AB 2013 adds a new Part 2.25 to the California Water Code requiring water suppliers that serve more than 100 customers located in State Fire Marshal-designated moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones to establish written emergency preparedness plans. The plans must address response to red flag warnings, extreme weather, and major power outages that threaten adequate water service.
The bill specifies a set of required assessments and inventories — including minimum tank levels, the number and types of pumps needed for both customer service and firefighting, identification of pumps with or needing emergency backup energy, alternative water sources, and an accounting of pipelines and other infrastructure with fire-hardening designations — and requires plan submission and periodic updates to county authorities, with integration into any PUC-required emergency response filings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires suppliers with >100 customers in designated fire-hazard zones to prepare and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that covers water supply needs for both customers and firefighting during red flag warnings, extreme weather, or major outages. Plans must include assessments of minimum tank levels, pump inventories and backup power needs, alternative sources, and infrastructure status including fire-hardening.
Who It Affects
Community water systems and private water suppliers that serve more than 100 customers in State Fire Marshal or locally designated moderate, high, or very high fire-hazard zones, county emergency coordinators who will receive the plans, and the Public Utilities Commission where utilities already submit emergency response plans.
Why It Matters
This standardizes preparedness expectations for water systems in wildfire-prone areas and creates a single-plan reporting path to counties and, where applicable, the PUC. It shifts planning responsibilities onto suppliers and local agencies, creating operational, technical, and budgetary implications for systems that previously had varied or informal preparedness practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2013 makes preparedness planning a statutory obligation for water suppliers that meet a customer-count threshold and whose service area overlaps State Fire Marshal or locally designated fire hazard zones. The plan requirement triggers when a supplier serves more than 100 customers in moderate, high, or very high fire-hazard severity zones; smaller systems outside that threshold are not mandated by this statute.
The bill frames the plans around imminent extreme conditions: red flag warnings, severe weather, and major power outages that could degrade water delivery or firefighting supply.
The bill lays out the substantive content that every plan must contain. Suppliers must assess the minimum tank levels necessary to provide both customer needs and firefighting capacity during stressed conditions while also addressing water quality standards and the actions needed to maintain them.
They must inventory pumps — specifying type and number — and note which pumps already have emergency backup energy and which require retrofitted or new backup sources. Plans must identify any alternative water sources usable in an emergency and present a detailed inventory of critical infrastructure (pipelines, tanks, pumps, backup generators) with a designation for which assets are fire-hardened or need hardening.Administratively, AB 2013 encourages but does not compel coordination with county boards of supervisors; it does require suppliers to submit plans to the county or a county department designated by the board.
Suppliers must review plans at least once every three years and file updates when changes occur. Finally, if a supplier already submits an emergency response plan to the California Public Utilities Commission, the requirement is to include this new preparedness plan within that existing submission rather than file separate, duplicative plans with the PUC.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies only to water suppliers that serve more than 100 customers located in State Fire Marshal or locally designated moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones.
Suppliers must submit the plan to the county board of supervisors or a county office designated by the board, and the bill encourages—but does not require—coordination with county emergency authorities.
Plans must include an assessment of minimum water tank levels that balance customer needs and firefighting demands while addressing water quality maintenance.
Suppliers must inventory pumps by number and type, identify which pumps have emergency backup energy, and list pumps that require installation of backup energy sources.
Suppliers that already submit emergency response plans to the PUC must include the AB 2013 preparedness plan in those PUC filings, avoiding separate PUC-only submissions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New statutory home for water-supplier emergency preparedness
The bill inserts a distinct Part 2.25 into Division 6 of the Water Code, creating a clear statutory location for wildfire-related water-supply planning duties. That placement signals the Legislature’s intent that water system preparedness for high-fire-risk conditions is a topic of statewide water policy, rather than a purely local emergency-management matter, and sets the stage for later administrative or regulatory guidance under the Water Code framework.
Who must plan, when, and where to submit
This section defines the triggering conditions: supplier-sized threshold (>100 customers) and geographic exposure (moderate, high, or very high fire hazard zones designated under Government Code Sections 51178–51179). It requires a written plan addressing outages, extreme weather, and red flag warnings and mandates submission to the county board of supervisors or to a county agency that the board designates. The section also requires triennial review and updates, establishing a predictable review cadence for local authorities to expect refreshed plans.
Required technical assessments and inventories
The core of the statute: suppliers must assess minimum tank levels for both customer service and firefighting while accounting for water quality maintenance, identify the minimum number and types of pumps needed, specify which pumps have backup power and which require it, list alternative water sources, and produce a detailed accounting of pipelines, tanks, pumps, and backup generation with a fire-hardening designation. Practically, this requires suppliers to perform hydraulic and demand analyses, inventory mechanical and electrical systems, and make judgments about what constitutes an adequate firefighting supply—tasks that will often require engineering input and capital-planning follow-up.
Coordination with PUC filings
This short but important provision avoids duplicative filings by requiring that any emergency response plan a supplier already submits to the California Public Utilities Commission must include the Part 2.25 preparedness plan. That creates a single-file expectation for regulated utilities and ties Water Code obligations into existing PUC oversight processes, with implications for how utility compliance will be reviewed and enforced by state regulators.
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
- Residents and businesses located in designated fire-hazard zones — they gain clearer assurance that local suppliers must plan for maintaining customer service and preserving firefighting supplies during red-flag events, extreme weather, and outages.
- Local fire agencies — they receive better information up front about available water supplies, pump capacity, and which assets are fire-hardened, improving operational coordination during wildfire response.
- County emergency managers and planners — they obtain standardized plans and inventories from suppliers, which supports county-level emergency response planning and resource prioritization.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and medium-sized water suppliers that just exceed the 100-customer threshold — they must perform engineering assessments, inventory critical assets, and potentially invest in backup generation or pump retrofits, imposing one-time and ongoing costs.
- Counties — boards or designated county departments will receive, review, and potentially coordinate on plans without an express funding mechanism, adding administrative workload to local agencies already stretched during fire seasons.
- Regulated utilities and systems subject to PUC reporting — they must integrate the new plan content into existing PUC emergency response filings and may face additional compliance oversight and documentation requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—ensuring reliable water and firefighting supply in high-fire-risk areas and avoiding unfunded, prescriptive mandates on diverse water systems—but provides no clear technical yardstick or funding pathway; that forces suppliers and counties to reconcile public-safety expectations with real-world resource limits and divergent technical judgments.
AB 2013 sets clear content requirements but leaves key implementation details undefined. The bill does not prescribe technical standards or numeric thresholds for what constitutes the “minimum” tank levels or the exact firefighting flow rates; suppliers are left to interpret those terms, likely relying on engineering best practices or local fire-agency expectations.
That gap creates potential variation across jurisdictions and may prompt disputes over whether a plan is adequate.
The statute encourages coordination with counties but stops short of mandating a formal approval process or creating a funding stream for capital upgrades that parts of the plans will almost certainly identify (e.g., generators, pump retrofits, fire-hardening). Smaller suppliers may find meeting the technical inventory and backup-power requirements expensive, and counties may lack staff or technical expertise to meaningfully review plans.
Finally, the bill requires submission to counties and, where applicable, inclusion in PUC filings but does not establish enforcement mechanisms, timelines for county review, or rules for protecting sensitive infrastructure data from public disclosure — issues that will matter for both operational security and public accountability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.