WOODLAND, Calif. — Yolo County officials are pushing back against several conclusions in the Civil Grand Jury’s report on the deadly Oakdale Fire, arguing that investigators lacked critical information that later emerged in a criminal case alleging a years-long scheme to deceive federal, state and local regulators about a fireworks operation near Esparto.
The Yolo County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday formally adopted the county’s response to the Grand Jury report examining the July 1, 2025, Oakdale Fire, which killed seven people and devastated families and communities across Yolo County.
According to the county, the Grand Jury completed its work before prosecutors unveiled felony charges against several individuals connected to the fireworks businesses associated with the property where the explosion occurred.
“The Oakdale Fire was a profound tragedy for the families and loved ones of the seven people who were killed, and it has forever affected the Esparto and wider Yolo County communities,” the county states in its response.
The county further argues that “the victims’ families and the public deserve a full and accurate account grounded in a complete record and supported by evidence.”
At the center of the dispute is whether county officials possessed information that should have alerted them to the existence of a fireworks manufacturing and storage operation at the rural Esparto property before the catastrophic explosion.
The county’s response contends that the Grand Jury’s investigation was completed before significant developments in the criminal case became public and before prosecutors alleged a broader pattern of deception by those operating the businesses.
“The County’s response states that the Grand Jury completed its work before significant information became available and that several conclusions about County staff and the Board are not supported by the evidence,” according to the adopted response.
The criminal case filed by the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office alleges that individuals connected to the fireworks businesses engaged in a long-running criminal enterprise that concealed the nature and scope of their activities from government agencies.
According to the county’s response, “the indictments allege a years-long criminal enterprise built and maintained through deception of federal, state, and local officials, including the County.”
While emphasizing that the criminal allegations have yet to be tested in court, county officials argue the charges provide important context that was unavailable to the Grand Jury during its investigation.
“Those allegations remain to be proven in court, but they provide important context that was not available to the Grand Jury,” the response states.
The county also directly challenges any suggestion that local officials knowingly permitted fireworks activities at the site.
“The County approved no fireworks activity at the property and received no notice when state or federal licenses were issued or renewed,” the response states.
County officials further maintain that “the Board had no information about the fireworks operation before the Oakdale Fire.”
Those assertions appear aimed at rebutting implications that county decision-makers failed to act on known information or ignored warning signs about activities occurring at the property before the explosion.
The county’s response also rejects findings that it believes rely on assumptions rather than documented evidence.
“The County rejects conclusions that rely on speculation or an incomplete record,” the response states.
The Civil Grand Jury report, released earlier this year, examined county oversight and regulatory processes connected to the property and made a series of findings and recommendations directed at county government. Under California law, public agencies receiving Grand Jury findings are required to formally respond to the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
Although county officials dispute portions of the report, they said they agree with recommendations intended to improve county operations.
“Where the Grand Jury identifies practical ways to strengthen County programs, procedures, training, coordination, documentation, and oversight, the County agrees and is taking action,” the response states.
The county said those efforts are already underway and are detailed in the full response adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
The response addresses every finding and recommendation directed to the Board and county departments, as required by state law.
Tuesday’s action represents the county’s most comprehensive public rebuttal to date of conclusions reached by the Grand Jury regarding the Oakdale Fire and the circumstances leading up to it. The response signals that county leaders intend to challenge findings they believe are unsupported while simultaneously accepting recommendations aimed at improving government procedures and oversight.
The broader questions surrounding responsibility for the Oakdale Fire are likely to continue to be examined through ongoing criminal proceedings. Prosecutors have charged several individuals connected to the fireworks businesses with felony offenses, including murder, in connection with the explosion. Those cases remain pending, and the allegations have not been proven in court.
As those criminal cases move forward, county officials maintain that the factual record available today differs substantially from the one reviewed by Grand Jury investigators and that any assessment of the county’s role must take into account information that emerged only after the Grand Jury completed its work.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
It’s not surprising that the Supes are denying the charges — that’s standard self-insured public agency practice — but they’re going to have a hard time defending themselves in court given the see-no-evil actions of the fire and building departments that occurred long before the fire.
The timeline is curious…
March 26, 2026 – Civil Grand Jury releases its report, “Esparto Fireworks Explosion: Officials Knew, None Acted.”
April 10, 2026 – Reisig’s office announces indictments against eight defendants in the Esparto fireworks case after what he described as a massive investigation.
May 6, 2026 – Reisig unexpectedly announces his retirement.
May 15, 2026 – Retirement becomes effective.
June 23, 2026 – Board of Supervisors adopts the county response challenging major findings of the grand jury report.