Taking water from puppies?

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:
SACRAMENTO–California Governor Arnold Sc-warzenegger on
October 14, 2007 endorsed into law a new set of regulations for pet
stores.
As with other legislation adopted in the most populous U.S.
state, the new regulations may become the default standard for the
pet industry throughout the U.S. Whether that would be good remains
a subject of bitter debate among California animal advocates.
The new law, introduced as AB 1347 by Assembly member Anna
Caballero, somewhat parallels a bill promoted by the Animal
Protection Institute that Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2006.
Said the API victory announcement, “AB 1347 was brought forth
by Petco and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council as a result of
API’s sponsored legislation introduced in 2006. The original
language in AB 1347 would have protected the pet industry, but
failed to protect animals in custody of the industry. API and other
animal protection advocates invested considerable effort in helping
to transform AB 1347 into legislation that actually elevates the
standards of care for pet shop animals.”

Even in final amended form, however, the new regulations
were opposed as an alleged roll-back of existing protections by
Sherry DeBoer of Political Animals and Virginia Handley of Animal
Switchboard, who helped to lobby through the previous California pet
store regulations, the Farr-Polanco-Lockyer Pet Protection Act of
1992.
Schwarzenegger signed the new regulations into law despite
veto requests from Los Angeles special assistant district attorney
Jim Provenza, and John Lovell, government relations manager for the
California Police Chiefs Association and California Peace Officers
Association.
Explained Lovell, “AB 1347 sets out enforcement instructions
to peace officers that are burdensome, confusing, and make
enforcement of the law problematic. In effect, law enforcement is
required to give what amounts to a ‘fix it’ ticket, no matter how
egregious the violations. If those violations are not remedied, law
enforcement is only permitted to issue an infraction, which carries
no criminal consequence. If a second violation occurs within 12
months of the first, only another infraction will ensue. It is only
on the third violation that a misdemeanor can be filed.”
Provenza objected that amendments supposed to have ensured
that AB 1347 would not roll back key provisions of the 1992 law were
unclear, containing language “which could be read to prohibit or
discourage animal control officers from citing pet stores for
violations.”
“They took access to water away from the puppies!” charged
DeBoer. “They did that so the puppies don’t pee. The shop owners
just don’t want to bother cleaning it up or offending customers.”
Section 122352 of the 1992 law stated that “Primary
enclosures shall be constructed so they can be routinely maintained
to allow animals to stay clean and to provide access to adequate food
and water.” AB 1347 deleted the phrase “and to provide access to
adequate food and water.”
Under Section 122155 of the 1992 law, pet stores still must
“Provide dogs with adequate nutrition and potable water,” butthey no
longer must provide access to food and water as part of the dogs’
primary habitat. This means that the water supply system can be only
a bowl, rather than a bottle from which a dog can suck water as
desired, and leaves inspectors with no way to verify when an empty
bowl was last filled.
The 1992 law also stipulated that “All primary enclosures
shall provide adequate space and adequate mobility for the animal or
animals housed in the enclosure.” AB 1347 deleted the phrase
“adequate mobility.”
A requirement that “Enclosures shall be observed at least
once daily, and animal and food wastes, used bedding, debris, and
any other organic wastes shall be removed as necessary” was amended
to refer only to “primary enclosures.”
Section 122360 formerly stated that “Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to in any way limit or affect the application or
enforcement of any other law that protects consumers or the rights of
animals.”
The reference to “the rights of animals” was replaced in AB
1347 with the phrase “animals or the rights of consumers.”
The San Diego-based Petco chain, with more than 850 stores
nationwide, was embarrassed in 2002 when San Francisco city attorney
Dennis Herrera sued the firm for what he termed “cruelty and a
pattern of brazen violations of health and safety standards.”
Undercover investigations by API and PETA contributed to similar
cases filed by the district attorneys of San Diego, Los Angeles,
Marin, and San Mateo counties.
In May 2004 Petco settled the charges by agreeing to pay
$661,754 in fines and investigative costs for allegedly neglecting
animal care and overcharging customers, agreed to spend $202,500 to
install better equipment in its California stores to eliminate
overcharging, and in a separate settlement with San Francisco,
agreed to pay $50,000, formally train staff in animal care, and
allow inspection of Petco stores in the city by independent
veterinarians.