A year after the deadly Esparto fireworks explosion, Yolo County is pushing back hard against a grand jury report that found county officials knew about an illegal operation and did nothing to stop it. The July 1, 2025 blast killed seven workers and left scorched earth and difficult questions in its wake—but the county’s response this week suggests the real story is far more complicated than negligence.
The grand jury, in a March report titled“Officials Knew, None Acted,”concluded that various county officials were aware of illegal fireworks businesses operating at the Esparto site for at least three years. The finding seemed straightforward: the county had banned fireworks operations in unincorporated areas since 2001, no code enforcement happened, and the lack of oversight led directly to“death and destruction.”But Yolo County’s Board of Supervisors isn’t buying it—and they have a compelling counter-argument about timing and deception.
Here’s the key: the grand jury finished its investigation before criminal indictments revealed the full scope of what was actually happening. In April, the District Attorney filed charges against eight people connected to the operation, with five facing murder counts. Those indictments detail a years-long criminal enterprise built on elaborate deception—fraudulent federal licenses, fabricated leases, false statements to officials at every level. The county argues this context fundamentally changes how we should interpret what staff knew and when they knew it. A June 2022 site visit the grand jury flagged as a missed enforcement opportunity? County staff inspected a building that the owner claimed, under penalty of perjury, would only store farm equipment. It was nearly empty. It wasn’t until later that the fire chief mentioned storage containers holding“safe and sane”fireworks. The county points out it has no authority to license fireworks operations anyway—that power belongs to the State Fire Marshal, which renewed a license for Devastating Pyrotechnics on May 22, 2025, just one day after state investigators seized roughly 500,000 pounds of product, including illegal explosives, in Commerce.
Where the county’s response gets sharpest is on the subject of staff motives. The grand jury suggested employees may have been reluctant to antagonize sheriff’s officials because the property was owned by Sheriff’s Lt. Samuel Machado and his wife, Tammy, and that supervisors fostered a“culture of tolerance”for violations. The county shot back: the grand jury itself admitted it“could not determine definitively”why staff didn’t pursue the matter in 2022, yet adopted“the most severe possible explanation”anyway. That’s a fair critique. The board flatly said it won’t accept findings about staff motives that“rest on speculation.”
That said, the county isn’t rejecting the entire report. It agreed to implement several recommendations, including annual ethics training, code enforcement training for relevant staff, and better documentation of cases. Other suggestions—like creating a county fire warden position and adding enforcement staff—are under review. The county did acknowledge a finding it couldn’t dispute: it employs just one full-time code enforcement officer for nearly 1,000 square miles of unincorporated land. That’s a structural problem that goes beyond any single incident.
The criminal case continues. The eight defendants are due back in court July 1—the one-year anniversary of the explosion. Whether those proceedings will provide clearer answers about what happened and who bears responsibility remains to be seen. For now, the county and the grand jury are locked in a fundamental disagreement about what the evidence actually shows.
About the Author
Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson is a contributor to LocalBeat, covering local news and community stories.
