Over the past few years in California at least the tide has changed somewhat regarding "Attractive Nuisance" laws. The old laws that pretty much placed ALL of the liability on land owners has been revised. There are still "attractive nuisance" laws but the circumstances have been more clearly defined (pools are still strictly controlled as are unattended refridgerators left outside). Ponds owners have been given something of a break with regard to liability and pond ownership.

Please note trespasser = an uninvited person on the property.

An invited guest has an entirely different set of laws that, for the most part, favor the invited guest.

The text that appears in italics below is from a 2006 article on California's attractive nuisance laws and pond ownership:

REVIEW OF PREMISES LIABILITY LAW
The traditional approach varied the duties owed to the entrant based upon the benefit the entrant bestowed upon the owner or possessor, with an adult trespasser the lowest duty is owed. An owner or possessor of land only has a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring an adult trespasser.

Child trespassers are treated differently. Under the “attractive nuisance doctrine” if a landowner has a reasonable expectation that children will be attracted to the premises by a dangerous artificial condition on the land, trespassing children can be treated legally as an invitee. As to invitees, the landowner must make and keep the premises safe unless warned of existing dangers. Potentially, this doctrine has a wide reach with respect to agricultural. Many farm assets such as livestock, machinery and equipment can attract curious children to the premises. For farm ponds, most courts that have considered the question have indicated that bodies of water are not attractive nuisances and that child trespassers will be treated the same as adult trespassers in terms of the duty that the landowner or occupier of the real estate owes to them. The attractive nuisance doctrine only applies to artificial conditions on the land. The doctrine does not apply to natural bodies of water. However, the natural bodies of water exception does not apply when the child is an invitee. For farm ponds located remote areas, most courts hold that it would be an unfair burden on property owners and occupiers to have to shoulder liability for injury to child trespassers.

However, items associated with farm ponds (such as a pier, dock or tree tire swing) can be attractive nuisances.

Based upon my research and discussion with an attorney, I have made sure my entire property is fenced and there are many more "no trespassing" signs placed on the fence line than is required by law. In addition in multiple areas immediately adjecent to the pond I have also placed no trespassing signs. My particular pond is not viewable from any public location - basically a person would have to be trespassing in order to learn that I have a pond.

What I do find interesting though is the last sentence about piers, docks and swings. (I don't have any of these on my pond but I want to build a floating dock).

DISCLAIMER:
JHAP is not an attorney. This dribble is provided for informational and amusement purposes only. Although in his younger days JHAP was an attractive nuisance to most of the girls that he zealously pursued this does not make JHAP an attractive nuisance expert. Using the above citiation for any purposes other than what it is intended for, which in case you're wondering is mererly to provide fodder for discussion, is strictly forbidden and blatantly foolish.

JHAP
~~~~~~~~~~
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
...Hedley Lamarr (that's Hedley not Hedy)