Do "water bomber" aircraft pilots have more relaxed rules? I have no exposure to aviation regulations, but I'm curious if some rules are different for emergency aircraft pilots.  Similar to ambulance drivers and police officers being allowed to speed or run red lights for the sake of emergencies.

Specifically, this video shows a water bomber very close the ground and bystanders during an approach:



My gut tells me two things:

A) that this plane is dangerously close to the ground, and 

B) that this would be a serious incident, representing some sort of strike against the pilot's record.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about either point.  If either are true, though, is the situation treated differently for emergency pilots?  Are they trained to go that close to the ground, like police officers are trained to handle a car at higher speeds?  And are their rules different for that reason?



I'm not sure how much the answer would vary country to country, aircraft to aircraft, or even situation to situation.  So if the question is too broad, assume the United States or Canada even though that's not where the video is from, and assume a water bomber pilot in a situation just like this.
All aircrews have to comply with laws and regulations, unless they have a waiver that makes them exempt for certain regulations. Aerial Fire Fighting need to fly lower than the minimum safety altitude in order to pick up water, so they will have a written permanent waiver to do so. 

This is similar to ATO's conducting training for student pilots. They can be allowed to fly below the minimum safety altitude (in Germany: 500ft) for the purpose of training engine failures and attempted emergency landings in fields.



In all honesty, it does not look like recklessness to me, it looks like the pilot miscalculated his approach and came in too low and with not enough speed, as he bounces off the water surfaces instead of doing a proper flare.