California’s wildfire bills need water safeguards written into law

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — The Trump administration is promoting the herbicide glyphosate as the U.S. Forest Service expands its use on California public lands. Now, wildfire bills could fast-track comparable herbicide-treatment projects without requiring baseline water testing or downstream monitoring.

Senate Bill 1370 would create a consolidated, expedited process for covered wildfire-mitigation projects. It would exempt covered projects from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California’s main environmental review law, and allow waivers of specified requirements. 

Assembly Bill 2410 would exempt qualifying fuels-reduction projects from CEQA if they comply with the 2025 Statewide Fuels Reduction Environmental Protection Plan and specified conditions. 

SB1370 excludes herbicide treatment from its covered-project pathway; AB 2410’s CEQA exemption does not itself establish uniform, water-specific safeguards wherever herbicide treatment is authorized. 

California’s own record shows why lawmakers must require water safeguards before accelerating or exempting herbicide-treatment projects.

In July, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) replaced — for the first time since 1991 — its method for determining which pesticides belong on its Groundwater Protection List, the registry that triggers formal follow-up when a pesticide is detected in groundwater. DPR’s rulemaking record shows it reviewed 480 chemicals, added 52 and removed 32.

Glyphosate and its primary breakdown product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), were not added. The published rulemaking record shows no glyphosate or AMPA evaluation under the new procedure; no score or reason appears. 

This omission matters because glyphosate is widely used in California forests, aquatic areas, and watersheds draining to drinking-water sources; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies herbicide runoff as a source in drinking water. 

For listed pesticides, an unequivocal groundwater detection triggers a written determination within 90 days on whether it resulted from lawful agricultural use. Glyphosate and AMPA are unlisted. That requirement does not apply to them. 

DPR’s 2024 annual report recorded glyphosate at 42 parts per billion — about 42 drops in 13,000 gallons — in a San Bernardino County agricultural well. The report compared it with California’s 700 parts per billion drinking-water limit and identified it as 1,200 times DPR’s lower screening level. The report states: “DPR will evaluate.” As of publication, I have found no posted evaluation or written determination. 

California’s monitoring record shows repeated unanswered questions. DPR’s 2021 well-network update said it analyzed 59 Fresno and Tulare County wells with a Glyphosate Screen, with results due in 2023. The 2023 update had no screen results. DPR’s record offers no explanation.

Study 332, begun in November 2021 to characterize glyphosate movement through leaching-vulnerable California soils, was due in November 2022. DPR’s study page posts only the protocol; no results have been published. 

DPR did not respond to multiple requests for comment about the missing screen, unpublished study, San Bernardino determination and glyphosate’s new-procedure score. Those unanswered questions matter because Trout Creek and the Upper Truckee River carry runoff from the Caldor Fire burn area in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the lake — a drinking-water source. 

The 2021 Caldor Fire burned over 220,000 acres, threatening South Lake Tahoe and forcing evacuation. The Forest Service’s 11,700-acre project authorizes glyphosate treatment and restoration work within and adjacent to Trout Creek (a Lake Tahoe tributary); the decision documents identify no baseline water-monitoring requirement. The Forest Service cited the Williams, Kroes, and Munro review in its POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) and human-health analysis. The 2000 assessment concluded that glyphosate was safe for human health under expected conditions of use.

In November 2025, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted the review, citing undisclosed Monsanto co-writing, unpublished company studies, and serious ethical concerns about authorship. The Forest Service’s March 2026 Decision Notice retained the assessment. 

Lisa Herron, public affairs specialist for the USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, wrote by email that the retraction “didn’t change the broader scientific understanding or the regulatory standards we follow.” The agency wrote that it “did not identify a realistic way for herbicide to reach” Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat or a need for additional downstream analysis. KUNR reported that the Forest Service said no herbicide use is planned for 2026 or 2027. 

What’s happening in the Caldor Fire burn area shows why lawmakers must require those safeguards before granting accelerated or exempt authority for herbicide treatment. 

California does not lack agencies charged with protecting water. It lacks a system willing to require proof before accepting assurances. Legislators, regulators and public boards should not waive review, or accept claims that glyphosate will not reach water, and then decline to require testing that could prove or disprove them. 

When the Legislature grants accelerated or exempt authority, it must put safeguards into the bill: notice, baseline testing, time-bound downstream monitoring, independent review, public reporting and defined corrective action. 

Before Gov. Gavin Newsom signs similar legislation, that legislation must include those conditions wherever it authorizes herbicide treatment. Safeguards require proof. Omitting them leaves water unprotected. 

Katherine Levy lives in Tahoe Vista, California. She covers California environmental policy, public lands, and state and federal agency accountability.