SB 1153 directs that, beginning January 1, 2028, urban retail water suppliers serving areas the State Fire Marshal classifies as high or very high fire hazard severity zones must include incident-specific wildfire response procedures in their disaster preparedness plans. Plans must contain mitigation actions — procedures, equipment, and other measures — that can obviate or substantially reduce wildfire impacts on the system and on drinking water supply.
The bill also alters the legal landscape around wildfire-related damages by statutorily declaring that a public water system’s inability to maintain supply or pressure during a wildfire, and the spread of wildfire, are not substantial causes of wildfire damages; it likewise says systems are not required to be designed for wildfire suppression. The measure raises compliance and funding issues for suppliers and shifts how liability and accountability may play out in post-fire litigation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires urban retail water suppliers in State Fire Marshal-designated high or very high fire hazard zones to add incident-specific wildfire response procedures and mitigation measures to their disaster preparedness plans, and references federal Safe Drinking Water Act emergency response plan requirements. It also includes statutory language limiting certain forms of civil liability tied to water supply or pressure failures during wildfires.
Who It Affects
Urban retail water suppliers (the Water Code’s subdivision (af) definition), public and wholesale water systems that serve high/very high fire hazard areas, local emergency management agencies that coordinate planning, and ultimately ratepayers who may fund preparedness upgrades. Plaintiffs and defendants in wildfire-related civil suits will also be affected by the statutory liability language.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a uniform, statutory expectation that water suppliers in high-risk zones plan specifically for wildfire incidents while simultaneously narrowing legal exposure for water systems—an unusual combination that changes incentives, raises funding and enforcement questions, and will shape post-fire recovery and litigation strategies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1153 imposes a discrete planning obligation on a subset of California water providers. Starting January 1, 2028, any urban retail water supplier operating in areas the State Fire Marshal classifies as high or very high fire hazard severity zones must incorporate incident-specific wildfire response procedures into its disaster preparedness plan.
The bill explicitly incorporates any emergency response plan obligations that arise under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 300i-2), so these state plans must be aligned with relevant federal ERPs where applicable.
The statute goes beyond a checklist requirement: it requires plans to include mitigation actions that can prevent or significantly reduce wildfire impacts on water delivery and drinking-water supply. That language covers operational procedures (temporary isolation of mains, prioritized pumping schedules), physical measures (protective enclosures for critical assets, portable generation), and equipment inventories, although the bill leaves the exact content and technical standards to the suppliers and their coordinating agencies rather than prescribing minimum specifications.SB 1153 also adds a statutory statement about legal causation.
It declares that a public water system’s inability to maintain supply or pressure during a wildfire shall not be treated as a substantial cause of damages from the wildfire, and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of a system’s deliberate design, construction, or maintenance. The bill further clarifies that it does not impose a duty to build or operate water systems for wildfire suppression and that failure to comply with the new planning requirement shall not, in itself, be treated as a substantial cause of wildfire damages.Finally, the bill includes a fiscal clause stating no state reimbursement is required because the act affects criminal penalties or definitions.
Practically, the measure creates a compliance obligation with ambiguous enforcement and funding mechanisms: it expects suppliers to plan and equip for wildfires but does not provide a state funding stream or a detailed enforcement regime within the text of the bill.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Effective date: the substantive planning requirement applies beginning January 1, 2028.
Scope: the mandate applies only to urban retail water suppliers serving areas the State Fire Marshal has designated as high or very high fire hazard severity zones (per Government Code references to Section 51178).
Federal alignment: plans must include any applicable emergency response plan required under Section 1433(b) of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300i-2).
Content requirement: plans must include mitigation actions—actions, procedures, and equipment—that can obviate or significantly lessen a wildfire’s impact on the water system and on drinking water supply.
Liability language: the bill statutorily deems (1) inability to maintain supply or pressure and (2) wildfire spread not to be substantial causes of wildfire damages, and it states that noncompliance with the planning duty shall not itself be considered a substantial cause of damages.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature acted: wildfire risks to water systems
Section 1 sets out the Legislature’s factual predicates: wildfires are increasing, water systems are vulnerable in multiple technical ways (physical damage, power loss, water-quality degradation, spikes in demand), and designing systems as fire-suppression infrastructure is impracticable and costly. Those findings frame the rest of the bill by legitimizing a planning requirement while also explaining why the Legislature will not obligate suppliers to build systems for wildfire suppression.
Planning requirement for urban retail water suppliers
This provision creates the core mandate: urban retail water suppliers serving State Fire Marshal–designated high or very high hazard zones must add incident-specific wildfire response procedures to their disaster preparedness plans by January 1, 2028. The text explicitly ties state plans to any federal emergency response plan duties under the Safe Drinking Water Act, meaning suppliers should harmonize state and federal planning obligations rather than treat them as separate exercises.
Statutory statements on causation and inherent risk
Subdivision (b) contains two declaratory rules aimed at litigation: it says that a public water system’s inability to maintain water supply or pressure during a wildfire shall not be considered a substantial cause of wildfire damages, and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk arising from how a system is designed, constructed, or maintained. Those declarations function as legislative signals to courts and litigants about causation issues in post-fire tort claims.
No duty to design for wildfire suppression; noncompliance and causation
Subdivision (c) stresses that nothing in the section imposes a duty to design, construct, or maintain a system for wildfire defense or suppression. Notably, it adds that noncompliance with the planning duty in subdivision (a) shall not be considered a substantial cause of wildfire damages — a provision that narrows the range of civil liability theories plaintiffs might pursue, even when a supplier failed to follow the new planning requirements.
Definitions and cross-references
This subsection imports multiple statutory definitions: ‘high or very high fire hazard severity zone’ references the State Fire Marshal’s designations under Section 51178; ‘public water system,’ ‘urban retail water supplier,’ and ‘wholesale water system’ are defined by cross-reference to existing Health and Safety Code and Water Code provisions; and ‘wildfire’ references the Fire Marshal’s definition. Those cross-references determine which entities fall inside the mandate and which areas are covered.
Fiscal determination: no state reimbursement required
Section 3 declares that no state reimbursement is owed because any local costs arise from the act’s creation of a crime or a change to penalties or crime definitions. The clause signals the Legislature’s view that the bill imposes a locally borne obligation and avoids triggering the state reimbursement process — but it does not provide funding to cover compliance costs.
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
- Residents and customers in high/very high fire hazard zones — they stand to get more explicit planning from their water supplier about maintaining drinking-water availability during wildfire incidents.
- Urban retail water suppliers — the bill gives suppliers clearer, statutory expectations about planning content and provides legislative language that can reduce exposure to certain tort claims tied to pressure or supply failures.
- Emergency management agencies and local fire departments — having supplier plans tied to incident-specific procedures and federal ERPs improves coordination and situational predictability during wildfire response.
- Insurers and municipal risk managers — the statutory causation language could lower litigation exposure tied to water-supply failures during wildfires, affecting risk assessments and premiums.
Who Bears the Cost
- Urban retail water suppliers — they must prepare, revise, and likely upgrade plans and equipment (portable pumps, backup power, inventory systems), incurring planning, training, and capital costs.
- Ratepayers and local rate-setting bodies — absent state funding, suppliers are likely to recover some preparedness and equipment costs through rates, impacting household and commercial water bills.
- Smaller suppliers and special districts with limited technical capacity — even where covered, these entities may struggle with the technical and administrative burden of developing incident-specific plans and securing appropriate equipment.
- Local governments and coordinating agencies — responsibility for plan review and interagency coordination will demand staff time and potentially new administrative processes without an identified funding source.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 1153 balances two legitimate goals—forcing concrete wildfire preparedness planning for water suppliers and protecting those systems from being treated as firefighting infrastructure—by imposing planning duties but simultaneously narrowing legal accountability and providing no dedicated funding; the tension is whether mandating plans without preserving strong liability incentives or supplying money actually produces safer, better-prepared water systems.
The bill creates a difficult policy mix: it mandates planning and mitigation actions while simultaneously insulating water systems from certain civil causation arguments and disclaiming any duty to design systems for wildfire suppression. That combination could blunt the financial incentives suppliers face to invest above the minimum planning standard because the statutory language reduces plaintiffs’ ability to tie water-supply or pressure failures directly to wildfire damages.
At the same time, the bill does not appropriate funds or establish a state grant program, so compliance costs — particularly for physical mitigation measures like backup generation or protective enclosures — fall to suppliers and, likely, to ratepayers.
Implementation questions remain. The statute leaves the content of “mitigation actions” unspecified and does not name an enforcement or oversight body to review plans, certify compliance, or set technical benchmarks.
Courts will have to interpret how the legislative declarations about causation operate in concrete cases, and those judicial interpretations could vary. Finally, the bill references federal SDWA requirements, creating potential duplication or coordination challenges for suppliers that already maintain federal ERPs; aligning plans across state and federal frameworks will require administrative work with unclear standards and timelines.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.