Communities are rebuilding after L.A. fires despite lack of soil testing for toxic substances
In Altadena and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of L.A., reconstruction has begun despite the fact that the soil on affected properties has not been tested for toxic substances. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s controversial decision to forgo soil testing in communities burned in the Eaton and Palisades wildfires sparked pushback Wednesday as California lawmakers questioned whether the practice will prevent residents from knowing if there are toxic substances on the land before rebuilding begins.Federally hired cleanup crews have been removing ash and debris, in addition to a 6-inch layer of topsoil, from buildings burned by the wildfires. But, asked last month by The Times, FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed they won’t test the soil at these properties after they finish their cleanup, breaking with a long-standing practice that was intended to ensure that homes and schools don’t still contain excessive levels of harmful chemicals after environmental disasters such as a wildfire.Led by U.S. Rep Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a contingent of eight federal lawmakers from California objected to FEMA’s decision to forgo soil testing in a letter to Cameron Hamilton, the agency’s acting administrator. The lawmakers pressed Hamilton to explain the change in strategy. One key question was how FEMA could ensure that removing 6 inches of soil would be sufficient to rid properties of toxic substances.“The residents of greater Los Angeles should be informed of any potential toxins in the soil as they navigate the complicated recovery process,” the letter reads. “Wildfire survivors deserve to return to safe, toxin-free properties.”The Eaton and Palisades wildfires — among the most destructive in California history — damaged or destroyed more than 13,500 properties across Los Angeles County. The resulting public health risks are too great to skimp on environmental testing, Friedman said.“FEMA’s refusal to test for toxins in the soil after wildfire cleanup in Los Angeles County is unacceptable,” Friedman said in a statement. “Families deserve to know their homes are safe and free of dangerous chemicals. This is a break from decades of FEMA precedent — and it risks exposing entire communities to long-term health threats.”The letter comes as rebuilding efforts are swiftly moving forward. So far, federal cleanup crews have cleared ash and rubble from more than 860 properties, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. About 200 rebuilding permits have been filed with local agencies — and a few have already been approved, although it unclear how many at this point.Los Angeles city and county officials say they won’t require soil testing before issuing most rebuilding permits. Without soil testing, many residents worry that new buildings could be built on contaminated land, increasing the likelihood that residents and workers may be exposed to toxic chemicals by inhaling airborne dust. Environmental and health officials have warned that wildfire ash from burned buildings can contain hazardous substances including cancer-causing arsenic and brain-damaging lead. Experts warn that the pace of rebuilding shouldn’t outpace necessary safety precautions. “The nation is captivated by how and when L.A. will rebound,” said Mohamed Sharif, co-chair of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects’ wildfire disaster response task force. “We know fire is not the only source of catastrophe and disaster in California. We have a multiplex of things, whether it’s seismic events or landslides or rain events. But fire has really illuminated just how fragile we are as a society.” Soil testing in the aftermath of previous wildfires found that a significant portion of properties still had excessive levels of heavy metals even after cleanup crews removed a 3-to-6-inch layer of topsoil. In those cases — such as the 2018 Camp fire in Northern California and the Woolsey fire near Malibu in the same year — for properties where contaminants exceeded California’s standards, cleanup crews returned to remove another layer of soil, and additional soil testing was conducted.But now FEMA officials insist that excavating 6 inches of soil from properties is enough to remove fire-related contamination. Anything deeper, they argue, is likely to be preexisting contamination, which is beyond the agency’s purview. FEMA encouraged state and local officials to pay for soil testing, if they believe it’s necessary.So far, no state or local plans for soil testing have been unveiled.“You’re going to have to show me definitive testing that shows that material below 6 inches is attributed to the fire or debris caused by the fire,” FEMA Region 9 administrator Robert Fenton told The Times in a recent interview. “I have not found that yet.”But FEMA’s decision to skip soil sampling has left many homeowners unsure about what’s next. Abigail Greydanus, her husband and their 1-year-old son evacuated their Altadena home shortly after the Eaton fire broke out. When a neighbor returned to check on their home, the property was unrecognizable. “It was a pile of smoldering ashes,” Greydanus said. “You could still see the shell of the oven, the weight rack my husband had in the garage. But everything else was just melted or destroyed.” The couple signed up for the Army Corps debris removal program. But even after crews cleared rubble and debris from their property, they are wary to rebuild without confirming whether lingering pollutants may still be in the soil. “No one wants to go back to a home if it’s going to be unsafe, if their children will be [exposed to] lead from playing in the backyard,” Greydanus said. In lieu of government-led soil testing, homeowners and school districts may have to pay for soil sampling if they want answers. Some research institutions are stepping into the breach, including USC, which is providing free lead testing, and a coalition of researchers from UCLA, Loyola Marymount and Purdue universities, who are offering a full panel of soil tests for those in affected areas. Meanwhile, some school officials in these areas are already hiring companies — and paying out of pocket — to test for toxic chemicals.Three Los Angeles Unified School District schools were damaged or destroyed in the Palisades fire: Marquez Charter Elementary, Palisades Charter Elementary and Palisades Charter High School. The Army Corps of Engineers oversaw the cleanup of these campuses earlier this month.An LAUSD spokesperson said the school district “will conduct a full environmental assessment throughout the entire campus — including soil sampling of existing landscaping as well as areas to be uncovered that will be a part of the buildout of the interim campus.” They hired environmental consultants to assess the soil at the elementary schools. Because Palisades Charter High School is an independent charter school, LAUSD referred requests for comment to its administration; a representative for the high school did not respond to a request for comment. Pasadena Unified School District also saw extensive fire damage at several of its campuses, including public and charter schools: Franklin Elementary, Eliot Arts Magnet Middle School, Odyssey Charter School, Pasadena Rosebud Academy, Oak Knoll Montessori School and Aveson School of Leaders. School district officials would not confirm whether the district would perform soil testing on its properties.“Pasadena Unified is actively working across all levels of government to further examine whether there are any remaining risks,” a spokesperson said. “Discussions are ongoing. Our commitment is to keep our school community safe and informed throughout this entire process.”Under state law, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is required to oversee soil sampling at newly constructed schools or campus expansions to ensure they comply with the state standards. But when asked about how it would approach rebuilding schools in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the state agency was noncommittal. “Sampling plans are required by law in limited circumstances, like when new property is purchased to build a school with state funds,” a DTSC representative told The Times. “For schools in the Altadena and Pacific Palisades communities, DTSC will provide technical assistance to school districts by request, which includes helping them prepare sampling plans and reviewing results of the samples that they collect.” The agency would not say whether testing would be required before schools began to rebuild. Meanwhile, even if government regulators don’t get involved, property owners may find it difficult to hire contractors to rebuild.“Any professional geotechnical engineer will not go to test for the foundation strength unless they know that site is free of toxins,” said Sharif, of the American Institute of Architects.Rebuilding is complex, he noted, involving many economic, environmental and safety considerations. It’s unwise to leave the decision to thousands of individual property owners. After all, contamination on one property can affect neighboring homes.“I shudder to think what owners of the lots next door to a hypothetical owner aren’t doing,” Sharif said. “This is to say that while the majority of the damage is on private land, it’s insane to entrust private citizens with public health.”
Rebuilding in Altadena and Pacific Palisades has begun, despite the lack of official requirements to test soil for heavy metals and other toxic substances.
In Altadena and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of L.A., reconstruction has begun despite the fact that the soil on affected properties has not been tested for toxic substances.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s controversial decision to forgo soil testing in communities burned in the Eaton and Palisades wildfires sparked pushback Wednesday as California lawmakers questioned whether the practice will prevent residents from knowing if there are toxic substances on the land before rebuilding begins.
Federally hired cleanup crews have been removing ash and debris, in addition to a 6-inch layer of topsoil, from buildings burned by the wildfires. But, asked last month by The Times, FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed they won’t test the soil at these properties after they finish their cleanup, breaking with a long-standing practice that was intended to ensure that homes and schools don’t still contain excessive levels of harmful chemicals after environmental disasters such as a wildfire.
Led by U.S. Rep Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a contingent of eight federal lawmakers from California objected to FEMA’s decision to forgo soil testing in a letter to Cameron Hamilton, the agency’s acting administrator. The lawmakers pressed Hamilton to explain the change in strategy. One key question was how FEMA could ensure that removing 6 inches of soil would be sufficient to rid properties of toxic substances.
“The residents of greater Los Angeles should be informed of any potential toxins in the soil as they navigate the complicated recovery process,” the letter reads. “Wildfire survivors deserve to return to safe, toxin-free properties.”
The Eaton and Palisades wildfires — among the most destructive in California history — damaged or destroyed more than 13,500 properties across Los Angeles County. The resulting public health risks are too great to skimp on environmental testing, Friedman said.
“FEMA’s refusal to test for toxins in the soil after wildfire cleanup in Los Angeles County is unacceptable,” Friedman said in a statement. “Families deserve to know their homes are safe and free of dangerous chemicals. This is a break from decades of FEMA precedent — and it risks exposing entire communities to long-term health threats.”
The letter comes as rebuilding efforts are swiftly moving forward. So far, federal cleanup crews have cleared ash and rubble from more than 860 properties, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. About 200 rebuilding permits have been filed with local agencies — and a few have already been approved, although it unclear how many at this point.
Los Angeles city and county officials say they won’t require soil testing before issuing most rebuilding permits. Without soil testing, many residents worry that new buildings could be built on contaminated land, increasing the likelihood that residents and workers may be exposed to toxic chemicals by inhaling airborne dust. Environmental and health officials have warned that wildfire ash from burned buildings can contain hazardous substances including cancer-causing arsenic and brain-damaging lead. Experts warn that the pace of rebuilding shouldn’t outpace necessary safety precautions.
“The nation is captivated by how and when L.A. will rebound,” said Mohamed Sharif, co-chair of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects’ wildfire disaster response task force. “We know fire is not the only source of catastrophe and disaster in California. We have a multiplex of things, whether it’s seismic events or landslides or rain events. But fire has really illuminated just how fragile we are as a society.”
Soil testing in the aftermath of previous wildfires found that a significant portion of properties still had excessive levels of heavy metals even after cleanup crews removed a 3-to-6-inch layer of topsoil. In those cases — such as the 2018 Camp fire in Northern California and the Woolsey fire near Malibu in the same year — for properties where contaminants exceeded California’s standards, cleanup crews returned to remove another layer of soil, and additional soil testing was conducted.
But now FEMA officials insist that excavating 6 inches of soil from properties is enough to remove fire-related contamination. Anything deeper, they argue, is likely to be preexisting contamination, which is beyond the agency’s purview.
FEMA encouraged state and local officials to pay for soil testing, if they believe it’s necessary.
So far, no state or local plans for soil testing have been unveiled.
“You’re going to have to show me definitive testing that shows that material below 6 inches is attributed to the fire or debris caused by the fire,” FEMA Region 9 administrator Robert Fenton told The Times in a recent interview. “I have not found that yet.”
But FEMA’s decision to skip soil sampling has left many homeowners unsure about what’s next. Abigail Greydanus, her husband and their 1-year-old son evacuated their Altadena home shortly after the Eaton fire broke out. When a neighbor returned to check on their home, the property was unrecognizable.
“It was a pile of smoldering ashes,” Greydanus said. “You could still see the shell of the oven, the weight rack my husband had in the garage. But everything else was just melted or destroyed.”
The couple signed up for the Army Corps debris removal program. But even after crews cleared rubble and debris from their property, they are wary to rebuild without confirming whether lingering pollutants may still be in the soil.
“No one wants to go back to a home if it’s going to be unsafe, if their children will be [exposed to] lead from playing in the backyard,” Greydanus said.
In lieu of government-led soil testing, homeowners and school districts may have to pay for soil sampling if they want answers. Some research institutions are stepping into the breach, including USC, which is providing free lead testing, and a coalition of researchers from UCLA, Loyola Marymount and Purdue universities, who are offering a full panel of soil tests for those in affected areas.
Meanwhile, some school officials in these areas are already hiring companies — and paying out of pocket — to test for toxic chemicals.
Three Los Angeles Unified School District schools were damaged or destroyed in the Palisades fire: Marquez Charter Elementary, Palisades Charter Elementary and Palisades Charter High School. The Army Corps of Engineers oversaw the cleanup of these campuses earlier this month.
An LAUSD spokesperson said the school district “will conduct a full environmental assessment throughout the entire campus — including soil sampling of existing landscaping as well as areas to be uncovered that will be a part of the buildout of the interim campus.” They hired environmental consultants to assess the soil at the elementary schools.
Because Palisades Charter High School is an independent charter school, LAUSD referred requests for comment to its administration; a representative for the high school did not respond to a request for comment.
Pasadena Unified School District also saw extensive fire damage at several of its campuses, including public and charter schools: Franklin Elementary, Eliot Arts Magnet Middle School, Odyssey Charter School, Pasadena Rosebud Academy, Oak Knoll Montessori School and Aveson School of Leaders. School district officials would not confirm whether the district would perform soil testing on its properties.
“Pasadena Unified is actively working across all levels of government to further examine whether there are any remaining risks,” a spokesperson said. “Discussions are ongoing. Our commitment is to keep our school community safe and informed throughout this entire process.”
Under state law, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is required to oversee soil sampling at newly constructed schools or campus expansions to ensure they comply with the state standards. But when asked about how it would approach rebuilding schools in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the state agency was noncommittal.
“Sampling plans are required by law in limited circumstances, like when new property is purchased to build a school with state funds,” a DTSC representative told The Times. “For schools in the Altadena and Pacific Palisades communities, DTSC will provide technical assistance to school districts by request, which includes helping them prepare sampling plans and reviewing results of the samples that they collect.” The agency would not say whether testing would be required before schools began to rebuild.
Meanwhile, even if government regulators don’t get involved, property owners may find it difficult to hire contractors to rebuild.
“Any professional geotechnical engineer will not go to test for the foundation strength unless they know that site is free of toxins,” said Sharif, of the American Institute of Architects.
Rebuilding is complex, he noted, involving many economic, environmental and safety considerations. It’s unwise to leave the decision to thousands of individual property owners.
After all, contamination on one property can affect neighboring homes.
“I shudder to think what owners of the lots next door to a hypothetical owner aren’t doing,” Sharif said. “This is to say that while the majority of the damage is on private land, it’s insane to entrust private citizens with public health.”