FEMA declines to test soil after California fires despite Newsom administration concerns
Federal officials have declared they will not order soil sampling after completing debris removal on Los Angeles properties that succumbed to the region's devastating fires earlier this year, rebuffing concerns raised by state officials about potential contamination.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) administration last week appealed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a bid to revive the once-routine testing.
'As practice on all past major fire recoveries, we urge FEMA to conduct comprehensive soil sampling as part of the debris removal process at affected properties,' Nancy Ward, director of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), wrote in a letter to Curtis Brown, federal coordinating officer for FEMA Region 9. 'Without adequate soil testing, contaminants caused by the fire can remain undetected.'
She warned that failing to implement such sampling could 'expose individuals to residual substances during rebuilding efforts and potentially jeopardize groundwater and surface water quality.'
FEMA, however, has reaffirmed its decision to forgo the sampling and instead task the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with eliminating waste and clearing the top 6 inches from ravaged properties without conducting follow-up soil tests.
'The mission assignment USACE was given does not include soil testing,' said Susan Lee, a spokesperson for the Army Corps, in an emailed statement. 'The decision regarding soil testing is outside of USACE's role, as it is not part of our assigned responsibilities for this disaster.'
Although FEMA has funded and conducted soil sampling at some of California's biggest wildfires over the past two decades, the federal agency changed its approach in 2020, Brandi Richard Thompson, a spokesperson for FEMA Region 9, told The Hill in an emailed statement.
Based on lessons learned from past fires and in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FEMA 'stopped funding soil testing as a routine practice and adopted the 6-inch removal standard,' Richard Thompson said.
These instructions by no means bar private individuals or state entities from conducting soil testing themselves, and scientists from the University of California and Loyola Marymount University have begun conducting soil sampling efforts themselves.
Seth John, an associate professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California who is working on the sampling, told The Hill in a recent interview that although he believes 'it's always better to have more information,' the lack of FEMA-funded soil sampling is not necessarily a cause for alarm.
But local officials have expressed concern about the lack of federal involvement, as originally reported by the Los Angeles Times.
While FEMA's debris removal instructions align with similar guidelines set by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the stage agency also calls for an additional cleanup phase that involves further soil testing at burn sites.
Wildfire cleanup efforts in the Golden State usually begin with a first phase focused largely on household hazardous waste removal, which was declared complete this week by the EPA.
Following a subsequent debris removal stage — cleanup of asbestos, concrete, metals and other waste — CalRecycle's state guidelines indicate that the top 3 to 6 inches of soil should be cleared.
But those instructions stress, in bold type, that 'after a fire, toxins like arsenic, lead, mercury, and chlorine seep into the top soil.' The goals of testing are 'to leave a property safe for families, children and pets to occupy,' as well as 'protect groundwater, wildlife and air quality.'
Echoing these concerns, Ward referred in her letter to FEMA to past incident data indicating 'that without thorough testing, these materials can remain at depths exceeding 6 inches.'
She asked 'that FEMA prioritize soil sampling as part of the recovery process,' noting 'the urgency of this matter' in enabling the safe return of residents to their homes.
In response to Ward's requests, Brown wrote back that 'FEMA has not funded soil testing on properties impacted by fires' over the past five years. He verified that up until 2018 — after California's historic and catastrophic Camp Fire — FEMA's policy involved clearing 3 inches of soil and sampling it, prior to digging up another 3 inches to test it again.
'This practice was tedious, inefficient, and a barrier to timely clean up and recovery,' Brown wrote, noting that positive results were typically linked to pollutants present in the soil prior to the fires.
'FEMA's position since 2020 has been to fund the removal of the full 6 inches of soil right away but not fund any further testing,' he added. 'To err on the side of caution, FEMA implemented the practice of removing the full 6 inches of soil, rather than 3.'
Any further excavation, Brown explained, would be 'related to economic recovery and restoration activities' rather than to 'public or environmental health concerns.'
While noting that soil testing would prolong recovery by months, Brown stressed that FEMA does not prevent others from engaging in such efforts. He added that California covered the costs for soil sampling following blazes in 2020 and 2021 that were declared disasters by the then-presidents.
'We encourage the state to conduct soil testing if they wish to do so but are confident that our current practices speed up recovery while protecting and advancing public health and safety,' Brown concluded.
Richard Thomspon, the FEMA Region 9 spokesperson, explained that soil sampling was never 'a universal practice' but that prior to 2020, the agency 'conducted soil testing in certain wildfire recoveries.'
But upon consulting with the EPA and determining that contamination deeper than 6 inches was usually preexisting, the agency ultimately adopted its 'streamlined approach beginning with the August 2020 California wildfires,' she added.
One exception to this approach that Richard Thompson cited was in 2023 following the Lahaina, Hawaii, wildfires, which 'burned through a densely developed urban area, with industrial and commercial zones covering over 20 percent of the burn area.'
'Because historical wildfire soil contamination data was lacking in the Pacific, FEMA approved targeted soil testing at the request of the Hawaii Department of Public Health,' she said.
Those tests only further cemented FEMA's approach, Richard Thompson explained, noting that the results confirmed that most pollutants detected at those depths were present before the blazes.
John and other USC researchers started measuring lead levels in samples they gathered of roadside dust, playground sand and stormwater runoff near the Eaton Fire burn zone at the end of January as part of their effort to provide residents with general safety updates about potential exposures.
In the heart of the burn zones, they detected lead concentrations in roadside dust that surpassed the EPA's regional screening thresholds for residential soils. But they found that playgrounds posed less of a concern, as lead levels in sandboxes remained low.
John said that team has also identified high concentrations of lead and arsenic in stormwater, with the latter likely coming from wood rot treatment used in homes.
After conducting super-high-resolution sampling throughout Altadena, the researchers obtained preliminary results that showed elevated lead levels adjacent to burn structures but no such issues 'even a short distance outside of those areas,' according to John.
In the coming months, the USC team intends to expand their measurements to include other heavy metals, while providing free lead samples to affected community members, he added.
Another soil sampling effort is also being offered to residents of the Palisades and Eaton areas by researchers at Loyola Marymount University.
Regarding lead contamination in particular, John explained that cleanup usually involves removing the top layer of soil, where most lead is localized, and replacing it with new material — pretty much in line with FEMA's approach.
Nonetheless, John said he as a parent is 'very aware that there's a huge amount of uncertainty and maybe even distrust of the process among people who live there.'
'Testing will make people feel much more comfortable with the situation,' he continued. 'But when it actually comes to the question of, 'Do we need testing in this situation from a scientific perspective?' I'd say maybe not.'
Julia Van Soelen Kim, a food systems advisor at the University of California Cooperative Extension, noted in an email 'that urban soils have the potential for contamination even before a fire and urban fires also pose unique soil safety risks.'
With the disclaimer that she is a social scientist and not a soil scientist, Van Soelen Kim maintained that testing is considered 'best practice before planting a food garden, regardless of whether a fire has taken place.'
'I absolutely do think there is good reason to test soil after an urban wildfire of this nature,' she added.
Backing up these assertions, John acknowledged the legitimacy in the perspectives of, 'Why not just go ahead and test?' or, 'Better safe than sorry.'
'But testing also takes time,' he said, noting the expensive nature of sampling for certain compounds.
'There's some value in that information, and certainly value in having that information in terms of making people feel more comfortable,' John added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Australia to boost aerial surveillance of Pacific for illegal fishing fleets
By Kirsty Needham SYDNEY (Reuters) -Australia plans to significantly boost surveillance of Pacific Islands territorial waters, spending A$477 million ($310.72 million) on aerial patrols for illegal fishing fleets, tender documents viewed by Reuters show, as China takes steps towards sending its coast guard to the region. Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will visit Fiji on Friday, the Fiji Times newspaper reported, after the government of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka last week approved a maritime security agreement that will see Australia fund a patrol boat for Fiji. Australia will operate commercial aerial patrols to support Pacific Island countries monitoring exclusive economic zones which span millions of kilometres of ocean. Efforts to tackle illegal fishing also led to a new monitoring centre being opened in Fiji in April. Australia's defence department declined to comment on the aerial tender, and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters reported last week that China's coast guard is taking further steps towards high seas boarding of fishing boats in the Pacific for the first time, risking tensions with Taiwanese fleets that also ply the region. The Chinese Coast Guard demonstrated the capabilities of one of its largest ships, used to enforce maritime law in the Taiwan Strait, to 10 Pacific Island ministers, including Fiji's, in China a fortnight ago. China has registered 26 coast guard vessels for Pacific Ocean patrols with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, although it is yet to conduct an inspection, WCPFC officials said. China declined to comment. Australia has gifted two dozen patrol boats to Pacific Island nations, and operates navy and air force patrols for illegal fishing in the region several times a year. Sangaa Clark, chief executive of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, representing nine Pacific Island countries controlling the world's largest tuna fishery, said the group has not invited China to conduct coast guard patrols, and instead relied on Australian-funded surveillance and patrols by Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States. Pacific security expert Peter Connolly, a fellow at the University of New South Wales, said Chinese Coast Guard patrols in the region would "introduce geostrategic tensions to the policing of the Pacific's fisheries". "This is particularly likely because the two most common nationalities of illegal fishermen in the Pacific have been from the PRC and from Taiwan," he said, referring to the People's Republic of China. ($1 = 1.5352 Australian dollars)


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is Gavin Newsom running for president? California governor starting to change his tune
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters. Get ready, America. After years of firm denials, Gov. Gavin Newsom is finally acknowledging his presidential ambitions. Over the past month, the Democratic governor who once insisted that he had 'sub-zero interest' in the White House has begun publicly inching toward the idea. In a profile published in the Wall Street Journal this week, Newsom said he would wait to see if the moment felt right. 'I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold,' he said. The shift in tone comes, perhaps fortuitously, as all eyes are on Newsom again. With President Donald Trump sending military troops into Los Angeles in recent days to quell sometimes unruly protests against immigration enforcement raids, Newsom has seized the moment to reestablish himself as the leader of resistance. The governor sued to stop the deployments and is now doing nearly endless rounds in the media accusing Trump of slipping into authoritarianism. He has sent daily queries to his fundraising list referencing the situation in Los Angeles and the president advocating for his arrest. On Tuesday evening, Newsom gave a short video address, carried live on CNN, that sought to elevate his fight to national significance, warning that 'other states are next,' and to rally the public behind him to defend democracy. 'This is about all of us. This is about you,' Newsom said. 'It's time for all of us to stand up.' Many people already assume that Newsom is in campaign mode. A poll released last month by UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies and the Los Angeles Times found that more than half of California voters believe Newsom is more focused on boosting his presidential prospects than governing the state and solving its problems. But the ability to expand his message beyond California could stir voters in the rest of the country to start seeing Newsom as a potential leader, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. He commended Newsom for channeling the growing fear and anger over Trump's actions in his remarks, which Sabato believes may have changed the minds of some skeptics who regarded the governor as just 'another pol with good hair gel.' 'He saw the danger to the American republic,' Sabato said. 'It was a home run.' More: Is Gavin Newsom running for reelection? No, and that's due to term limits Though speculation about a future presidential bid has followed Newsom throughout his career — his family even joked about it in a congratulatory message in his college yearbook — he never would have admitted that he had his eye on the White House even a few years ago. After defeating a recall attempt in 2021, Newsom told NBC's Chuck Todd in an interview that he had 'never' considered running for president and had 'no, no, no, no, no' interest in ever doing so because 'who needs the damn stress?' During an endorsement interview with the San Francisco Chronicle during his re-election campaign for California governor the following year, Newsom said he had 'sub-zero interest' in being commander in chief and that 'it's not even on my radar.' He reiterated to CBS that 'it's not my ambition' and 'I have no interest' in ever running. The question came up again repeatedly last summer as frantic Democrats considered whether to replace President Joe Biden on the ticket, and Newsom always loyally batted it down, emerging as perhaps Biden's most forceful surrogate until the bitter end. Whether those proclamations were sincere is, of course, another matter. Newsom's political star exploded with his early handling of the coronavirus pandemic, and he has spent the years since burnishing his national profile — touring red states to campaign for fellow Democrats, proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict gun ownership, debating Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Fox News, launching a controversy-generating podcast. The recent book 'Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House' reported that Newsom was among the prominent Democrats who contacted campaign operatives last summer to explore their chances if Biden dropped out. Representatives for Newsom did not respond to questions about why he is speaking differently now about a potential presidential campaign and whether it represents an intentional strategy. But the switch has been notable and consistent in recent weeks. In early May, Newsom told the video podcast Next Up with Mark Halperin that his decision was 'to be determined.' 'I might. I don't know,' he said. 'But I have to have a burning 'why' and I have to have a compelling vision that distinguishes myself from anybody else. Without that, without both and, I don't deserve to even be in the conversation.' On his own podcast last week, guest Dr. Phil asked Newsom whether he was running for president in 2028 and the governor did not rule it out. 'You're not ruling anything out about your future either, so we'll leave it at that,' he said. If Newsom does ultimately enter the race, voters are unlikely to care about his pivot from past pledges that he would not, Sabato said, because it will be so expected. 'If you're governor of California, the assumption is that you're running for president,' he said. And broken promises seem to matter little in politics anymore, Sabato added, 'The one thing that Trump has done for everyone is eliminate the issue of hypocrisy.' This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Is California Gov. Gavin Newsom running for president?