AB 1639 amends California law to (1) require 911 prearrival instructions to include both ventilations and chest compressions for drowning calls, (2) direct the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) to produce an initial lifeguard workforce report by June 30, 2028 and then biennially, and (3) order the State Department of Public Health (CDPH) to revamp statewide CPR public communications with explicit 2030 knowledge and training targets. The bill also authorizes EMSA, if funds are appropriated, to use specific license-plate monies to support the lifeguard reporting work and builds in a conditional operability clause tied to a separate bill.
Why it matters: the measure stitches together emergency-dispatch protocols, workforce data collection, and public education to reduce drownings. For public-safety officials, pool operators, local EMS agencies, and training providers, the bill creates new procedural expectations, data-reporting duties, and a state-level push that could reshape funding, training standards, and public outreach over the next decade.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Health and Safety Code Section 1797.161 to explicitly require drowning-related 911 instructions to include both ventilations and chest compressions, directs EMSA to deliver a detailed lifeguard workforce report by June 30, 2028 and biennially thereafter, and mandates CDPH coordinate a public communications campaign to increase CPR knowledge and training by 2030.
Who It Affects
Local public safety answering points (PSAPs) and their dispatch protocols, local EMS agency medical directors who approve prearrival scripts, EMSA (reporting duties), lifeguard employers across public and private sectors, training organizations, and CDPH’s communications and education partners.
Why It Matters
This is a policy package linking emergency dispatch content, workforce intelligence, and public education to make drowning response and prevention more consistent statewide. The lifeguard report aims to create baseline data that California currently lacks, while the CPR outreach sets concrete population-level goals that will drive funding and program choices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1639 tightens what 911 callers must be told when the incident involves a drowning: dispatch centers must provide CPR instructions that include both chest compressions and emergency breaths, not chest compressions alone. That amendment sits inside existing law that already requires PSAPs to offer prearrival medical instructions; this bill clarifies the clinical content for drowning scenarios and preserves the existing approval role of local EMS agency medical directors and the ability to contract for dispatch services.
The bill tasks the Emergency Medical Services Authority with compiling a statewide lifeguard workforce report, with a concrete first delivery date of June 30, 2028 and updates every two years thereafter. The statute enumerates what the report must capture: counts and certification levels, work settings (ocean, lake, river, public/private pools), training and recertification practices, pay ranges and benefits, demographic breakdowns, employers and certifying organizations, and disciplinary frameworks.
The initial report must go further and describe how lifeguards currently fit into the emergency medical services system and offer recommendations for integrating lifeguard training, oversight, and discipline with EMS structures.To raise community readiness, the State Department of Public Health must review and update the state’s public communications so Californians know why CPR matters and how to get trained. The bill sets explicit improvement targets for 2030—moving estimated adult CPR knowledge from roughly 50 percent to 80 percent and trained adults from about 40 percent to 75 percent—and requires CDPH to coordinate with other state health, education, and emergency services entities to reach those goals.Operationally, the bill creates a route for financing parts of the EMSA report work by permitting, upon legislative appropriation, use of funds from the “Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids” license plate program; that funding path is permissive, not automatic.
The text also contains a conditional clause: one version of the lifeguard reporting section becomes operative only if a separate bill (AB 1634) is enacted by a specified date, so the exact statutory text that takes effect depends on that outcome.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires PSAPs to include both ventilations (rescue breaths) and chest compressions in CPR instructions for 911 calls involving drowning victims, explicitly adding ventilations to drowning protocols.
EMSA must deliver an initial lifeguard workforce report to the Commission on Emergency Medical Services and the Legislature by June 30, 2028, and then every two years, with reporting formatted per Government Code Section 9795.
The statutory reporting list is detailed: certified lifeguard counts, certification levels, workplace setting breakdowns (ocean, lakes, rivers, pools), training and recertification standards, pay ranges/benefits, demographics, oversight entities, training providers, audit practices, and disciplinary records.
CDPH must lead a coordinated public communications push to raise adult CPR knowledge from an estimated 50% to 80% and trained adults from about 40% to 75% by 2030—explicit numeric targets the agency must use to guide outreach.
EMSA may use monies from the specified ‘Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids’ specialty license-plate fund for the reporting work only if the Legislature appropriates those funds; the bill does not create an automatic funding stream.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — California Drowning Prevention and Rescue Act
This is the bill’s formal name; it signals the package’s intent to treat drowning prevention across dispatch protocols, workforce data, and public education as a single policy effort. The short title itself has no operational effect but frames legislative and administrative communications.
Specify drowning CPR content for 911 prearrival instructions
The amendment expands the list of required prearrival instructions to explicitly include AED guidance and CPR 'including ventilation and chest compressions' for drowning calls. Mechanically, PSAPs can comply directly or by contracting with another agency; all prearrival scripts still require approval by the local EMS agency medical director under existing procedures. The section preserves prior carve-outs (for example, dispatching peace officers does not satisfy the call-processing requirement), so the change is limited to what must be delivered to callers, not who must provide dispatch.
Biennial lifeguard workforce reporting by EMSA
This new section obligates EMSA to compile, on a prescribed timetable, a comprehensive report covering both public and private sector lifeguards. The statute lists granular data elements—certification types, workplaces, training and recertification, pay and benefits, demographic composition, managing entities, certification providers, audit/oversight processes, and disciplinary outcomes—which will require EMSA to solicit data from employers, training organizations, and local agencies. The initial report must also analyze how lifeguards integrate into the statewide EMS system and propose steps toward professionalization and possible state oversight or support.
Permissive funding route via specialty license-plate program
A separate subsection permits EMSA, upon appropriation, to use funds from the 'Have a Heart, Be a Star, Help Our Kids' license-plate program (Welfare & Institutions Code §18285(d)) to carry out reporting and related activities. This is permissive and subject to the budget process—no automatic transfer occurs—and it ties a small, targeted revenue source to workforce study costs.
State public communications and 2030 CPR targets
CDPH must coordinate with health, emergency services, and education partners to review and update public communications about CPR and training access. Crucially, the statute sets measurable statewide targets for 2030 (80% knowledge, 75% trained), which will drive program design, performance measurement, and likely grant or contract priorities. The law does not prescribe specific outreach methods or mandate district-level programs, but it places responsibility for campaign coordination on CDPH.
Conditional enactment tied to AB 1634
The bill contains a conditional operability clause: one version of the lifeguard reporting language is designated to take effect only if AB 1634 of the same session is enacted and effective by a set date; if that occurs, an alternate version will not operate. That structure creates a dependency between the two statutes, meaning administrators must read the statutes together to determine which reporting regime applies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Drowning victims and bystanders — clearer 911 instructions that include ventilations for drowning may improve immediate resuscitation quality and survival chances.
- Lifeguards and lifeguard employers — the required workforce report creates visibility into certification, pay, and training, which could support professionalization, better scheduling, and stronger arguments for funding or standardized standards.
- Public health planners and educators — CDPH gets a statutory mandate and numeric targets to drive CPR outreach, making it easier to coordinate statewide campaigns and secure resources.
- EMSA and policy makers — improved data fills a longstanding information gap and supports evidence-based decisions about training, oversight, and integration of lifeguards into EMS.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public safety answering points (PSAPs) and local dispatch centers — they must ensure scripts and dispatcher training cover the upgraded drowning CPR content and obtain local EMS medical director approvals.
- Local EMS agency medical directors — they must review and approve new prearrival protocols and may face additional review workload and liability considerations.
- EMSA — the agency must gather data from many disparate employers and providers, design the report consistent with Government Code §9795, and absorb staff or contract costs unless the Legislature appropriates funds.
- Lifeguard employers and training organizations — public and private pools, park districts, beach services, and training providers will likely need to supply workforce, payroll, certification, and disciplinary data, imposing administrative burdens.
- CDPH and partnering agencies — they must redesign communications and track progress toward ambitious 2030 targets, potentially requiring new programs or contracted services with associated costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance two legitimate aims—creating statewide uniformity and professionalization for lifeguards (and better public CPR outcomes) and preserving local operational realities and resource limits—and that balance is uneasy: meaningful state oversight and rigorous reporting yield useful data and consistency but impose real costs, privacy risks, and administrative burdens on a diffuse set of local employers and agencies that operate with seasonal workforces and widely varying budgets.
Several implementation and policy tensions are embedded in AB 1639. First, the lifeguard reporting requirement asks EMSA to compile highly granular workforce and disciplinary data from a fragmented mix of employers (municipalities, park districts, YMCAs, private swim schools, embedded fire department lifeguards), many of which do not currently track or centrally report these metrics.
That creates both administrative burden and data-quality challenges: EMSA will need clear data definitions, minimum reporting standards, and probably statutory or contractual authority to collect sensitive personnel information. The statute references demographic breakdowns and disciplinary records, which raises privacy risks and may trigger differing local rules on personnel disclosure.
Second, the bill sets ambitious population-level CPR knowledge and training targets for 2030 without detailing metrics or enforcement. 'Knowledge' and 'trained' are not legally defined, so CDPH must establish baseline measures and acceptable evidence (self-report surveys, course completion records, or other proxies). Without dedicated funding, reaching 80%/75% will depend on CDPH’s ability to obtain resources, coordinate partners, and incentivize local actors.
The permissive funding route via specialty license-plate proceeds mitigates this somewhat but is contingent on legislative appropriation and therefore uncertain.
Third, the conditional operability tied to AB 1634 creates statutory ambiguity. Administrators, PSAPs, and employers will need to track which version of Section 1797.162 is operative, complicating compliance timelines.
Finally, expanding CPR script content for drowning incidents imposes minimal direct statutory penalties but may shift expectations for dispatcher training and raise liability questions for jurisdictions that lack sufficient training resources; local EMS medical directors will be the gatekeepers charged with approving scripts, and their decisions will shape uniformity across counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.