Existing law makes it a crime for a person who operates or uses to operate or use an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or emergency or military personnel, and thereby impedes impede the emergency or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency. Existing law excuses a local public entity or public employee from liability for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was providing, and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any emergency service, as specified. Existing law imposes liability for physical invasion of privacy on a person if the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any image or recording of the other person engaging in a private activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

This bill would authorize a local agency to impose a civil penalty not exceeding $75,000 upon prohibit a person who operates or uses from operating or using an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impedes impeding firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties, unless the person has a federal operational waiver, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a county counsel or city attorney to bring civil action to enforce the prohibition and authorize a prevailing plaintiff to recover civil penalties, injunctive relief, or reasonable attorneys fees and costs, as specified.

Existing law makes it a crime for a person who operates or uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or emergency or military personnel, and thereby impedes the emergency or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency. Existing law excuses a local public entity or public employee from liability for damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity or public employee of a local public entity was providing, and the unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any emergency service, as specified.

This bill would authorize a local agency to impose a civil penalty not exceeding $75,000 upon a person who operates or uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties, unless the person has a federal operational waiver, as specified.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 426 (Dixon) - Impeding emergency response with drone

Bill Summary:

AB 426 creates a civil penalty for using a drone at the scene of an emergency.

Fiscal Impact:

• Unknown, potentially significant costs to the state funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate civil actions. Creating a new cause of action that allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees and statutory damages, may lead to additional case filings that otherwise would not have been commenced. Expanding civil penalties could lead to lengthier and more complex court proceedings with attendant workload and resource costs to the court. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.
  
• Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund, local funds, special funds) to state and local prosecutors to prosecute civil enforcement actions for violations of this bill.

Background:

Under existing law it is a misdemeanor to go to the scene of an emergency, or stop at the scene of an emergency, for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that person’s employment to view that scene or those activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency. (Pen. Code, § 402.)

Proposed Law:

• Makes it unlawful to operate or use an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impede firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties.
• Authorizes the Attorney General or a county counsel or city attorney may bring a civil enforcement action. The prevailing plaintiff in an action may recover any of the following in any court of competent jurisdiction:
  • A civil penalty not exceeding $75,000 for each violation;
  • Injunctive relief; and,
  • Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
• Exempts a person who has been granted an Operational Waiver issued by the Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 426

Author:(Dixon)

As Amended Ver:April 2, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a person who operates a drone at the site of an emergency that obstructs the emergency response and authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring civil actions, as specified, for each violation.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits the operation or use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at a location where an emergency is occurring that prevents emergency personnel from performing fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties.
2. Authorizes the Attorney General or a county counsel or a city attorney to bring civil actions to enforce the above prohibition and authorizes the following for each violation:
   1. A civil penalty of up to $75,000
   2. Injunctive Relief
   3. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs
3. Grants an exception to a person with a Part 107 Operational Waiver issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, as specified.

COMMENTS

Equity Impact: According to the author's staff, "With unauthorized drones becoming more accessible at lower prices, more people will have access to the airspace. Federal authorities have emphasized it is the responsibility of drone owners to know the rules, so it is important for drone owners to do their research. There are many organizations and websites that have public resources on the laws and rules about flying drones and the laws/regulations at both the state and federal level."

Background: Firefighting aircraft play a crucial role in wildfire suppression by delivering water and fire retardant, as well as transporting personnel. Firefighting aircraft operate at very low altitudes—often just a few hundred feet above the ground—the same airspace where drones are typically flown. This creates a significant risk of midair collisions or pilot distractions that could lead to serious or fatal accidents. When unauthorized drones enter wildfire airspace, fire agencies often have to ground the firefighting aircraft to prevent midair collisions.

Suspending air operations can reduce the effectiveness of suppression efforts, allowing wildfires to grow larger and move into untreated terrain, thus endangering both firefighters and the public. Additionally, if a drone loses its communication link, it could crash and injure firefighters or civilians below.

To increase public awareness of these dangers, the U.S. Forest Service and USDA launched the "If You Fly, We Can't" campaign, emphasizing the importance of keeping drones away from wildfire areas.

Documented Cases: According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), more than 100 documented cases of unauthorized drones interfering with wildfire response nationwide in recent years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2019, at least 20 documented instances of unauthorized drone flights in seven states—including at least three in California—resulted in the shutdown of aerial firefighting operations on nine occasions. More recently, during the 2025 Palisades Fire, a drone crashed into a Super Scooper aircraft, a firefighting aircraft that can carry and drop up to 1,500 gallons of water at a time. The drone damaged the Super Scooper's left wing, causing a hole and requiring the plane to be grounded for several days. This aircraft also held two firefighters, placing their safety at risk, as well as the safety of anyone on the ground below if the pilot could not land the plane. 

Federal Penalties: Federal law imposes strict penalties on individuals who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts. Violators can face up to 12 months in prison for disrupting firefighting operations on public lands. Additionally, Congress has authorized the FAA to impose civil fines of up to $75,000 against drone operators who conduct unsafe or unauthorized operations. This may include any interference with wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response operations.

According to the Author

"AB 426 is a necessary tool for our emergency services when unauthorized drones impede on wildfire suppression. According to the U.S. Forest Service, there were nine public drone incursions that resulted in the grounding of aerial firefighting efforts. Recently with the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a drone crashed into a firefighting Super Scooper plane, leaving a hole in the wing and grounding the aircraft for several days. Not only are the repairs to the specialized equipment costly, but an aircraft or multiple aircrafts being grounded for an unspecified amount of time can be life threatening."

Arguments in Support

The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) writes in support, "Recent events, such as the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles County, have demonstrated the need for legislation such as AB 426. During those fires, unauthorized drone operators flying in the region of the fires on at least one occasion impeded critical, life-saving work underway by first responders. AB 426 would provide local agencies with the ability to impose fines upon a person who operates or uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties. The fine, in an amount of up to $75,000, would serve to deter those who might otherwise risk the misdemeanor offense that is currently established in statute. In this way, AB 426 assists first responders and other emergency personnel in the execution of their operations and helps reduce the risk of civilian interference."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Negligible costs to the AG.
2. Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially up to $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action to enforce a prohibition on operating a drone at the scene of an emergency. It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a need for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2024 included $37.3 million ongoing GF to backfill declining TCTF revenue.

VOTES

ASM EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: 7-0-0

YES: Ransom, Hadwick, Arambula, Bains, Bennett, Calderon, DeMaio

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Macedo, Pacheco, Lee, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 2, 2025

CONSULTANT: Ryan Fleming / E.M. / (916) 319-3802 FN: 0000625

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 426

Author:(Dixon) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits a person from operating or using a drone at the scene of an emergency and impeding emergency personnel, unless the person has a federal operational waiver.

This bill authorizes the Attorney General (AG) or a county counsel or city attorney to bring a civil action to enforce the prohibition and authorizes a prevailing plaintiff to recover a civil penalty of up to $75,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Negligible costs to the AG.
2. Annual cost pressures (General Fund (GF) or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)) of an unknown amount, potentially up to $150,000, to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action to enforce a prohibition on operating a drone at the scene of an emergency. It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide, but the estimated workload cost of one hour of court time is $1,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a need for increased court funding from the GF to perform existing duties. The Budget Act of 2024 included $37.3 million ongoing GF to backfill declining TCTF revenue.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 426 is a necessary tool for our emergency services when unauthorized drones impede on wildfire suppression. According to the U.S. Forest Service, there were nine public drone incursions that resulted in the grounding of aerial firefighting efforts. Recently with the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a drone crashed into a firefighting Super Scooper plane, leaving a hole in the wing and grounding the aircraft for several days. Not only are the repairs to the specialized equipment costly, but an aircraft or multiple aircrafts being grounded for an unspecified amount of time can be life threatening.

This bill is supported by local government and law enforcement associations.

1. Impeding Emergency Response. Existing federal law provides that an individual operating a drone who knowingly or recklessly interferes with wildfire suppression is liable for a fine or up to two years of imprisonment. Existing state law imposes misdemeanor criminal liability on an individual at the scene of an emergency for the sole purpose of witnessing the emergency who impedes the ability of emergency responders to do their jobs. This criminal liability extends to an individual who impedes the emergency response by flying a drone over or around the site of an emergency. This bill explicitly prohibits a person from operating a drone at the scene of an emergency that impedes the ability of emergency responders to perform their duties, with civil enforcement by the AG or a county counsel or city attorney.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 426

Author:(Dixon) – As Amended Ver:April 2, 2025

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Impeding emergency response with drone

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD A PERSON BE HELD CIVILLY LIABLE FOR OPERATING OR USING A DRONE AT THE SCENE OF AN EMERGENCY in a manner THAT IMPEDES EMERGENCY RESPONDERS IN PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES?

SYNOPSIS

In January of this year, the Los Angeles area experienced a devastating wildfire complex, made up in part by the Eaton and Palisades fires. The Palisades fire burned more than 23,000 acres, destroyed nearly 7,000 structures, and resulted in at least 13 deaths. The emergency response to the blazes included CalFire dispatches of personnel and equipment, as well as requisitions from neighboring jurisdictions, and federal aid. On at least one occasion, a drone operated by a private individual damaged an emergency response “super scooper,” an amphibious aircraft often used in fighting wildfires to scoop water out of nearby bodies of water to drop on wildfires. Drones often prevent wildfire firefighters from operating aircraft, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

This bill would prohibit anyone from operating a drone at the scene of an emergency that impedes the ability of emergency responders to perform their duties. The bill provides for enforcement of its provisions through a civil claim brought by the Attorney General, a county counsel, or city attorney, and authorizes recovery of a civil penalty of up to $75,000 per violation, as well as an order of injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs.

The bill is supported by the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) and the California State Sheriffs’ Association. There is no known opposition. This bill was previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management where it passed on a unanimous vote of 7-0.

SUMMARY: Imposes civil liability on any person who flies an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone, at the scene of an emergency and impedes emergency responders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a person from operating or using an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impeding firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties.
2. Authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring a civil action to enforce 1) and authorizes a prevailing plaintiff to recover any of the following in any court of competent jurisdiction:
   1. A civil penalty not exceeding $75,000 for each violation;
   2. Injunctive relief;
   3. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems as follows:
   1. “Unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft;
   2. “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system. (Government Code Section 853.5.)
2. Exempts a local public entity and local public employees from liability for damage caused to an unmanned aircraft if the damage was caused while providing emergency services, as specified, and the unmanned aircraft interfered, as specified. (Government Code Section 853.)
3. Declares each person at the scene of an emergency with the intention to view the emergency, as specified, that impedes the emergency response personnel in responding to the emergency, as specified, including the operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone, guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code Section 402.)
4. Exempts an emergency responder from liability for damage caused to an unmanned aircraft if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing emergency services, as specified, and the unmanned aircraft interfered, as specified. (Civil Code Section 43.101.)
5. Makes an individual who operates an unmanned aircraft and knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, or law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to a wildfire suppression, liable for a fine as defined or imprisonment for up to two years, or both. (18 U.S.C. Section 40a.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: In January of this year, the Los Angeles area experienced a devastating wildfire complex, made up in part by the Eaton and Palisades fires. The Palisades fire burned more than 23,000 acres, destroyed nearly 7,000 structures, and resulted in at least 13 deaths. (Cal-Fire, Palisades Fire available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2025/1/7/palisades-fire#:~:text=973,Confirmed%20Firefighter%20Injuries.) The emergency response to the blazes included CalFire dispatches of personnel and equipment, as well as requisitions from neighboring jurisdictions and federal aid. On at least one occasion, a drone operated by a private individual damaged an emergency response “super scooper,” an amphibious aircraft often used in fighting wildfires to scoop water out of nearby bodies of water to drop on wildfires. (United States Attorney’s Office Central District of California, Culver City Man Agrees to Plead Guilty to Recklessly Crashing Drone into Super Scooper Firefighting Aircraft During Palisades Fire (January 31, 2025) available at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/culver-city-man-agrees-plead-guilty-recklessly-crashing-drone-super-scooper.) Drones often prevent wildfire firefighters from operating aircraft, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “Sadly, these incidents occur on a regular basis. In recent years, there have been more than 100 documented cases of unauthorized drones flying near wildfires. Your photos and video footage of the wildfires are not worth the lives and crucial operations they jeopardize. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) says it best: If You Fly, We Can’t.” https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/resources/community_engagement/FAA_drones_wildfires_toolkit.pdf.) According to the author:

AB 426 is a necessary tool for our emergency services when unauthorized drones impede on wildfire suppression. According to the U.S. Forest Service, there were nine public drone incursions that resulted in the grounding of aerial firefighting efforts. Recently with the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a drone crashed into a firefighting Super Scooper plane, leaving a hole in the wing and grounding the aircraft for several days. Not only are the repairs to the specialized equipment costly, but an aircraft or multiple aircrafts being grounded for an unspecified amount of time can be life threatening.

Existing law already imposes criminal liability on individuals who show up to the scene of an emergency solely for the purpose of witnessing the emergency and in doing so frustrate the ability of emergency responders to do their jobs. (Penal Code Section 402.) This liability also applies to individuals who fly drones over or around the site of an emergency and impede the emergency response. Additionally, federal law imposes additional criminal liability on individuals who operate drones and knowingly or recklessly interfere with wildfire suppression. There is no corresponding civil liability in state law, however.

This bill would prohibit anyone from operating a drone at the scene of an emergency that impedes the ability of emergency responders to perform their duties. The bill provides for enforcement of its provisions through a civil claim brought by the Attorney General, a county counsel, or city attorney, and authorizes recovery of a civil penalty of up to $75,000 per violation, as well as an order of injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs.

Considering the significant threat to successful emergency response efforts posed by recreational drone use, creating civil liability that mirrors existing criminal liability seems a measured approach to ensuring the safety and success of the State’s emergency response teams.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The bill is supported by the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) and the California State Sheriffs’ Association. In support of the measure CSDA submits:

Recent events, such as the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles County, have demonstrated the need for legislation such as AB 426. During those fires, unauthorized drone operators flying in the region of the fires on at least one occasion impeded critical, life-saving work underway by first responders. AB 426 would provide local agencies with the ability to impose fines upon a person who operates or uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in the performance of their fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties. The fine, in an amount of up to $75,000, would serve to deter those who might otherwise risk the misdemeanor offense that is currently established in statute. In this way, AB 426 assists first responders and other emergency personnel in the execution of their operations and helps reduce the risk of civilian interference.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Special Districts Association
California State Sheriffs' Association

California Police Chiefs Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: April 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Rhodesia Ransom, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 426 (

Author:Dixon) – As Introduced Ver:February 5, 2025

SUBJECT: Local agencies: civil penalty for impeding emergency response with drone

SUMMARY: Prohibits a person who operates a drone at the site of an emergency that obstructs the emergency response and authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring civil actions, as specified, for each violation.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the operation or use of an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone at a location where an emergency is occurring that prevents emergency personnel from performing fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties.
2. Authorizes the Attorney General or a county counsel or a city attorney to bring civil actions to enforce the above prohibition and authorizes the following for each violation:
   1. A civil penalty of up to $75,000
   2. Injunctive Relief
   3. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs
3. Grants an exception to a person with a Part 107 Operational Waiver issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems, as specified. (Government Code § 853.5)
2. Declares each person at the scene of an emergency with the intention to view the emergency, as specified, that impedes the emergency response personnel in responding to the emergency, as specified, including the operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone, guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402)
3. Exempts an emergency responder from liability for damage caused to an unmanned aircraft if the damage was caused while the emergency responder was providing emergency services, as specified, and the unmanned aircraft interfered, as specified. ( Civil Code § 43.101)
4. Exempts a local public entity and local public employees from liability for damage caused to an unmanned aircraft if the damage was caused while providing emergency services, as specified, and the unmanned aircraft interfered, as specified. Government Code § 853)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. A fiscal committee has not heard this bill.

COMMENTS:

Purpose of this bill: According to the author, “AB 426 is a necessary tool for our emergency services when unauthorized drones impede on wildfire suppression. According to the U.S. Forest Service, there were nine public drone incursions that resulted in the grounding of aerial firefighting efforts. Recently with the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a drone crashed into a firefighting Super Scooper plane, leaving a hole in the wing and grounding the aircraft for several days. Not only are the repairs to the specialized equipment costly, but an aircraft or multiple aircrafts being grounded for an unspecified amount of time can be life threatening.”

Equity Impact: According to the author’s staff, “With unauthorized drones becoming more accessible at lower prices, more people will have access to the airspace. Federal authorities have emphasized it is the responsibility of drone owners to know the rules, so it is important for drone owners to do their research. There are many organizations and websites that have public resources on the laws and rules about flying drones and the laws/regulations at both the state and federal level.”

Background: Firefighting aircraft play a crucial role in wildfire suppression by delivering water and fire retardant, as well as transporting personnel. Firefighting aircraft operate at very low altitudes—often just a few hundred feet above the ground—the same airspace where drones are typically flown. This creates a significant risk of midair collisions or pilot distractions that could lead to serious or fatal accidents. When unauthorized drones enter wildfire airspace, fire agencies often have to ground the firefighting aircraft to prevent midair collisions.

Suspending air operations can reduce the effectiveness of suppression efforts, allowing wildfires to grow larger and move into untreated terrain, thus endangering both firefighters and the public. Additionally, if a drone loses its communication link, it could crash and injure firefighters or civilians below.

To increase public awareness of these dangers, the U.S. Forest Service and USDA launched the "If You Fly, We Can’t" campaign, emphasizing the importance of keeping drones away from wildfire areas.

Documented Cases: According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), more than 100 documented cases of unauthorized drones interfering with wildfire response nationwide in recent years. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2019, at least 20 documented instances of unauthorized drone flights in seven states—including at least 3 in California—resulted in the shutdown of aerial firefighting operations on nine occasions. More recently, during the 2025 Palisades Fire, a drone crashed into a Super Scooper aircraft, a firefighting aircraft that can carry and drop up to 1,500 gallons of water at a time. The drone damaged the Super Scooper’s left wing, causing a hole and requiring the plane to be grounded for several days. This aircraft also held two firefighters, placing their safety at risk, as well as the safety of anyone on the ground below if the pilot could not land the plane. 

Temporary Flight Restrictions: The FAA frequently establishes Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) around wildfires to protect firefighting aircraft. All unauthorized aircraft, including drones, are prohibited from entering these restricted areas unless operated by a firefighting agency. However, even when a TFR is not in place, interfering with wildfire suppression is still a federal crime.

Federal Penalties: Federal law imposes strict penalties on individuals who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts. Violators can face up to 12 months in prison for disrupting firefighting operations on public lands. Additionally, Congress has authorized the FAA to impose civil fines of up to $75,000 against drone operators who conduct unsafe or unauthorized operations. This may include any interference with wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response operations.

Part 107 FAA Regulations and Waivers:  To fly a drone under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107), the drone operator must obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate from the FAA. This certificate demonstrates that the operator understands the regulations, operating requirements, and procedures for safely flying drones. An operator may apply for a waiver, an official document issued by the FAA, which approves certain aircraft operations outside the limitations of the Part 107 regulations.

Double referral: Should this bill be approved, it will be referred to the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 807 (Gaines) Chapter 834, Statutes of 2016. Grants civil immunity to local public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority granted by a local public entity that damage an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the course of providing emergency services

AB 1680 (Rodriguez) Chapter 817, Statutes of 2016. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a drone to impede specified emergency personnel in the performance of their duties while coping with an emergency.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file.

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Fleming / E.M. / (916) 319-3802