time info and emergency alerts, if situations were to arise.
California’s isn’t the first state legislature to work on regulatory standards for surf-specific wave pools. In Texas, the folks behind the now-shuttered NLand Surf Park successfully pushed the state to create a new regulatory category called a “surf lagoon” before even opening its doors. That change may have contributed to much of the confusion over which government agency had regulatory authority to enforce health and safety standards in Texas after a surfer thought to have contracted a brain-eating amoeba at BSR Cable Park in Waco died.
Currently, there are a number of wave pool projects in the works in California that are either under consideration or under construction – including in Palm Springs, Oceanside, and the Coachella Valley.
While much of the work he’s done on the issue has been in association with Kelly Slater Wave Co., Assemblymember Calderon emphasized his priority lies in ensuring wave pools are safe and that legislation doesn’t hinder the opening of new facilities, regardless of what the law calls them. “We want to make sure we’re crafting policy that provides protection but also isn’t so burdensome that we can’t have these wave basins built in the state,” he said.
Update (Friday, June 14, 9:14 a.m.): In reference to this story, the World Surf League responded with the following statement: “As wave systems venues grow throughout the country, we will continue to support efforts and measures that improve the safety of and experience quality for these locations.”
