Water district liable for cost of Piru fire

State agency ruled immune by appeals court

An appeals court has ruled the United Water Conservation District cannot avoid paying the $3.87 million cost of fighting the 2003 Piru fire by claiming a state firefighting agency botched the task of putting out the blaze when it was small.

The brush fire near Lake Piru was accidentally started by an employee of the water district. Firefighters from the agency now known as Cal Fire had the blaze 90 percent contained in two days, when fire bosses began sending firefighters home.

Then the fire expanded, spreading to 64,000 acres before it burned itself out within fire lines 10 days later.

The state billed the district for the $3.87 million cost of fighting the blaze under a state law that holds those who start fires responsible for the cost of extinguishing them.

The water district argued that, since the state agency was partly responsible for the bigger fire, it should also be partly liable for the cost of putting it out.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel in Ventura ruled Monday that Cal Fire has absolute immunity from damages claims even if it made mistakes fighting the fire. Under the laws of every state, firefighters are immune from lawsuits even if they arrive late or otherwise mishandle an emergency call.

The court extended firefighters' immunity from damage liability to a broader immunity from responsibility for causing the big blaze, a ruling that surprised one local legal expert.

"That means that no judge or jury will ever decide just how badly the state fire agency may have acted, and leaves 100 percent of the liability with the water district even though it might not be 100 percent responsible," said John J. Thyne III, a civil procedure professor at the Ventura College of Law.

Thyne said the concept of firefighters' immunity stems from a longstanding desire of the state's voters to limit the exposure of taxpayers to claims that firefighters may perform poorly and to eliminate the potential of judges or juries second-guessing firefighters' tactics.

A lawyer representing the water district said he was still analyzing the decision and would need to consult with the water board before commenting. The district's general manager could not be reached for comment.

The water district, with a $12 million annual budget, manages groundwater and surface water in much of the Santa Clara River basin, provides drinking water to the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme, and supplies irrigation water to many farms in the county.

Source: Ventura County Star