Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California bill would require backup power, hardened tanks for Ventura County water facilities after wildfire failures
Summary
AB 367, a Ventura County–specific bill, would require water suppliers to maintain minimum tank levels during high fire risk, add backup power and harden tank structures; supporters cite lost homes and failing hydrants while water agencies warn of high costs and implementation difficulties.
Assemblymember Steve Bennett introduced AB 367, a district bill aimed at ensuring water delivery systems in Ventura County function during wildfires so fire crews have access to water for extended periods. Bennett told the Senate committee the measure responds to multiple fires in which ‘‘the fire hydrants stopped operating way before they had the potential to operate’’ and described situations where tanks ‘‘got all the way down to virtually 0’’ and lacked backup generators, leaving firefighters without water, causing homes to burn.
Bennett said the bill focuses on three requirements for water suppliers in declared high‑risk periods: keeping tanks from draining to zero; providing backup generators or other backup power so tanks can be refilled when grid power is cut; and hardening tank enclosures and related equipment so they do not burn in wildland‑urban interface (WUI) fires. ‘‘Spot fires don’t take a lot of water to put out. But you need to have water for hours because an ember blaze keeps popping up for hours,’’ Bennett said.
Why it matters: Committee testimony included accounts that water system failures contributed to the rapid loss of homes during recent Ventura County fires. Bennett argued the bill would protect residents and that the measure is voluntary and limited to Ventura County, where lawmakers say they solicited early input from about 145 local water suppliers.
Opposition and concerns: Multiple water suppliers and associations testified they remain opposed unless AB 367 is amended. Kylie Wright of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) told the committee the bill still ‘‘imposes significant cost and lacks sufficient funding’’ and ‘‘could increase litigation risk’’ for agencies forced to meet prescriptive requirements during unpredictable emergency events. Dane Hutchings, representing the City of Thousand Oaks, provided a locality‑level cost estimate—he said upgrades envisioned by the bill could cost the city about $16,000,000, which the city would either need to fund through a Proposition 218 rate measure (he estimated a possible $78 monthly increase per customer, about a 47.4% rate hike) or divert general fund dollars.
Committee debate and technical questions: Senators asked whether the bill would meaningfully change outcomes for the most extreme fire events or simply shift costs to ratepayers. Bennett and several supporters pointed to firefighter accounts that crews left hilltop neighborhoods after hydrants ran dry and that with full tanks and backup power, tanks could have supplied water for hours. Opponents urged more funding assurances, greater operational flexibility, and liability protections for suppliers.
Outcome: The committee adopted amendments discussed in the hearing and passed the bill as amended to the committee on Appropriations. The committee recorded a 5–1 vote in favor.
What’s next: AB 367 moves to Appropriations, where funding and statewide precedent concerns will be a focal point for continued negotiation.
