An act to amend Section 91510 of the Public Resources Code, relating to wildfire prevention.
SB 90 would expand the list of eligible uses for the $135 million wildfire mitigation grant program funded by Proposition 4 (the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024). The bill keeps the program within the Office of Emergency Services, working with CAL FIRE, and allows grants, loans, rebates, direct assistance, and matching funds for wildfire prevention and resilience projects that benefit disadvantaged, severely disadvantaged, or vulnerable communities.
The bill adds several specific project types to the existing grant categories. These include improvements to public evacuation routes in very high and high fire hazard severity zones, mobile rigid dip tanks and prepositioned mobile rigid water storage for firefighting, improvements to the effectiveness of fire engines and helicopters, and backup electrical generators for water reservoirs in coordination with the Public Utilities Commission. It also continues to support home hardening, critical infrastructure hardening, wildfire smoke mitigation, clean air centers, water delivery improvements for fire suppression, and zero-emission backup power, energy storage, and microgrids.
SB 90 would amend Section 91510 of the Public Resources Code, refining the eligible uses of Proposition 4 wildfire mitigation funds without changing the overall size of the grant program. It would broaden the types of projects that local agencies, state agencies, tribes, special districts, nonprofits, and related entities may seek funding for, especially projects tied to evacuation, firefighting logistics, water supply reliability, and backup power. The bill also reinforces prioritization for Fire Risk Reduction Communities and technical assistance for disadvantaged and vulnerable populations.
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage and no recorded opposition. The bill advanced through committee with recommendations to consent calendar and was later placed on suspense file, indicating it was treated as a fiscal measure with policy support but subject to budgetary review. No committee transcript is available, so the public discussion record here does not show detailed debate or opposition.
The main policy questions appear to be about how broadly to define eligible wildfire mitigation projects and whether the added categories—such as evacuation route improvements, mobile rigid dip tanks, mobile rigid water storage, and backup generators for reservoirs—are the best uses of limited bond funds. Because the bill is tied to a bond-funded grant program and was placed on suspense file, fiscal capacity and prioritization of projects are likely the most significant points of contention, even though the recorded votes show no formal dissent. The bill also implicitly raises implementation questions about coordination between OES, CAL FIRE, and the Public Utilities Commission, and about how funds will be targeted to high-risk and disadvantaged communities.