The MAHC: Evolution or Revolution for the Future?

I heard a thought leader, a friend, take  issue with adoption of the CDC  Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) since it’s being  positioned as an “evolution” in design and operations rather than a needed  “revolution.”

Half of the United States is not united on requiring  that the person operating the public pool have any verifiable training.  Designers, architects, engineers and builders  create pools that minimize risk, but if they are driven by uneducated  operators, then the kids playing in the pool are at greater risk.

Like many “mass” phenomena, they  can be represented by a bell curve (normal distribution). On one end are  fabulous state of the art facilities that are ideal to protect against acute  illness (RWIs) and against chronic illness (DPBs). On the other end of the bell  curve are cesspools disguised as swimming pools with dated engineering and  ignorant operations. What seems “evolutionary” to a leader is “revolutionary”  to the low end of the bell curve.

Don’t be discouraged by the word or thought  of “evolution” versus “revolution.” Which end of the bell  curve poses the greatest risk to people? If a MAHC is adopted and it raises the  bar a little for the top half of the bell curve and a lot for the bottom half  of the bell curve, wouldn’t that be a good thing?  If you agree with my  logic, then become a champion for adoption of the MAHC.

What we have been doing, has not been  working. Having 80-90+ codes around the country is a fabulous waste of time for  government, industry, and aquatic facilities. Having operators with no  verifiable training is reckless. A MAHC unadopted is a MAHC undone.  A  MAHC unadopted is a future undone. Help get it adopted. It will be the best  kind of revolution, one that can evolve.

Republished from the NSPF Blog

Leave a Reply