March 24, 2026 · Emergency Management · 7,393 words · 11 speakers · 144 segments
The Senate Emergency Management Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. If members of the committee can start to make their way to room 2200, we're going to try to establish a quorum, although I think for right now so that the author can present, we're going to start as a subcommittee. I want to welcome everyone to the very first of this committee convening of this senate committee. It's an August occasion, a couple important bills. But I do want to thank the staff for joining us here and stepping up and really making it happen. We're here with this committee, so Cassie and Mary, our consultant and our committee assistant, we really appreciate you making this happen. Thanks to the pro tem for establishing this incredibly important committee. So three bills on the agenda. One is proposed for consent and one was pulled 10:20 Nila was pulled from this hearing for a future hearing. But Mr. Archuleta, would you like to take a shot at the first presentation here? Once we establish quorum, we'll do some committee rules and things like that. But Senator.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And good afternoon committee members. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill1100, which would require the California Governor's Office of Emergency service to issue identification cards to essential utility workers, granting those workers easier access to evacuation zones during an emergency. In many emergency situations, public works infrastructure is damaged or cut off. In those cases, utility workers access is essential to maintaining or restoring systems like electricity, gas or or water services. Unfortunately, our current emergency response system does not make it easy for those essential workers to gain the access they need to do their jobs. Without universally recognizable authorization system lines of communication between parties can fail, leading to hours, maybe even days and delays of complete disposition. Denial of access. Just one example for the need for Senate Bill 1001 comes from the 2025 Eaton fire. In its immediate aftermath, employees of the Roland Water District in response to a mutual aid request from Rubio Canyon Land and Water association, sought to assist with turning off water services at the burned down structures. Roland Water District employees were in uniform, drove to the scene in marked vehicles and presented their letter from Rubio Canyon requests assisting to the law enforcement check. At that point they were not giving access. Despite this, they were denied several times and could not contribute to the effort. By mirroring existing access laws and safety protections for journalists and in agriculture workers, Senate Bill 1001 takes a common sense approach that puts safety and emergency responses first. In emergencies, rapid response is a matter of life or death. Senate Bill 1001 establishes a system that will facilitate essential work behind the lines of Evacuation zones. We cannot wait for the next disaster before passing common sense laws like this one. Standardizing access to emergency areas will allow essential workers across the state to maintain the infrastructure and assist in disaster response hours earlier than currently exists today. With me to present Senate Bill 1001 and answer any questions are Tom Coleman, the general manager of Roland Water District,
and
Adrian Betty, the chief executive officer of the association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote and your time. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator, if the support witnesses. Two minutes each. Thank you. You just pause for me for one second while we establish a quorum here. Just. Just in case. Is that okay? Just pardon the indulgence here.
So,
committee assistant, please call the rule. Oh. Who the five members are. Oh, I thought we. All right. So, committee assistant, please call the roll.
Senator Stern.
Here.
Stern. Here. Sarato.
Here.
Sarato. Here. Alan. Ashby. Blakespeare. Dali.
Here.
Dali. Here. Grayson.
Here.
Grayson. Here. Perez? Rubio. Rubio. Here.
Okay, thanks. And just very quickly, we're going to move to adopt the committee rules for the remaining 2526 session. All members have been provided a copy of the rules for review. So without objection, our committee rules will be adopted. Okay. Hearing no objection, the committee rules are adopted. Please proceed. Apologies.
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Tom Coleman. I'm the general manager of Rolling Water District. I'm here to testify in strong support of SB1001. In 2019, our district implemented a comprehensive employee identification program. Each employee carries an ID card, clearly identifying them as a water utility worker and a disaster service worker under California government code section 3101. That's clearly stated on the card. Despite this preparation, during the eaton fire in January 2025, we experienced a critical breakdown in emergency response coordination. Rolland Water District is a founding member of the Public Water Agencies Group, a regional mutual aid network of water agencies. When neighboring systems were impacted by the fire, we were called upon to assist. We deployed a team of seven trained employees to help shut off over 500 water meters at destroyed homes in urgent tasks to prevent massive water loss. Our staff arrived with official ID cards and authorization documentation, yet they were denied access at a checkpoint. Ultimately, the affected agency had to escort our team through alternate means, costing valuable time during an active emergency. Meanwhile, each damaged property was losing up to 20 gallons of water per minute across 500 homes. That amounted to over 14 million gallons of water per day being wasted water that could have supported firefighting efforts and protected lives and property. This situation highlights A clear need for standardized, universally recognized utility identification. SB1001 will ensure that trained utility personnel can be quickly verified and granted access when every second counts. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have another lead witness? Yeah. Okay. Welcome. You have two minutes as well.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee members. My name is Adrienne Beatty. I am the chief executive officer of the association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, also known as Aqua JPIA. We are a proud co sponsor of SB1001. Aqua JPA provides risk management, self insurance and loss prevention services to more than 400 public water districts in the state of California. Our members collect effectively, serve millions of Californians, and operate critical infrastructure that communities rely on for drinking water, sanitation and firefighting. When disasters strike, whether it's wildfire, earthquake or flood, water system operators and utility workers must often enter restricted areas quickly to assess damage, operate valves, system pressure and restore service. These actions are not just about infrastructure. They are often directly tied to public safety and emergency response, including ensuring water is available for firefighting. However, under current law, utility workers do not have a standardized credential that law enforcement can easily recognize at evacuation checkpoints. As a result, access often depends on ad hoc verification by individual officers who may not be familiar with local agency or utility systems. In many cases, workers arrive uniformed and in marked vehicles, but still face delays while their authorization is verified. Those delays can slow restoration of critical infrastructure and complicate emergency response efforts. SB1001 provides a practical solution. The bill directs the Office of Emergency Services to establish a standardized identification credential for essential utility workers whose duties require access to restricted emergency areas. Importantly, the bill ensures workers are properly vetted and trained by their employers, aligning the credentialing system with Federal Emergency management standards and preserves the authority of peace officers to deny access when conditions are unsafe. In short, SB1001 improves coordination between utilities, emergency responders and law enforcement while maintaining the safety and operational control that emergency responders need during disasters. For These reasons, Aqua JPIA urges you, respectfully urges your support for SB1001.
Okay, thank you very much. Other witnesses in support. Name and affiliation. Thank you so much. Mr.
Chair.
Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of
Paradise Irrigation District, also co sponsor of the bill. Thank you.
Mr. Chair Gonzalez, on behalf of the Community Water Systems alliance and the California association of Mutual Water Companies.
In strong support.
Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities and strong support.
Good afternoon. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the city of Burbank in Strong support.
Charles Delgado, California State association of counties. In support,
Mr. Chairman, Bob Reeb with
Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of three other co sponsors, Bellflower, Somerset Mutual Water
Company, Walnut Valley Water District, and Pico Water District.
Very good. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll look for opposition. Don't have any on file. But seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. Members, questions, comments?
Mr. Vice Chair, thank you and welcome to Emergency Management.
Right.
So this why this committee is formed, because we're starting to find the holes in, in our emergency management response and preparedness and then also the recovery part. This particular issue is one that we're going to see, probably not just with this particular subject matter, but some other ones too, because there's a lot of different essential ingredients to helping people recover after a fire, but also in the initial stages of the fire. And, and if they don't have access, then they won't be able to do their job and there's nobody else that's going to do it. And so we have to figure out how to accommodate that because we also have to as an ic, the incident commander at fire, they're responsible for whoever goes in and along with law enforcement, who's responsible for not letting people in. And the reason they don't do that is because they got to secure a bunch of houses where people ran away from and left unsecured. And so when people start breaking into houses and things like that, that's the dilemma. It's not necessarily because they just don't want them there. It's because we have to somehow secure a location, but at the same time allow the people with the right identifiers to come in. And whether it's, you know, the electric utilities, water, gas, and also some of our insurance folks that come in during an initial fire, before the initial fire gets to an area, and they need to get in to be able to protect the houses that the insurance company has hired them to protect as well. So this is probably the first foray. It's a good bill and hopefully we'll be able to have some a process where people not only are able to get in, but we know where they are and what they're, and they are tracked by somebody who is in charge of that agency, and that person has to work with the IC so that everybody's coordinated. That's the big challenge. And so hopefully this will be one of many that we kind of finally figure out and that way we can create better management of these type of situations.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Others, comments, Questions? Yes, Senator Ruby.
Well, first of all, congratulations on being the lead at the very first meeting ever. So you. You'll go down in history. But I want to say thank you to the author and everyone that supports the bill. I think that the last 10 years have taught us quite a bit. In fact, I think I met Mr. Stern when the Woosley fire happened and his home was impacted. I think it was 2017, 18. And so we only see that this situation will only get worse. And, you know, in the last 10 years, we've had the most deadliest and costly fires in state history, and we have been finding these holes, as Mr. Soriarto put it.
So.
So it's important that we have this opportunity to discuss in isolation some of these things that go hand in hand, and hopefully we do better. I know that the Eaton fire gave us a lot of lessons, one being that some sections were notified, the other sections were not, and so some people didn't get out on time. So this in particular is one of those missing pieces that will help strengthen our public safety in terms of, you know, but protecting victims after the fire. So thank you, Mr. Toletta, and I also have added myself as a co author with your office, so hopefully this will go through. Thank you, everyone.
All right, it's a motion from the Vice Chair. Do we have other comments or questions? No. Okay. Allow you opportunity to close.
I'd like to thank the committee. This is the first of many, I hope, common sense laws that we will receive during the year 2026 and respectfully ask for your. I vote.
Thank you very much. So the motion is due. Pass to Public Safety. I will call on the committee. Assistant, please call the roll.
Senator Stern.
Aye.
Stern. Aye. Sierra.
Aye.
Sierra.
Aye.
Alan Ashby. Blakespeare.
Aye.
Blakespeare. Aye. Dolly. Dolly. Aye. Grayson.
Aye.
Grayson. Aye. Perez Rubio. Rubio. Aye.
Okay. We will leave that measure on call for the absent members, but you do have sufficient votes to get out, so congratulations. Yep. We're going to move on to Senator Caballero. I think we see SB 1153. That's file item four, folks. Welcome.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present SB 1153, which would provide a practical and responsible approach to wildfire preparedness in California. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments, which clarify that the bill does not reduce or remove liability for injuries or damages caused by the negligence of a public water system while performing its intended functions. That remains intact. This amendment was drafted in Response to feedback from the California Fire Chiefs association and I would like to thank them for their engagement on this bill. Over the last decade, as you all know, California has endured some of the most destructive and unpredictable wildfires in our history. In addition to the destruction and devastation these wildfires have caused, they have placed an extraordinary demand on California's public water systems and their customers. Despite the demand, our public water systems have invested significant resources and time to prepare for future wildfire events through emergency preparedness actions, which vary based on the system and the region of the state and the classification, quite frankly, of wildfire danger. Public water systems are designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to provide water to aid to extinguish to structural fires in the communities they serve. Public water systems were not designed to function as wildfire defense or suppression systems. Despite this mis. Despite this, misunderstandings about how public water systems operated have shaped public expectations and contributed to perceptions that some of these water systems may not have performed as they were designed to during wildfire events, which is not the case. In response to these issues, SB 1153 will one require urban retail water suppliers in high risk areas to include wildfire specific response procedures in their emergency response plans, two make key findings and declarations regarding the role and limitations of public water systems in responding to wildfires and three establish that water supply or pressure limitations during a wildfire are not a substantial cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design. Put simply, this bill improves local emergency planning, clarifies the role and capabilities of water systems during wildfire events, protects ratepayers, and supports future investments in infrastructure by providing greater certainty to public water systems and identifies the need to plan wildfire suppression strategies that the state can invest in. With me today to testify is Dana Moore, Executive Director of the California Utilities Emergency association, and David Petterson, General Manager of the Las Virginia Municipal Water District.
Thank you very much. We'll take our first lead witness. Welcome. You have two minutes.
Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Dana Moore, the Executive Director of the California Utilities Emergency association, or CUEA. CUA's organizational structure allows for information sharing and we do not take formal positions on legislation. CUEA is California's designated Utilities Emergency Coordination Partner with the SEAT in the State Operations center to support utilities, including water and wastewater, during all major incidents. CUEA works alongside California's utility sector and public partners to strengthen preparedness, communication and response. We have helped critical infrastructure utilities align during large scale wildfires, supported cross sector communication during severe weather and infrastructure disruptions and contributed to the planning frameworks that guide emergencies response across California. Effective emergency coordination does not happen by chance. It is built through enduring relationships, shared frameworks, and trust developed over time so when emergencies occur, collaboration is already in motion. Urban water systems can and should be expected to plan for emergencies, including wildfires. Plans can be integrated into existing frameworks, including but not limited to risk and resilience assessments, emergency response plans, and capital improvement plans. Utilizing existing planning frameworks creates consistency, avoids duplicative processes, and ensures that California's water systems meet a minimum preparedness standard. While urban water systems should be prepared to fight wildfire events, it is important to understand that California water Systems face a 192021 challenge infrastructure conceived in the 19th and 20th centuries, operating under 20th century rules while continuing to confront 21st century climate, wildfire and demand pressures that routinely show these systems were never designed to be limitless firefighter machines. They're built to provide safe drinking water and support typical structural fire flows. Designing water systems to function as wildfire suppression infrastructure would face significant financial and engineering constraints beyond the intended operational scope. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We'll take our next lead witness. Welcome.
Good afternoon Chair Stern and members of the committee. My name is Dave Peterson. I'm the general manager of Las Vergines Municipal Water District. We're a water and wastewater agency in the western part of LA county and we serve the Santa Monica Mountains and the unincorporated areas of Malibu. My agency and water system we've managed through two of California's top 10 most devastating wildfires, that is the 2018 Woolsey Fire and the more recent Palisades fire last year. In both of these wildfires, our water system was placed under extraordinary circumstances and performed exceptionally well. We learned a couple really important things that I wanted to share with you. Number one is that we can improve our emergency and disaster response plans so that we are better equipped for wildfire in the future. And this bill proposes doing exactly that that we have wildfire specific procedures in these plans. The second thing that we learned is that the liability structure post fire has evolved to a point where it's really untenable for water agencies like mine in California. And by way of example, I'll compare what we experienced in the 2018 Woolsey Fire. We had a single tort claim as a result of that fire. We settled that claim for $140,000. Fast forward to the Palisades fire of last year. My agency alone, we have over 15,000 claims individual and those total to more than $100 billion. So what we're seeing is the landscape for liability post Wildfire as it relates to water systems has really developed to a point where it requires reform. This bill also accomplishes that reform and places water systems where we think that they should be, where they're not the de facto insurer of last resort for wildfire damage.
Thank you. All right, we'll now take general witnesses in support, so please come up. Name, affiliation, position, position on the bill.
Gracia Gonzalez, on behalf of the Community Water Systems alliance and the California association
of Mutual Water Companies, in strong support.
Okay, thanks. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, in support.
Good afternoon. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority and support.
Kylie Wright with the association of California
Water Agencies, the sponsor of the bill, in support. Support.
Thanks.
Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.
Good afternoon.
Lily McKay, on behalf of Elsino Valley Municipal Water District and West Valley Water District, in support.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Brenda Bass, on behalf of the Western Municipal Water District, in support.
Thank you. Hello.
Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert Robeson and
Smith, on behalf of the California Municipal
Utilities association, in support.
Good afternoon. Louis Bronstein, Irvine Ranch Water District, in support.
Good afternoon.
Mr.
Chair. Members Aaron Avery, California Special Districts association, in support.
Thank you. Jack Wurson, Levi Hine, Municipal Water District,
in the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, in support.
Jennifer Capitolo, California Water association, in support.
Chris Peterson with Capital Corps Group, on
behalf of CAMROSA and Foothills Municipal Water District, in support. Cyrus Devers, Coachella Valley Water District, in support. All right, thank you for that. Seeing no others in support, we'll move to opposition. Do we have any opposition? We have nothing listed in the analysis, but anyone in the hearing room here seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Members, questions? Comments? Senator Press?
Yeah. Well, first of all, I. I want to acknowledge Senator Caballero. I appreciate you bringing this bill forward and I think ensuring that all of our municipal water districts and our water suppliers throughout the state have a plan for what they should do during a fire, and how we can best prepare for that moment is really critical. As everyone in this room knows, I represent Altadena, which was hit very harshly by the Eaton fire. We saw very significant loss of structures, and there were real challenges with the water systems that existed within Altadena. We were absolutely not prepared for the moment that the disaster struck, and as a result, water pumps failing and being destroyed prevented water from being able to be pumped out of the ground. Which ultimately limited our firefighters capabilities to be able to put out fires and led to the loss of more homes. And it is. It has been devastating and it's caused, I think, many questions by constituents, not just in my district, but also in the Palisades. As we've had questions I'm sure we saw in the early days following the fire folks raising questions about why there was, quote, unquote, no water in the fire hydrants and having to explain to people how our water systems work. And it wasn't that there wasn't water in the fire hydrants. It's just one. Pumping that much water at once is going to lead to a loss of a lot of water, which is going to lead to less water that folks are then able to use to put out fires. And when fire is burning so hot that it ends up melting the very systems that we need to pump that water out of the ground, well, then that means that we're not able to pump water. And so we've been having lots of discussions locally about how we rebuild those systems and harden those systems for the future. And it's been a very difficult process with community, especially as. And I know there's folks in here that have had conversations with my office about funding to assist with the rebuild of those mutual water companies. At the same time, my constituents are receiving $5,000 bills in the mail to connect to the new system. This is on top of the other bills that they're receiving. And so I appreciated some of the amendments that you included in here stating nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or affect liability for injury or damage resulting from a negligent act or omission of an entity operating a public water system for its intended purpose and function. Because part of my original concern was with the bill was that it made clear that water agencies are not legally responsible for fire damages caused by a loss of water pressure or supply during a wildfire. And the spread of wildfire shall not be considered an inherent risk of public water systems design, construction or maintenance. And that term, water systems design, construction and maintenance, does make me a bit concerned because we know that in areas, particularly areas that I represent along the San Gabriel foothills, that have a higher risk of fire because we know that our fire zones have changed. Altadena was not in a high fire zone, but we now know that it is, that we need to introduce new systems. We have to harden and it's going to require investment. And I recognize that. And that will require dollars, you know, from us as a state as well as from local entities, but different planning. So I want to make sure that this bill is both, you know, balancing obviously there's real liability issues and at the same time really preparing for our needs for the future. We never know when disaster is going to strike. And now seeing the situation that we're now navigating locally in my community, as we're having some of these difficult discussions about hardening and the high cost of that investment, I guess how, how do you see your bill kind of balancing all of that and, and making sure that we're taking to account liability but not taking away accountability at the same time.
Thank you for that question. It really is a balance. Absolutely right. The amendment was a proposal by the fire chiefs and it was a really appropriate amendment to make it very clear that we're not talking about negligence or something that is the responsibility and the fault of the water district. What we tried to do is there's this expectation of the public that our water system is designed to fight all fire, no matter what it is. And while the water is used to fight all fire, the system was never designed for these wildfires. And quite frankly, the weather circumstances were so unusual during that period of two or three days that that the visuals that I saw made it very clear with horizontal movement of fire that almost no water was going to stop this fire from raging. It was just incredibly hot and the embers were blowing huge distances and setting other property on fire. So part of what the bill is set up to do is one to say to the water agencies in these high fire risks, and there is a new map out which is much more, I think, accurate now than it was. It gets better every, every time it's done. That includes a number of areas as high wildfire prone. Paradise was not in a high wildfire prone area, despite the fact it was in the mountains. And it was very, very woody. We know from that example that we needed to adjust a little bit our. Our lens as to what was high fire. But it includes the area that you represent, which are the foothills as well those areas. The water agencies have to do a report that says what's the infrastructure in place that we can utilize and what is missing and what are the protocols for a fire starting in that region? And how is, how are we going to prepare residents to protect themselves in this area in case a wildfire starts? So there's a plan that has to be prepared, number one. And number two, what it starts to tell us is where is the state going to have to make some infrastructure improvements to create the opportunity to fight wildfires. What we know is that we just purchased a number of Black Hawk helicopters that can scoop water out of lakes and retention basin and use it to fight wildfire. Well, guess what? If we have no retention bases or we don't have any area where we're storing water specifically for wildfire suppression, then those become pretty useless. They're very expensive equipment. And yet we ended up using the ocean because that's really the closest place to go for water. It's wet. It helped, but it probably wasn't the best solution had we had an alternative. Should the water agencies be responsible for that? I don't think so. I think that's a state responsibility and we are going to need to figure out where do we put them, how are they set up, and how are we going to protect the highest wildfire zones in the state so that we have the equipment as well as the water supply necessary. And it may be that the state will work through the water agencies. I'm not going to prejudge that. But the whole idea is to start doing the planning on a regional level so we know what our capacities are, what the limitations are. And I anticipate that, that at some point over the next five years, this legislature will be looking at water bonds and that we'll need to have the plans, which is why I did a bill on the water plan as well to come up with 9,000 9 million acre feet of water, because we're going to need that water in order to drought proof the state and to also wildfire proof the immense damage that it does. So the goal is to have a planning document, to have the water agencies engaged actively in determining what their limitations are and what they can do in terms of combating wildfire. And then to have the state prepared to put together a plan of its own to determine, okay, what are the pieces that are missing so that we can make sure these wildfires don't get out of control.
I really appreciate that, Senator Caballero. And I think, you know, as we've had these discussions around what is the responsibility of our water agencies? Right. I mean, we're entering into, I think, territory we haven't been in before. You know, I don't. LADWP was not prepared for this moment either. Right. We think about our water agencies as providing clean water to the tap for us to be able to drink, to, to wash, to use. Not for these purposes, but we know that this is also necessary. And so then what is the solution? And I ask these questions because at the end of the day, my constituents want to know, come in the future, should a disaster strike again, what is going to be the plan to learn from what happened previously? And I don't know what those answers are. I'm contending with a lot of those questions in real time. So I appreciate the direction of your build, creating that plan and just you answering some of these questions around navigating, you know, these really tough issues as we're facing very different climate. Thank you.
Understand also the other point that is important to understand is you coming from local government, you understand the requirements and the limitations of going out to the public and asking for more money and the requirement to comply with Proposition 218. It's very difficult. But the only way that happens, assuming that infrastructure may need to be improved, is if you have a plan, if you can show that you've looked at the cost, that you've looked at what the benefits are. So for example, in your. That what you just commented on,
the
water agency can go out to the community and say, look, if we do this, it may give us more resiliency because we'll have more water or we'll have a backup system and people may decide, yes, we're willing to raise the fees on water in order to be able to get this infrastructure. But again, I feel pretty strongly that this wildfire infrastructure is a responsibility of everybody in the state. And to put it on the backs of some residential small group of residents may not make the most sense. So we just have to get ourselves prepared for whatever, whatever the local community decides it wants, that there are resources and a road map to be able to get there as well. Yeah.
Thank you. Other questions, let me just dub to. Oh, sorry, Mr. Vice Chair. That's the first of many he got me. Thank you, Mr. Chief.
So, yes, this is very much needed. That's the bad news. The good news is a lot of this work has been done in the past and people don't even know it. In the fire service, especially like in Santa Clarita and some of those areas along the interface areas, we know what the water system capabilities are there. They have the GPMS they need. A lot of times with a pump issue, it's not pumping water out of the ground. It's pumping water from a low point up to a high point. And we have power safety power shutoffs or public safety power shutoffs. And those are not operable. And they don't have a backup generator. We're not going to have that water. And so, you know, a Lot of comments about liability. There is no system that is going to protect us from some of these fires. The one in the Eaton fire, all you would have, if you got engine to every one of the hydrants and hooked up was a burned out a bunch of burned up engines and burned up firefighters. And, and because they were doing that instead of getting people out, the people would have been burned up too. More than that, more than people, more people would have died in those fires. Sometimes that's the priority is get people the heck out of the way. Because 100 mile an hour winds don't allow for helicopters, they don't allow for all these things. And you know, the after effect, after the aftermath of running around and trying to find somebody to blame, I mean it's natural. But at the same time, when you look at these circumstances, you know, whether it was an Edison, you know, a tower that sparked off because 100 mile an hour winds blew something into their lines, those are not very preventable. And so what we have to do is do better job on the prevention side and the planning side. And that's what this bill does. It helps on the planning side to identify the weaknesses that we have. But if we think we're going to tell the public that hey, if we do these things, we've solved the problem, we have not, we're not ever going to solve the problem. What we will do is build systems that will work as well as possible for most of the incidents that we have. And you know, some of the problems, especially for dwp, they have old water system, old water pipes in the ground and you actually have to tear up everybody's streets to get those down. They're horribly expensive. So there's some huge investments that have to be made on our behalf from the state side because the locals can't afford to do some of the work that needs to be done to get us back up, just up to snuff on some of these areas. And so while I recognize this is, this is a really good bill to start focusing on some of these needs, you know, I get distressed when I hear, you know, let's find somebody to blame whose liability is this? A lot of times Mother Nature doesn't really have a liability and us looking for something that mother Nature created is not helpful because all that does is create. In this case, where would we rather spend $100 billion of money that's going out in lawsuits because you can't prove that it isn't your fault. I'd rather that be spent on actually fixing the problems. And so I'd like to see a whole lot more of this type of approach, which is, here's the problem. Here are the things that we need to do as opposed to trying to find somebody to blame and going after the fact and doing it that way. So with that, my comments are over. Go ahead, nate.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'll just, I'll make one final comment on that Note. To Senator Perez's point and to the Vice Chair's point, I think it's all about striking a balance here. You don't want to SAP the enthusiasm or slow down the. Not just the planning process, but the ability to start getting generators out there and hardening our system. Right. So what we don't want is to create a setup where we sort of say, whatever you do, you're off the hook, doesn't matter. And even your plan itself doesn't matter. From a liability perspective, I think that there are prudent ways to utilize one of these plans, and there are not. And so if you, for instance, had a pumping system like we did above our little community that just burned down that we've been looking at for, I don't know, 10 years and saying, we need to get backup power, we need to get backup power, we need to get backup power, and his planning documents, and then it doesn't happen. You know that. I think that that gets into territory of, like, real deliberate design decisions and, and, and real risk. But I think this bill sort of starts to build an architecture to strike that balance. We do know there's a companion measure in the assembly that has some elements of a plan that has a little more detail in it maybe, than what's in this bill. So what we want to do is work with you going forward and the sponsors, I think we've already talked about this, both in making sure that plan itself and that planning process is as robust as possible without being a total micromanagement exercise. And then the other provision that we've got our eye on, and we want to help wrestle with you all going forward, is in section 2, at the bottom of B. Or, sorry, yes, at the bottom of C. So 8607.3 C. The last sentence there. Non compliance with subdivision A shall not be considered a substantial cause of the damages resulting from a wildfire. What we don't want is simply by putting something in your disaster preparedness plan, that you're then alleviated from any responsibilities about what's sort of in that plan. So that's somewhere where I don't know if we have to strike it out entirely. But we are excited about working with the sponsors author's office in sort of massaging that language just to make sure it's not read inadvertently in some way, that somehow the plan becomes a sort of hollow plan or even a safe harbor inadvertently for things that really are prudent to get done. So we don't want that to be a way station and just a planning document sits on the shelf. We need infrastructure built. So we look forward to working with you on that. Thank you so much for accepting the amendment. Without any further comments or questions, I'll allow you the opportunity to close.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the comments, the questions, and I look forward to working through further with you on language to see if we can strike the right balance. The whole idea is balancing the plan and as well as the responsibilities. Who's going to bear those responsibilities? Respectfully ask for your I vote.
Appreciate that. Okay, so the. The motion is to pass as amended. Oh, I'm sorry. I would entertain a motion. I did not get a motion. I. Senator Grayson gave us a motion. Thank you, Mary. The motion is due pass as amended to the Natural Resource and Water Committee. Please call the roll.
Senator Stern.
Aye.
Stern. Aye. Sierra.
Aye.
Sierrato.
Aye.
Alan Ashby. Blakespeare. Dali. Dolly. Aye. Grayson.
Aye.
Grayson, Aye. Perez Rubio. Rubio. Aye.
Okay, we'll leave that. Call that on call for the absent members. Do we want to go through the consent calendar at this point? Thank you, Senator Caballero. So moved from Senator Grayson consent calendar. Please call the roll.
Senator Stern.
Aye.
Stern. Aye. Serto.
Aye.
Sierrato. Aye. Alan Ashby. Lakespeare. Daly.
Aye.
Dali. Aye. Grayson.
Aye.
Grayson, Aye. Perez Rubio. Aye. Rubio, Aye.
Okay, we'll leave that on call for the absent members. And I think everyone here has voted. I have to go cast a vote in judiciary committee. So do you all want to. Should we take a brief recess? Does anyone want to hold the gavel here?
Well, I have to get to transportation at some point, so our two members have left if they want to vote.
Okay. Has just left.
You can go and I'll stay.
Okay. Actually, I'm gonna hand the gavel to the vice chair and hopefully we can get him back.
Okay.
That's okay. All right, thank you.
Items.
All right, file item one. It's SB 870. Motion is. It is on consent. The current vote is 5 to 0. Chair and Vice chair voting I, Allen Ashby. Blakespeare. Blakespeare. Aye. All right, that is six. That's on call. File item number two. SB101 Archuleta. The motion is due. Pass to Public Safety. The current vote is 6 to 0. Chair and Vice chair voting aye. Alan Ashby. Blakespeare. Perez. All right, and then.
Yeah, we're gonna hold that one open.
We'll hold that open. On call. File item 4. SB 1153. The motion is due. Passes amended to Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 5 to 0. The chair and vice chair voting aye. Alan Ashby. Blakespeare. Blakespeare. Aye. We'll hold down call.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, and senator. All right, we have another member present, so if we can go through the missing votes, that'd be great.
File item one is on consent. Allen Ashby. Perez.
Aye.
Perez. Aye. That is 7. 0. That's on call. File item 2. SB 10. 01. Allen, Ashby. Perez I. Perez I. That's 7 to 0. On call. File item 4. SB 1153. Caballero. Senators Allen, Ashby. Prez Prize I. That's 7 to 0, and that bill is on call. Great.
Thank you.
Okay.
Welcome, Senior Allen. Nice to see you. All right, let's go through the roll so Senator Allen can vote.
All right, file item one. SB870. Cortezi. That's on consent. Allen.
Aye.
Alan I. That's eight to zero. That bill is out. All right, file item two. SB10 01. Archuleta. Senators Allen.
Aye.
Alan I. Ashby. All right, that is 8 to 0. That bill is out. File item 4. SB 1153. Caballero. Senators Allen. Allen I. Ashby. That is 8 to 0. That bill Is out.
And so that should conclude our emergency management meeting. And it sounds like all of our bills passed out eight to nothing. Those are perfect bills. That's what this committee is going to be about, right? Thank you, guys. The meeting is adjourned.