An act to amend Sections 4477, 4493, 4500, and 4799.05 of, to add Sections 4497.3 and 21080.49.1 to, and to repeal and add Section 4503 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to wildfire, and making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
AB 1699, the Good Fire Act, would indefinitely extend California’s Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program and broaden its reach to support prescribed fire and cultural burning. It would continue the Prescribed Fire Claims Fund, which covers certain losses from beneficial fire projects, and expand eligibility so coverage is available to individuals and entities other than the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the federal government. The bill also updates the program’s administration by allowing claims to be paid without separate department approval when a burn plan has been reviewed and approved by a certified burn boss, while still requiring permits and compliance with burn plans and other applicable conditions.
The bill makes several operational changes intended to speed up beneficial fire work. It would let the department waive or modify inspection requirements and standard precautions for certain qualified practitioners, including certified burn bosses, NWCG-qualified burn bosses, and cultural fire practitioners. It would also exempt department assistance for prescribed fire or cultural burning projects from CEQA when those actions would not otherwise require CEQA review, and it would prohibit state grantmakers from restricting overtime or double-rate pay for workers implementing beneficial fire projects unless the funding statute specifically requires such a restriction.
AB 1699 also revises burn boss training and certification. The State Fire Marshal would have to require recertification no sooner than every three years, and the department would be directed to consider expanding the instructor pool, including using non-department instructors. The bill creates a mechanism to recognize certain equivalent qualifications from other states or national wildfire positions as state-certified burn bosses. It also repeals Section 4503 of the Public Resources Code and makes conforming changes to the claims fund and related definitions.
The bill’s impact on state law is to reduce procedural barriers for prescribed fire and cultural burning while preserving existing liability limits and the overall structure of the claims fund. It would extend continuous appropriations for the fund, authorize broader use of those funds, and codify a more flexible permitting and review process for qualified practitioners. In practical terms, it would likely make it easier for tribes, landowners, nonprofits, and other non-state actors to conduct beneficial fire projects with state-backed liability coverage and fewer administrative steps.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history is strongly supportive. The committee votes listed were unanimous, and the bill was advanced with recommendations to the consent calendar, suggesting little opposition at the committee level. The bill’s findings emphasize wildfire risk reduction, ecological restoration, and the need to expand beneficial fire, which aligns with the favorable treatment it received. The main points of contention, based on the text, are not explicit in the available discussion record but are implied by the policy changes themselves: reduced department oversight, CEQA exemptions, broader eligibility for liability coverage, and relaxed inspection/precaution requirements could raise concerns about safety, accountability, and fiscal exposure, even as the bill states it does not alter the applicable standard of care.
AB 1699 would amend multiple sections of the Public Resources Code governing prescribed fire, cultural burning, burn boss certification, permitting, and the Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program. It would extend the pilot program indefinitely, broaden claim eligibility, authorize more flexible permitting and inspection practices, create a new prohibition on restricting overtime/double pay in certain wildfire-prevention grant funds, and exempt specified department assistance activities from CEQA. It also would repeal Section 4503 and make the claims fund continuously appropriated for program purposes.
The available voting history shows unanimous committee support, with the bill passing committees 14-0 and 5-0 and being recommended to the consent calendar. That pattern suggests broad legislative approval and a generally favorable view of the bill’s goal of expanding beneficial fire. The bill’s findings and structure also reflect a strong policy preference for accelerating prescribed fire and cultural burning as wildfire mitigation tools.
No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to identify specific objections. Based on the bill text, likely areas of concern would include the reduction of Department of Forestry and Fire Protection oversight over burn plans and inspections, the CEQA exemption for department assistance, the expansion of liability coverage eligibility, and the use of continuously appropriated funds. Supporters appear to prioritize faster implementation of prescribed and cultural burns, while potential critics would likely focus on safety, environmental review, and fiscal controls.