As the city of Los Angeles and the L.A. Department of Water and Power face lawsuits by residents who claim the city failed to ensure adequate water to fight the Palisades fire, California legislators have passed a bill that would give water agencies a new tool to defend themselves in such cases.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1153, would clarify that public water agencies do not have a duty to design, build or maintain a water system for wildfire defense or suppression, and that the inability to maintain water supply or water pressure during a wildfire is not a “substantial cause” of fire damages.
The bill, which is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, also would require urban retail water suppliers in high or very high fire hazard zones to include specific response procedures for wildfires as part of their disaster preparedness plans, including equipment and actions that can lessen the impact of a fire on the water system.
The Assn. of California Water Agencies, which represents about 470 public agencies, sponsored the legislation.
The bill would strengthen emergency preparedness and also clarify the role of water suppliers, said Karla Nemeth, the association’s executive director.
“Water systems are designed for providing safe and clean drinking water and providing water to aid in small structure fires,” Nemeth said in an email. “Water systems are not designed for climate-driven wildfires.”
The Palisades fire in January 2025 killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.
During the fire’s rapid spread, the water system quickly lost pressure as crews drew heavily on hydrants, residents ran sprinklers and hoses, and water gushed out of melted pipes. Hillside tanks ran out of water, and many hydrants, particularly in higher-elevation areas, lost pressure and ran dry.
Residents were also outraged that the nearby Santa Ynez Reservoir, which had been drained for lengthy repairs, sat empty and dry as neighborhoods burned.
Lawyers suing on behalf of Pacific Palisades residents have argued that the city and DWP are liable, in part because the reservoir was empty and fire hydrants failed.
The bill does not change any legal standards regarding this type of legal claim and does not limit liability for damages resulting from negligence, Nemeth said.
Instead, she said, it could guide the courts in this kind of wildfire-related case.
The legislation would reduce “exposure to costly lawsuits that can ultimately increase water rates and negatively affect affordability,” Nemeth said.
Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), who introduced the bill, has said the goal is to strengthen preparedness while protecting water agencies and ratepayers from unreasonable expectations and costs.
It’s about “preparing our water systems for wildfires while recognizing their practical limits,” said Elisa Rivera, a spokesperson for Caballero.
After the Palisades fire, state officials found in a review that it was necessary for the city to drain the reservoir to protect public health, and that even if the reservoir had been full, the system of pipes throughout the area “would have been quickly overwhelmed” and lost pressure anyway.
Crews also encountered failing hydrants in Altadena as they battled the Eaton fire.
The loss of pressure in hydrants has happened before in wildfires, including the 2008 Freeway Complex fire, the 2017 Tubbs and Thomas fires, the 2018 Woolsey fire and the 2024 Mountain fire.
UCLA researchers recently have studied various options for state oversight of water agencies’ role in wildfires.
“I don’t think it should or will be the final word, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said Greg Pierce, director of the UCLA Water Resources Group.
The legislation would help water utilities defend themselves and their ratepayers against lawsuits that claim their fire hydrants, though designed for typical house fires, should have been able to mitigate an intense wildfire sweeping through neighborhoods, Pierce said.
Another bill that died in the Legislature this year would have imposed more requirements on water agencies.
Assembly Bill 2013, introduced by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura), would have required water suppliers in high or very high fire risk areas to include in their disaster preparedness plans an assessment of the number and type of water pumps that are necessary to maintain flow, including to hydrants, and would have required agencies to publicly report the number of pumps that have emergency backup power, as well as how many do not.
After his bill failed, Bennett said, he called for including those requirements in the other Senate bill. But Caballero opposed it.
Another bill authored by Bennett was approved last year focusing narrowly on Ventura County. It requires water agencies to have backup power that could keep pumps running in an outage and to top off any water tanks after a notification from county emergency officials about dangerous weather conditions.
Power losses during past fires in Ventura County have left water pumps useless, leaving firefighters short on water.
“Overwhelmingly, the public is in favor of having backup generators,” Bennett said. “And they’re certainly in favor of knowing whether there are backup generators.”
“People definitely want to know more about what their water districts are doing to be prepared for wildfires, so that they don’t prematurely run out of water,” he said.
The post California water agencies may get a new defense in lawsuits over hydrants running dry in wildfires appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
