AB 372 creates the Rural Water Infrastructure for Wildfire Resilience Program inside the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to distribute state matching funds to eligible communities in high or very high fire hazard severity zones. The goal is to upgrade local water systems so they can better support fire suppression and protect property in urban–wildland interface areas.
The bill matters because many small, rural water systems lack the capacity that modern firefighting requires—larger mains, hydrants, interconnections, and backup power—and those deficits translate into greater fire risk. By channeling bond dollars (if appropriated) through a prioritized, criteria-driven grant process, the state aims to close gaps where investment yields the most immediate suppression and protection benefits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a matching-funds program in OES to pay for water-system upgrades that aid fire suppression. It authorizes prioritized funding for projects such as upsizing mains, adding hydrants, creating interconnections, improving distribution capacity, and installing backup power.
Who It Affects
Primary targets are community water systems serving 15,000 service connections or fewer located in urban wildland interface communities within state- or locally-designated high or very high fire hazard zones. State agencies, local governments, small water districts, and contractors will be involved in implementing projects.
Why It Matters
This is a targeted fiscal tool to direct bond-backed dollars toward on-the-ground assets that firefighting relies on; it ties state support to engineering and wildfire planning documents and creates a scoring framework to prioritize limited funds.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 372 sets up a new program inside the California Office of Emergency Services to deliver state matching funds for water-system work that directly supports wildfire suppression. The program is not a general water-infrastructure fund: it is explicitly focused on communities in the urban–wildland interface that sit inside state‑ or locally‑designated high and very high fire hazard zones.
Rather than dispensing cash on a first-come basis, OES must develop prioritization criteria and a scoring methodology that steer money toward the projects the statute lists and toward communities that meet the bill’s thresholds.
The bill identifies the types of projects the program should fund—upsized and upgraded mains, additional hydrants tied to water systems, measures that increase delivery and distribution capacity, interconnections between systems, and backup power generation. It also requires that projects be consistent with recognized planning documents: community wildfire protection plans, California Fire Safe Council action plans, NFPA Firewise risk assessments, local hazard mitigation plans, or water system master planning and engineering analyses.
Those plan links are meant to ensure that funded work addresses demonstrated vulnerabilities rather than hypothetical improvements.On process, OES must coordinate with the Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and any other state bodies it deems appropriate. That coordination is both technical—sharing hydraulic models, master plans, and data—and procedural, because multiple agencies touch permitting, water quality, and fire-safety rules.
The statute makes the program’s operation explicitly contingent on a legislative appropriation from the 2024 Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act; the bill therefore creates an authorization and framework rather than immediate, unconditional spending.Notably absent from the text are fixed match ratios, explicit timelines for grant rounds, and detailed administrative rules on how OES must administer the matching portion (for example, whether in-kind contributions qualify). The bill gives OES discretion over scoring and coordination, but not detailed guidance on matching mechanics or long‑term operation-and-maintenance obligations for funded projects, which will be questions for implementing regulations and grant agreements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The program is established inside the Office of Emergency Services to distribute state matching funds specifically for water infrastructure that aids wildfire protection in urban–wildland interface communities.
Eligibility prioritization explicitly favors community water systems that maintain 15,000 water service connections or fewer.
Authorized project types include upsizing waterlines, installing additional fire hydrants tied to water systems, enhancing delivery/distribution capacity, creating interconnections between systems, and adding backup power generation.
OES must coordinate with the Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal and develop a scoring methodology that factors in proximity to outstanding national resource waters and consistency with specified wildfire and water system plans.
The program only operates if the Legislature appropriates funds to OES from the 2024 Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: Office and Program
This subsection defines the Office of Emergency Services as the administering agency and names the Rural Water Infrastructure for Wildfire Resilience Program. The choice to house the program in OES signals that grants will be administered with an emergency-management orientation rather than through a water‑supply agency’s typical grant programs, which will shape priorities, timelines, and interagency relationships.
Program scope and eligible improvements
Subdivision (b) sets the program’s purpose—distributing state matching funds to eligible urban‑wildland interface communities in high or very high fire hazard severity zones—and lists the types of infrastructure the program may fund: upsized mains, additional hydrants connected to systems, delivery/distribution upgrades, interconnections between systems, and backup power. That list is permissive ("include, but are not limited to"), giving OES discretion to fund related infrastructure that demonstrably supports fire suppression.
Required interagency coordination
This subsection requires OES to work with the Department of Water Resources, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal, while allowing OES to involve other state entities as needed. Practically, that creates a multi‑agency technical review and data‑sharing expectation—OES will rely on DWR and SWRCB for water system data and engineering input and on the State Fire Marshal for hazard mapping and risk prioritization.
Prioritization criteria and scoring methodology
Subdivision (d) mandates that OES adopt criteria and a scoring system to prioritize funds. The statute gives specific examples: favor systems with 15,000 service connections or fewer; projects near outstanding national resource waters or headwaters; and projects tied to established planning documents (wildfire protection plans, Fire Safe Council action plans, NFPA Firewise assessments, local hazard mitigation plans, or water-system master plans/hydraulic modeling). This places weight on documented need and environmental sensitivity in scoring — but it leaves the precise weighting, thresholds, and appeals processes to OES rule‑making.
Funding contingency
The program’s existence is conditional: it only operates if the Legislature appropriates funds to OES from the 2024 Bond Act. That makes AB 372 an enabling statute tied to a particular source of bond revenue; without legislative appropriation from that bond, OES has authorization but no dedicated funds under this section.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- Small community water systems (≤15,000 service connections): They gain access to state matching dollars to upgrade mains, hydrants, interconnections, and backup power—investments many operators cannot otherwise afford.
- Residents and property owners in urban–wildland interface communities: Improved water delivery and hydrant coverage increase local firefighting capacity, which can reduce property loss and evacuation risk during wildfires.
- Local fire agencies and mutual‑aid partners: Enhanced distribution, pressure, and redundancy in water systems make suppression tactics more feasible and safer for first responders.
- Environmental and watershed interests near outstanding national resource waters: By prioritizing projects adjacent to sensitive watersheds, the program can reduce wildfire-driven erosion and contaminant flows that damage downstream water quality.
- Engineering firms and construction contractors serving rural markets: The program should generate project demand for hydraulic modeling, master planning, and capital construction services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Office of Emergency Services: OES must staff, develop scoring methods, coordinate multiple agencies, and administer matching grants—administrative costs and program design burdens land on OES.
- Local water agencies and districts: The program provides matching funds, which implies a local share or compliance commitments; smaller systems with tight budgets may struggle to meet match requirements and associated project development costs.
- State agencies required to coordinate (DWR, SWRCB, Office of the State Fire Marshal): These agencies will incur additional review, data‑sharing, and technical-assistance obligations without explicit funding in the bill for those tasks.
- California taxpayers (bond fund source): If the Legislature appropriates bond proceeds, taxpayers ultimately finance the state match; bond funds also carry debt-service costs over time.
- Local governments and permitting authorities: Projects funded under the program will trigger permitting, environmental review, and inspection responsibilities that local entities must manage and finance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is allocating scarce, bond‑backed capital to quickly improve firefighting capacity versus ensuring equitable access and long‑term affordability: funding prioritizes technically justified, plan‑aligned projects (which favors well‑staffed systems) while poorer or administratively thin communities may lack the planning documents, matching funds, or staff time to compete—so the mechanism that optimizes immediate wildfire resilience may leave the least‑resourced towns behind.
AB 372 creates a targeted funding vehicle but leaves several implementational blanks. The statute requires a matching‑funds approach but does not set a standard match percentage, acceptable match forms (cash versus in‑kind), or timelines for grant cycles and project completion.
Those omissions give OES flexibility but also create uncertainty for small systems that must budget engineering, permitting, and local capital contributions without knowing the likely state share. The bill ties prioritization to plan documents and proximity to sensitive waters—this encourages evidence‑based funding but may advantage jurisdictions with planning capacity and professional engineering reports while disadvantaging under‑resourced communities that lack up‑to‑date master plans.
The funding contingency is another source of uncertainty. Because the program depends on a legislative appropriation from a specific 2024 bond, its activation hinges on subsequent budgetary choices; communities might plan projects around expected match dollars and find those dollars unavailable.
Interagency coordination is sensible but will require concrete data‑sharing agreements and likely additional staff time within DWR, SWRCB, and the State Fire Marshal—none of which are funded by this statute. Finally, the bill does not address operations and maintenance costs created by new infrastructure or the timing of CEQA and other permitting steps; those downstream costs can undermine the resilience gains the capital investments aim to produce.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.