Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ventura-focused bill to require water-tank topping, backup generators and hardened pump sites advances
Summary
AB 367, a Ventura County-focused bill requiring water systems in high-fire-risk areas to top tanks, stage backup power and harden pumps, was advanced after authors said the measures would reduce spot-fire spread; water agencies urged amendments addressing cost and operational flexibility.
Assembly Member Bennett’s district-level bill, AB 367, would require water suppliers in designated high-fire-risk areas of Ventura County to take three preparatory steps before wildfire season: ensure water storage tanks are topped during red flag warnings, stage or provide backup generation so pumps can operate when power is shut off, and harden pump facilities so they are not destroyed by wildfire.
Bennett described the proposal as a targeted, practical step after recurring problems during Southern California wildfires, including the 2017 Thomas Fire in Ventura County, when tanks were reported not to be topped before a wind-driven event and pumps lacked backup power. “So the solution... is, is one that I am proposing for the County of Ventura right now,” Bennett said, arguing the measures could keep hydrants operating during the critical early hours of spot-fire outbreaks.
Supporters included the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the California Professional Firefighters. Opponents included the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and some local water districts. ACWA said the bill lacks a funding mechanism, that generators and hardening are costly, and that operational decisions should remain with state-certified water system staff. ACWA asked for amendments to allow flexibility, account for mutual-aid generator use, and shield agencies from liability when access or catastrophic conditions prevent operations.
Bennett said the author’s office surveyed the county’s water districts in advance and that many reported existing generator capacity; he gave one anecdotal estimate of a generator costing approximately $250,000 and suggested amortized costs could be modest for ratepayers in some districts. Several members urged additional cost detail before statewide adoption; Assembly Member DeMaio said he would oppose the bill unless it included firmer cost estimates and possible offsets to help agencies afford requirements. The bill was advanced out of committee on a recorded roll call that produced six yes votes and one no vote.
