Noah Haggerty, an environment and science reporter with LA Times, moderated the second panel of the day, which included:
- Greg Pierce, Senior Director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation;
- Faith Kearns, Director of Research Communications at the ASU Arizona Water Innovation Initiative;
- Mike Antos, Principal Integrated Water Management Specialist with Stantec Consulting; and
- Edith de Guzman, Water Equity and Adaptation Policy Cooperative Extension Specialist with UC Agriculture and Natural Resources
This panel discussion wasn't about eliminating wildfires—a goal that's neither possible nor even desirable, given their ecological role. It focused on reducing destruction and preventing loss of life.
In the wake of the LA fires, water infrastructure became "a very convenient punching bag." But scapegoating systems that were never designed to stop urban conflagrations leads to the wrong investments, the wrong policies, and a public that remains dangerously unprepared.
The challenge: Haggerty offered a metaphor borrowed from the general manager of a local water district: imagine a coffee shop that serves 300 cups a day, then gets asked to produce 40,000 cups in a single day.
In January 2025, LA's water systems performed nearly identically to those in every major wildfire before it. The "hydrants ran dry" narrative was politically charged and largely misleading—but it stuck. And it revealed a gap in the research in this area.
Panelists discussed an ongoing effort by UCLA, a working group convened in the wake of the fires to look at the challenges facing water infrastructure in a new era of climate-driven fires.
The question isn't whether it's technically possible to build water systems that can fight catastrophic urban fires. It's whether that's a reasonable, affordable thing to ask of infrastructure designed and priced for an entirely different purpose.
The bottom line: The menu of infrastructure options—more reservoirs, upsized pipes, backup power, system interconnectivity, private on-site water storage—exists. None of it is cheap, and none of it changes the underlying math: water systems were built for drinking, not for stopping entire neighborhoods from burning. The honest work ahead is helping communities understand how much risk they are actually willing to live with, and building the trust required to have that conversation.