Guest Commentary written by

Wendy-Sue Rosen

Wendy-Sue Rosen is a land use and environmental policy consultant.

As a wildfire survivor, I’m passionate about reducing wildfire risk. 

More than a year after I evacuated my house in the Palisades Fire, I remain displaced. My house survived the wildfire, but it’s uninhabitable after fire retardant laden with toxic heavy metals was dropped onto our neighborhood. 

Though I’m eager to see California adopt regulations that would reduce future fire risk, I’ve witnessed how rushing wildfire mitigation projects carries its own risks. These projects must be implemented responsibly and with protections for public health, the environment and biodiversity. 

Newly introduced Senate Bill 1370, by state Sens. Henry Stern and Josh Becker, would do the opposite. It would waive most state environmental regulations for projects related to wildfire prevention.

Projects that involve herbicide spraying, tree or native species removal, and the clearance of up to 3,000 acres would no longer have to comply with state water and air quality laws, endangered species protections, the California Environmental Quality Act and other laws.

SB 1370 would codify in state law Gov. Gavin Newsom’s temporary emergency proclamation that removed the requirements of most state environmental regulations for wildfire mitigation. 

The potential for harm becomes clear when you examine the state’s dashboard of existing projects receiving fast-tracked permitting by the Newsom administration. Most projects led by Southern California Edison, the electric utility that serves much of Southern California, describe applying herbicides to remove vegetation. Commonly used herbicides like Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are toxic to a wide range of animals. Studies have linked them to cancer, respiratory disease and neurological disorders. 

The bill, if passed, would waive state laws that protect against herbicide harm, including smoke minimization guidelines for burning, endangered species protections and water and air quality regulations. These protections have existed for years and prohibit spraying near drinking water supplies and trees. 

Vulnerable ecosystems and neighboring communities will pay the price for waiving these safeguards. An example is the Blodgett Forest Fuel Reduction Project in El Dorado Forest, which proposes using herbicides on up to 471 acres to achieve a reduction in shrubs. Blodgett Forest is a wildlife hotspot for more than 400 species of plants and 150 species of animals. 

Waterways cross into the project site in El Dorado County, where about 42% of the population uses private wells. These wells rely on shallow water sources, which can be directly affected by the quality of nearby groundwater, especially if it’s contaminated by herbicides. 

The guidelines these fast-tracked projects follow are extremely lax. Projects have no requirement to be cost-effective or reduce wildfire risk, which is concerning given that was the original intent for relaxing the regulations.

The state’s dashboard contains little to no information about what environmental protections were required or implemented for each project. There is little public transparency or accountability and few ways for communities to make their concerns known about potential project impacts on health and the environment. Also the Statewide Fuels Reduction Environmental Protection Plan that projects have to abide by is weak and oftentimes optional.

This would all take place as the state regulation rollbacks would be happening at the same time protections are being gutted at the federal level. The U.S. Forest Service and timber corporations are set to spray record levels of glyphosate in California’s forests. And the Trump administration recently finalized a rule that would gut the national Endangered Species Act, opening up habitat to mining and logging across the country. 

California needs to stand up to federal rollbacks and keep our state protections strong, not waive them for risky projects. Instead it is waiving environmental protection for projects that could harm our ecosystems and expose communities to cancer-causing herbicides. 

The state should invest in home hardening and the smart siting of structures. But SB 1370 misses the mark for ensuring a wildfire-resilient future.