This bill establishes the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program and a Prescribed Fire Claims Fund in the State Treasury to support payments for covered losses from prescribed fires and cultural burns conducted by nonpublic actors. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (the department) administers the program, may contract with a third‑party administrator (including the California Insurance Guarantee Association with Insurance Commissioner approval), and must adopt guidelines that define eligibility, documentation, and a per‑event payment cap.
The measure matters because it directly targets a key barrier to expanding prescribed and cultural burning—financial liability for nonfederal actors—by creating a state‑backed, continuously appropriated pool of money with process shortcuts intended to speed implementation. The fund design and procedural exemptions also raise fiscal, regulatory, and oversight trade‑offs that agencies, tribal partners, insurers, and land managers will need to resolve during implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a pilot program and a Prescribed Fire Claims Fund administered by the department to pay covered losses from prescribed fires and cultural burns led by nonpublic entities. The department may hire a third‑party administrator to manage the fund and direct payments under department guidelines.
Who It Affects
Cultural fire practitioners, certified burn bosses, private landowners and nongovernmental land stewards conducting burns, the department and any contracted third‑party administrator (including the California Insurance Guarantee Association with Insurance Commissioner approval), and the state budget through an initial transfer and cash‑flow provisions.
Why It Matters
The bill reduces a key financial barrier to nonfederal prescribed burning by creating a government‑backed claims pool and streamlined administrative rules, setting a precedent for state‑run, insurance‑like mechanisms in wildfire management and altering incentives for burn approval and oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines who counts as a burn boss (state‑certified under Section 4477 or NWCG Prescribed Fire Burn Boss Type 1/2) and adopts the Civil Code’s definitions for cultural burns and cultural fire practitioners. Its stated aim is to scale up prescribed and cultural burning by addressing liability barriers faced by nonpublic actors such as tribal practitioners, private landowners, and NGOs.
To do that it creates the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund in the State Treasury, directs an initial transfer from a specific Budget Act line item (Item 3540‑102‑0001 from the 2021 Budget Act), and makes the fund continuously appropriated to the department. The Controller may use fund balances for short‑term cash‑flow loans to the General Fund under Government Code borrowing provisions, but transfers may not interfere with program operations.
The department—or a contracted third‑party administrator—may direct payments from the fund consistent with department guidelines.The department must develop guidelines (in consultation with agencies, tribal practitioners, and burn bosses) that set eligibility and claims processes. A claim must relate to a burn conducted or supervised by a burn boss or a cultural burn supervised by a cultural fire practitioner, and payments require an approved burn plan and any required permits; however, a plan approved by a burn boss can substitute for department approval.
The fund limits payment to $2,000,000 per prescribed fire or cultural burn “event” (defined as all activities under a single burn plan and permit) and must include prioritization methods if demand exceeds available funds.Administration details include the option to contract with another state agency or a private third‑party administrator; the California Insurance Guarantee Association may serve in that role with Insurance Commissioner approval and subject to its Plan of Operation. The bill prohibits a contracted third‑party administrator from settling or adjusting claims while seeking subrogation against the fund and allows the department to hire a separate administrator to handle settling in limited circumstances.
The department must post the guidelines online, the state’s liability is limited to the fund balance, and the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to the department’s implementing guidelines. The bill also includes an explicit instruction to respect tribal sovereignty, customs, and culture when engaging with tribes or cultural fire practitioners.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The fund receives an initial transfer from Item 3540‑102‑0001 of the Budget Act of 2021 and is continuously appropriated to the department for this program.
Payments from the fund are capped at $2,000,000 per prescribed fire or cultural burn event, where an event covers all activities under a single burn plan and, if required, burn permit.
A claim requires an approved burn plan and permits, but a burn boss’s review and approval of a plan removes the need for separate department approval.
The department may contract a third‑party administrator (including the California Insurance Guarantee Association with Insurance Commissioner approval), and that administrator may not settle or adjust claims while seeking to subrogate against the fund; the department may appoint a separate settling administrator in limited cases.
The bill exempts the department’s implementing guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act, meaning the guidelines can be adopted without the APA’s notice, comment, or rulemaking process.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: burn boss and cultural burning terms
This subsection sets the operational scope by defining ‘burn boss’ to include state‑certified persons under Section 4477 or individuals holding NWCG Prescribed Fire Burn Boss Type 1 or 2 qualifications, and by importing Civil Code definitions for 'cultural burn' and 'cultural fire practitioner.' Practically, those definitions determine who may supervise burns that are eligible for claims and who can substitute a burn boss’s plan approval for department review.
Pilot program established and departmental administration
Declares the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program and assigns administration to the department with the explicit policy objective of increasing the pace and scale of prescribed and cultural burning. That assignment concentrates operational authority, stakeholder coordination, and decisionmaking with the department and triggers the department’s responsibility to write the program rules and manage fund disbursements.
Prescribed Fire Claims Fund: creation, initial funding, and appropriation
Creates the fund in the State Treasury, directs a transfer from a specific 2021 Budget Act item into the fund, and makes those moneys continuously appropriated for the program. It also allows the Controller to lend fund balances to the General Fund under existing Government Code cash‑flow provisions with interest, but forbids loans that would impede the department’s ability to fulfill program purposes. Those mechanics give the fund steady statutory availability while leaving exposure to statewide cash‑management practices.
Third‑party administration and contracting exceptions
Authorizes the department to contract with any entity—including another state agency or the California Insurance Guarantee Association (with Insurance Commissioner approval)—to operate and administer the fund. It bars a contracted administrator from settling or adjusting claims while pursuing subrogation against the fund and creates limited procurement exceptions for an initial short‑term contract (references the 2022–2023 fiscal year). If an administrator is legally blocked from settling because of subrogation activity, the department may award a narrowly tailored contract (outside standard procurement rules) to settle those claims.
Guidelines, eligibility, documentation, and per‑event cap
Requires the department to develop program guidelines in collaboration with agencies, tribal practitioners, and burn bosses that list eligible claims (burns supervised by burn bosses or cultural practitioners), documentation needed (approved burn plans and permits), and compliance checks. The guidelines must also require department approval of burn plans unless the plan was approved by a burn boss, and they set a $2,000,000 cap per burn event. The subsection mandates methods to prioritize certain burns if demand outstrips fund resources.
Transparency, liability limit, APA exemption, and tribal respect
The department must post the guidelines online; the state’s liability for covered losses is strictly limited to the amount in the fund; and the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to the department’s implementing guidelines—shortening the timeline for adoption but reducing formal public rulemaking. The bill separately requires government actors to respect tribal sovereignty, customs, and culture when engaging with tribes and cultural fire practitioners, but it does not specify operational processes or dispute mechanisms for that engagement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Cultural fire practitioners: The fund provides an available source of payment for covered losses tied to cultural burns, lowering financial risk that has historically discouraged tribal or cultural practitioners from conducting burns on nonfederal land.
- Private landowners and nongovernmental land stewards: Those who hire burn bosses or conduct burns under certified practitioners gain access to a state‑administered claims pool that can cover losses up to the statutory cap, reducing out‑of‑pocket exposure for certain incidents.
- Certified burn bosses and qualified NWCG personnel: Burn bosses can approve burn plans that substitute for department approval, potentially shortening timelines to conduct burns and increasing operational autonomy.
- California Native American tribes: The bill explicitly requires respect for tribal sovereignty and prioritizes cultural burns in oversubscription scenarios, which creates a procedural recognition of tribal burning practices and an avenue for compensation where covered losses occur.
- Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: The department gains a tool—contract authority and a claims fund—to operationalize a policy goal of scaling prescribed fire without relying solely on federal resources.
Who Bears the Cost
- The department: Responsible for administering the fund, drafting guidelines outside APA processes, contracting and overseeing third‑party administrators, and managing prioritization—tasks that increase staffing, technical, and legal workload.
- State budget/General Fund: The fund is seeded by a transfer from a prior Budget Act item and may be used for General Fund cash‑flow loans, exposing state fiscal planning to the fund’s balance and creating potential budgetary trade‑offs.
- Third‑party administrators (including CIGA): Face operational burdens and legal constraints—such as prohibitions on settling while pursuing subrogation—and potential reputational or financial exposure in claims adjustment processes.
- Private claimants above the cap: Landowners, tribes, or NGOs with losses exceeding $2,000,000 per event remain responsible for amounts above the cap, creating residual financial exposure that the bill does not address.
- Insurers and indemnitors: Private insurers or indemnitors may face coordination and subrogation complications because the bill restricts certain subrogation/settlement actions by administrators, altering typical claim settlement pathways.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus safeguards: the bill removes liability and procedural barriers to encourage more prescribed and cultural burning—which advances wildfire mitigation goals—but it does so by concentrating authority in the department, narrowing public rulemaking, creating a capped state‑backed fund (and associated fiscal exposure), and delegating approval power to burn bosses, all of which trade regulatory oversight and financial certainty for faster implementation.
Several implementation risks and ambiguities could shape how effectively the program reduces barriers. First, making the fund continuously appropriated and permitting Controller cash‑flow loans links the fund to statewide cash management; if balances are borrowed for General Fund liquidity, the program could be undercapitalized when claims spike.
Second, the bill limits public rulemaking by exempting department guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act—this accelerates setup but reduces formal notice, comment, and judicial record, which may hamper stakeholder buy‑in and create legal uncertainty about the guidelines’ content.
Operationally, the delegation that allows a burn boss to substitute for department approval speeds deployment but raises questions about consistent standards, recordkeeping, and liability allocation if burn boss approvals vary. The $2,000,000 per‑event cap and the definition of an “event” as activities under a single burn plan create potential aggregation disputes (multiple related burns, multi‑parcel incidents, or burns executed in phases).
The prohibition on a contracted administrator settling claims while seeking to subrogate against the fund complicates insurers’ and subrogors’ incentives and may slow resolution when multiple insurers or parties have competing rights. Finally, items like the 2022–2023 procurement exception are temporally odd in a 2026 bill and may create confusion about which contracting shortcuts actually apply.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.