I write on behalf of a victim of the Woolsey Fire who desires to rebuild the only house he has ever owned and about a regulation that gravely impacts him and other victims of the Woolsey Fire who seek to rebuild their devastated Malibu homes. This regulation, which by any measure is inappropriate and unnecessary, also happens to be unconstitutional.
I refer to the Los Angeles County’s fire flow ordinance, which seeks to require a water flow of 1,250 gallons per minute for two hours for rebuilt homes in the Woolsey Fire burn area. But it is admitted by the county water district that it simply cannot provide a flow of that volume for two hours. Unable to meet this requirement due to no fault of their own, Woolsey Fire victims in Malibu cannot rebuild and are therefore victimized a second time.
If the ordinance is not revised, individuals who seek to rebuild their devastated homes have a claim against the County of Los Angeles for an unconstitutional regulatory taking of their property. There is clear precedent for this, and that is exactly what has taken place in some communities. For example, in Rancho Palos Verdes, homeowners sued and won over a requirement that effectively curtailed all building on certain parcels. That is the equivalent of what will happen in Malibu unless the unrealistic and impossible-to-satisfy flow requirement is changed. I had the privilege of filing a lawsuit this week on behalf of former Congressman David Dreier against Edison. Unless the ordinance is revised, he and other landowners will also have a claim against the county for preventing rebuilding of their destroyed homes.
I understand the County of Los Angeles is engaged in discussions and may be working toward a solution. I very much hope that the resulting remedy is not too little or too late.
Kenneth R. Chiate