Post-Fires, the L.A. Times Is Digging Up Dirt

Summary

Boiling Point Episode Summary: "Post-Fires, the L.A. Times Is Digging Up Dirt"

Introduction

In the May 8, 2025 episode of Boiling Point, hosted by Sammy Roth of the L.A. Times Studios, the focus is on a critical investigation into the aftermath of the Eaton and Palisades wildfires in California. The episode delves into the alarming discovery that federal agencies failed to perform standard soil testing for toxic metals post-wildfire, potentially exposing residents to hazardous contaminants. Through in-depth discussions with environment reporter Tony Brisco and Joanne O'Neill of Clean Power Alliance, the podcast uncovers the implications of this oversight and the broader challenges posed by climate-induced wildfires.

Background: Standard Soil Testing Protocols Ignored

During typical urban wildfire recoveries, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers remove up to six inches of topsoil from destroyed properties, subsequently testing the remaining soil for toxins like arsenic, lead, and mercury. However, in the aftermath of the Eaton and Palisades fires, these agencies deviated from standard procedures. As Tony Brisco explains, “they’re just removing the top six inches of soil and calling it quits. And in some places, not removing soil at all” (00:08). This abandonment of comprehensive soil testing left property owners unaware of potential toxic exposures, raising significant public health concerns.

Investigative Journalism: LA Times Takes Action

Realizing the gravity of the situation, Tony Brisco and his team at the L.A. Times embarked on an unconventional journalistic endeavor to conduct their own soil testing. Despite being a news outlet and not a scientific body, they aimed to provide crucial information to affected residents. “We were the last line of defense for, even if it was just a few dozen homeowners, their only line really to getting access to this information.” The team tested soil samples from both destroyed and intact homes, revealing startling levels of contamination that the federal agencies had overlooked.

Findings: Toxic Contamination Exposed

The investigation uncovered significant contamination in the soil, particularly elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury. Joanne O'Neill elucidates the sources of these toxins:

• Lead: Common in older homes with lead-based paints, “lead is... a brain-damaging chemical that can permanently and irreversibly stunt a child’s development” (07:36).
• Arsenic: Used in wood coatings and construction lumber, “arsenic is a cancer-causing agent” with no safe exposure level (07:36).
• Mercury and Cobalt: Often found in electronics and batteries, contributing to environmental and health hazards (07:36).

The study revealed that 2 out of 10 sampled properties had unsafe levels of these heavy metals, aligning with historical data suggesting that up to 20% of properties might remain contaminated despite standard soil removal practices.

Interview Insights: Joanne O’Neill on Policy Deviations

Joanne O'Neill discusses the puzzling shift in federal soil testing policies. “They established that as 6 inches of soil... however, that directly contradicts almost 20 years worth of data that... 20% of properties are still going to be contaminated” (09:05). O'Neill speculates that past federal missteps, such as the costly over-excavation during the 2017 North Bay fires, may have influenced the reduction in soil testing efforts. Additionally, a brief communication from the EPA, a mere 257-word letter, sidelined extensive state data, effectively undermining established safety protocols (12:52).

Methodology: How the Investigation Was Conducted

Tony Brisco outlines the meticulous process undertaken by the team:

1. Composite Sampling: Combining five soil samples from different property areas into one representative sample to ensure comprehensive coverage (19:25).
2. Testing Standards: Utilizing EPA-certified labs to analyze 17 types of metals, adhering to state standards (20:45).
3. Safety Precautions: Employing protective gear to safely collect samples from areas still undergoing cleanup (21:03).

This conservative approach likely underestimates contamination levels, as more extensive sampling could reveal higher instances of toxic hotspots.

Implications: Health Risks and Policy Recommendations

The findings have profound health implications, especially for children and families exposed to contaminated soil. Joanne emphasizes the urgency: “There is a debate whether or not any of this was pre-existing or fire-related contamination. But a lot of people have expressed concern... you have to think... a lot of rain washed over the area which we know drives contamination deeper into the soil column” (26:04).

Tony connects these revelations to broader climate change issues, noting that wildfires are intensifying and becoming more destructive. “This could very well happen again, and this is a problem that we're gonna keep dealing with” (30:33). The episode underscores the need for stringent federal and state policies to ensure comprehensive soil testing and remediation post-wildfires to safeguard public health.

Conclusion: The Role of Investigative Journalism

Boiling Point highlights the critical role of investigative journalism in holding authorities accountable and protecting community health. Tony Brisco asserts, “here at the LA Times, we’re going to keep asking terrifying questions and doing our best to answer them and maybe occasionally testing soil, if that’s what we have to do, because no one else will do it” (31:56). The episode serves as a call to action for policymakers, urging adherence to scientific protocols and prioritizing public safety over expedited redevelopment.

Notable Quotes

• Tony Brisco: “This is what you probably thought you were going to see going in. And there's reason to think that you guys were pretty conservative here in the way you went about this” (26:04).
• Joanne O'Neill: “It’s terrifying to think about what’s next for communities struck by wildfires without proper soil remediation” (31:56).
• Tony Brisco: “Do things right the first time rather than having to replicate and do it again later” (15:32).

Final Thoughts

This episode of Boiling Point serves as a powerful examination of the intersection between climate change, public health, and governmental accountability. Through diligent reporting and courageous investigation, the L.A. Times exposes critical gaps in disaster recovery protocols, urging a reevaluation of practices to prevent future health hazards in wildfire-affected communities.

Transcript

[Sami Roth]

This is an LA Times Studios podcast.

[Tony Brisco]

Arsenic, beryllium, cobalt, lead, mercury, zinc. Those are just a few of the toxic metals that may have been deposited in the ruins of homes destroyed by the Eaton fire and the Palisades fire. And unfortunately for residents of Altadena and Pacific Palisades, the federal government is not doing what it would normally do after these kinds of urban wildfires to make sure that people are safe. Typically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers would remove up to 6 inches of topsoil from the burned homes and other properties. Then they would test the remaining soil underneath to see if there were any toxic substances. This time, though, after the Eaton and Palisades fires, those federal agencies are just removing the top six inches of soil and calling it quits. And in some places, not removing soil at all. They're not testing for heavy metals. If there's any arsenic or lead or mercury, it's up to the property owners to find out for themselves. My name is Sami Roth and I'm the climate columnist for the Los Angeles Times. This is Boiling Point, and today I'll be talking with one of my colleagues, Tony Brisco, an environment reporter for the Times. When he and a few other folks on our environment team realized that the feds wouldn't be doing the standard soil testing, they came up with a pretty outside the box idea. They were just going to do it themselves. Not for every property in the burn zones. We're a news outlet, not a government agency. But for a few dozen properties, both homes that burned down and homes that stayed standing, and what they found from their soil testing in those front yards and backyards, it was startling. I read their story, and I hope you will, too. It's an incredible piece of public service journalism. But I wanted to know more about how they were able to make it happen. So I called up Tony.

[Mary Knoff]

Hi, my name is Mary Knoff and I'm a producer on Boiling Point. We are here with Joanne o' Neill, director of Customer Programs at Clean Power Alliance. Hi, Joanne.

[Sami Roth]

Hello.

[Mary Knoff]

Can you tell us a little bit about Clean Power Alliance?

[Tony Brisco]

Yeah.

[Sami Roth]

So Clean Power alliance is the not for profit electricity provider for 3 million residents and businesses across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

[Mary Knoff]

What renewable energy options does CPA offer its customers?

[Sami Roth]

So Clean Power alliance offers customers a series of choices between Lean Power, clean power, or 100% green power to ensure that people have the option to choose a rate that's right for them and maximize their renewable energy.

[Mary Knoff]

Well, thank you so much for speaking with us, Joanne.

[Sami Roth]

Thank you.

[Mary Knoff]

Appreciate it take the next step in building a more resilient and clean energy future for Southern California. To learn more, please visit cleanpoweralliance.org powerresponse Again, that's cleanpoweralliance.org powerResponse.

[Tony Brisco]

Tony, thank you very much for being with us on the Boiling Point podcast.

[Joanne O'Neill]

Hey, thank you for having me.

[Tony Brisco]

Sammy, I'm so curious at what point, as you're, you know, covering the fires and covering the fallout and the toxic soil and the chemicals, at what point did somebody say, oh my gosh, the federal government is not testing the chemicals in the soil like they usually do. We should do that because it's not the sort of thing a newspaper usually does. Where did that idea come from?

[Joanne O'Neill]

Yeah, it was certainly, and I was really glad that the newsroom saw the importance and the significance of this moment because it's such a long established set of precautionary procedures. It really does serve a really important purpose. And we broke the story in February just saying that the federal government had decided against performing post cleanup soil sampling. And speaking to the editors just about what that could mean. The sheer level of toxic fallout, understanding what's in the ash, whether that's, you know, brain damaging lead, cancer causing arsenic, and all of these other chemicals that could still be imbued in people's, you know, soil in their yard. And for the construction workers who were working on these sites, you know, we all talked together and said, well, why don't we do our own limited, you know, soil sampling? Because we, we felt as though it wasn't really a matter of whether or not there would be contamination. It's where and how many properties.

[Tony Brisco]

You know, I'm looking at the list here on the LA Times website and everyone should go and look at this package of stories. We'll put the link in the show notes for those who want to find it. It's called Treated Like Dirt. Great title, by the way. But we've got the list here of all of the chemicals that the heavy metals, these toxic metals that could be in the soil, I mean, and you know, spelling out what the health effects could be. And antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, there are 17 of them, I think cadmium, I'm not going to read the whole list right now, but you can go look it up. Why is this stuff potentially in the soil as a result of wildfires? Where does it come from? How is it that you have these fires and then this dangerous stuff ends up in people's yards as they're moving back home as Their homes are rebuilt.

[Joanne O'Neill]

You really have to kind of, you know, think in your mind it's not just, you know, a home that is burning down, it's everything inside the home. And what is the home made of? You know, in a lot of cases, I think we saw the burnt out shells of cars and really kind of doing a reverse kind of investigation on everything that's included in that. So, for example, lead is one of the most common things that you find after a fire. And, and it really makes sense when you're talking about more historic communities like Altadena and the Pacific Palisades, where you have homes that were built prior to 1978 when lead paint was banned. You have layers and layers of lead paint in this drywall that even if it's painted over, if that's being consumed in a fire, you know, it's now ash and dust and it's being, you know, transported miles really, in all of this smoke. Same thing with arsenic. You know, that was a common wood coating and used to treat construction lumber in homes. Cobalt is something as I'm sure that you know, commonly used in electric vehicles and can be, you know, a toxic chemical. So really looking at every single thing that you have in your homes, whether that's electronics, the building, construction, batteries, all of this kind of stuff, when it is incinerated and turned to ash, is mixing in with your soil. It's the dust that's floating around in the air and there's all these dangerous exposures to people.

[Tony Brisco]

And it seems like in the story here, the three things that you emphasized the most were arsenic, lead and mercury. Why was that? Are those the three most dangerous or three of the most dangerous chemicals or why those three?

[Joanne O'Neill]

They are among the most dangerous and they're also among the most commonly found. And we found them in excess at the properties that we did soil sampling at. So it's kind of a trifecta of really horrible things. Lead, I think, needs no explanation. Folks are really, you know, understand that there is no safe exposure to lead. It is a brain damaging chemical that can permanently and irreversibly stunt a child's development and hinder their ability to learn and develop as they grow. For arsenic, it's a cancer causing agent. Again, no safe level of exposure. And it doesn't really matter what age, you know, as if you're a gardener and that's digging in the dirt, which we know is very common. You're going to be just incidentally either inhaling, potentially ingesting accidentally, but it is really hard for Kids too, because, you know, they like to play in the yard. There's a lot of hand to mouth activity. You don't think about washing your hands as much as, as a young child. And it's really dangerous. Which is also why when California established these soil sampling protocols way back when, they called it informally this three year old principle. It's that, you know, if you let a three year old loose in the backyard, you can kind of be carefree to let them play without fearing that they're gonna come in contact with something that could expose them to dangerous chemicals.

[Tony Brisco]

You know, when I first read from your stories back in February that this was not gonna happen anymore, frankly, I kind of assumed it was a Trump thing, that the federal government, that FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers were gonna not do this for this fire, that this was another example of the Trump administration cutting back on sound science. And maybe, you know, screw you to California. But that was one of the most interesting things about reading your investigation. It sounds like that was not the case. Talk about what actually changed here in the federal government and what you found about why they're not doing this.

[Joanne O'Neill]

I mean, that is the biggest mystery in my mind. I have directly asked the regional administrator for FEMA who oversees the Southwest United States and the Pacific Islands. It's all one big region that he oversees. And it seems like it's really at his discretion whether or not to do soil testing after wildfires and other disasters, quite frankly. And I was wondering if it was tied to politics. And he, you know, pretty adamantly said that no, this was something that they apparently decided in 2020, even though I asked, you know, state officials about that. And they said that they weren't aware of any kind of policy change. This came as a shock to a lot of people and it really had its origins. And I think that, you know, what we're increasingly kind of looking into was in 2017, it was the first time we had these North Bay fires. And it was the first time that the federal government had stepped in to lead the way for wildfire recovery. And it actually ended up being disastrous. They spent a lot more money than they anticipated. They actually over excavated homes to where, to the point to where they needed to bring soil in to fill them back up to grade. And it was really embarrassing for the federal government. I wonder if that is a part of the reason why they didn't want to excavate more than 6 inches. But also in 2019, they coordinated with the EPA to define what they said was a sufficient level of soil that they would need to take away to clear fire debris from a home. They established that as 6 inches of soil that they would want to clear from a site. And however, that directly contradicts really almost 20 years worth of data that we have in California where after the initial pass of removing contaminated soil, 3 to 6 inches, typically 20% of properties are still going to be contaminated. And that was even higher in the campfire where it was one third of properties, 4,200 properties that were still contaminated even after they removed up to six inches of soil.

[Tony Brisco]

So basically what you found is that at the end of the first Trump administration, whether or not it had to do with Trump, you know, murky, but at the end of the first Trump administration, fema, Federal Emergency Management Agency, sort of went back on two decades of established science here and said, okay, you know, in a lot of cases, 20% of cases, you know, the science is telling us there's going to be contaminants deeper than these three to six inches of soil. But we're going to change our policy here and just remove the top 3 to 6 inches of soil, not test any deeper, call it a day. And that's what is now playing out here five years later in Los Angeles. This is the policy they're now implementing.

[Joanne O'Neill]

That's correct. And you know, the very interesting and problematic thing is that letter that they got from EPA was a 257 word letter. We literally counted. And that erases literally thousands of pages worth of data from the state that shows that there is going to be fire related contamination deeper than that. Mark.

[Tony Brisco]

And I want to ask you very, you know, obviously now about the results of what you and our colleagues found, but one more thing before we do, one of the other aspects of this that I just find so fascinating, whether or not it has anything to do with politics or, you know, not caring about science or, you know, California versus federal government stuff, which, who knows, we can only speculate at this point. It does seem like there's a very strong desire on the part of both the federal government and the state, which should be noted here, is not stepping in to pay for this testing itself to rebuild as fast as possible. And it seems pretty unequivocal that if some party, whether the feds or the state or even a local government which has the same desire to rebuild quickly, if somebody were to step in and say, okay, we're going, or maybe a combination of all of those parties were to step in and say, okay, we're going to stop and follow the Science and pay for this testing of soil deeper than 3 to 6 inches and then do further remediation, excavate more soil. When we find stuff that's toxic, that would slow things down. It would take longer to rebuild. And that would probably make a lot of folks who want to just go back and rebuild their homes as quickly as possible angry. Right. Especially when you have politicians who are promising we're going to get you home as fast as possible. I imagine that that has to be part of the tension here. Right.

[Joanne O'Neill]

It's interesting because it's yes and no. It's, you know, for, for this. Yes. They have said that they do not want to slow down the economic recovery. I get it. That Louisiana County, Louisiana City is depending on tax revenue from these properties. They want businesses to be rebuilt, they want homes to be rebuilt and people to come back. They don't want people to leave and go elsewhere. But at the same time, if this is done right, and I've talked to a number of debris removal experts, it doesn't really have to add much more time. Typical soil testing has been done like concurrently to the cleanup. So as soon as a crew is done, it would only take one or two more days to collect the sample and send it to a lab. And then the crew would. Would still be on the same block cleaning and they could go back and remove another layer of soil if need be. So it really isn't as complicated as they're saying. You know, when you talk about how much more time it would take now, it's going to take a lot more time because we already have 3,000 some odd properties that have been cleaned. And so going back is going to be a lot more difficult and tedious. But had this been done from the outset, I don't believe it would have been much more difficult than they're making it.

[Tony Brisco]

Well, there you go, folks. Do things right the first time rather than having to replicate and do it again later. And I'm just going to draw a quick analogy here and say something else that I've been covering is whether to rebuild homes all electric or not. And there's a performative politics aspect to this too, where that's my analysis of it. Where Mayor Karen Bass in Los Angeles suspended a city building requirement where newly built homes are supposed to be all electric. She suspended that for people rebuilding in the Palisades and Pacific Palisades, basically making the case that if you require folks to rebuild all electric, it's going to slow things down, it's going to make it more expensive Let people rebuild gas and electric appliances like they had before. I did some reporting and talked to a bunch of experts who said, what are you talking about? No, it's just as cost effective, if not cheaper to go all electric because you just need one set of wires. You don't need wires and gas pipelines and same reason that would be faster, not certainly not slower, to just do one system rather than two. But people like the way things were before. And she gets to say this makes it faster and cheaper. So anyway, moral of the story is eventually people are going to have to go back and probably replace their gas appliances with electric now in the future because that's the direction the state is moving and we need clean energy for climate change purposes. I feel like there's a little bit of an analogy here where why not just do it right the first time and make it efficient and do it up front rather than having to go back and fix it later. Anyway, that's my, that's my drawing connections.

[Joanne O'Neill]

No, I think that that was certainly something that when I talked to architects on the process of rebuilding was something that came up as the whole reason why we're seeing increasingly devastating wildfires. One of the driving influences of that is climate change. And to get rid of something that would lessen the effects of climate change seems just really regressive is what they told me.

[Tony Brisco]

We'll be back after a quick break.

[Mary Knoff]

Hi, my name is Mary Knoff and I'm a producer on Boiling Point. We are here with Joanne o' Neill, director of the Customer programs at Clean Power Alliance. Hi, Joanne.

[Sami Roth]

Hello.

[Mary Knoff]

Clean Power alliance offers many customer programs to save on electricity bills and conserve energy. What is Power Response? How can listeners participate and are there any incentives for signing up?

[Tony Brisco]

Yeah.

[Sami Roth]

So CPA offers various energy and cost savings programs to its customers. One of these programs is Power Response where participants can earn money for saving energy when energy demand is higher than expected.

[Tony Brisco]

Expected.

[Sami Roth]

By saving energy and earning money during these events, Power Response program helps increase the reliability of the power grid and lowers greenhouse gas emissions in the local community.

[Mary Knoff]

Well, thank you so much, Joanne.

[Sami Roth]

Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Mary Knoff]

Take the next step in building a more resilient and clean energy future for Southern California. To learn more, please visit CleanPowerAlliance.org PowerResponse Again, that's CleanPowerAlliance.org Powerresponse.

[Tony Brisco]

So the soil testing you did, this is so incredible. There's a whole article on our website and again, link in the show notes explaining the methodology in detail. But let's have the high Level version. So it was you and our colleagues, Noah Haggerty, Haley Smith, Corinne Pertil, our editor, Elijah Wolfson. Talk about how you did it. How did you even figure out how to do it? I mean, you're a journalist, not a soil tester. At least I assume you haven't been in a past life. How did you figure out how to go about and do this process?

[Joanne O'Neill]

Sure, it really required us going through a lot of, you know, studies and looking at what had been done previously. We had, you know, reports from the 2018 campfire, from the Woolsey fire, and we looked at the methodology of soil testing that was done there. Also we drew some influences and we talked to folks for other environmental cleanups and testing. So folks who were involved in, you know, the testing and the aftermath of the XI battery cleanup in the neighborhood surrounding that. So to get the most bang for our buck, we wanted to do composite sampling. So we took five samples or like soil from five different parts of a property. And we mix that up in a trash bag lined bucket to take one 8 ounce soil sample, which would be, you know, representative of the entire property. And if anything, this was going to be conservative because you're taking, you know, parts that are likely some more clean than others, some more dirty than others, and it kind of averages out. It would be an average of what your property would see all the way across the board. And we sent that to an EPA, you know, certified lab that tested it for 17 different types of metals. And this testing was according to state standards and what they typically test for. And this lab was used by the state in the past.

[Tony Brisco]

So take me to the site with you. And I was watching the video, so I. And there's a great video too. And so I got a little bit of sense of it. You're, you're wearing a gas mask, you have the little booties on your shoes so that you don't track the contaminated soil elsewhere. You've got gloves on, vinyl gloves. What are you actually physically doing there at these properties?

[Joanne O'Neill]

You're really gearing up to one protect yourself. Because these are like, I mean, these neighborhoods are very much in the throes of being cleaned up. There was a lot of ash and wreckage both in the street at neighboring homes. And the last thing you want to do is to go onto a property that has just been remediated and track something else on there. So we were very cognizant of that. We talked very extensively about using boot covers to prevent tracking things on, using gloves and masks and donning Those before going on to make sure that we're not, you know, coming in contact or exposing ourselves to the hazardous chemicals that we know are in this ash, if that's still lingering in the soil. And we had this soil probe. It's like a T shaped metal bar that you plunge into the soil and you twist around a few times and it takes a nice like cylinder core. I don't know if I'm describing that accurately. I'm concerned to see it or. Yeah, but yeah, you plunge that into the ground, turn it a few times, pull it out, and it gives you a very nice cylindrical soil core. And it's a little bit harder than it looks. Some of the dirt, you know, especially underneath building foundations was a lot harder to dig into than others. Others was very loose. And. And so what you typically do there is, it's almost, if you can imagine, like a five pointed die. You take one from the center and two or I mean, four from the corners of the property to make sure that you're kind of, you know, evenly spreading out what you might see there. So you take that, put it in the trash bag lined bucket, mix it up and then put it into a glass jar that you would label the time that, you know, you collected it. Who collected the sample. We had a chain of custody form to say who was handling the sample at all times and then, you know, took those samples to the labs to be analyzed.

[Tony Brisco]

I mean, what was it like for you personally being there at these homes, like, you know, in, in these destroyed properties, in these destroyed neighborhoods, you know, digging into the soil, taking these samples. I mean, I got to imagine that was kind of surreal.

[Joanne O'Neill]

Yeah, it really was almost surreal for us to be out there and to think that it has really been left to us, the regional newspaper, to carry out what has traditionally been the responsibility of the federal or state government and that we were the last line of defense for, even if it was just a few dozen homeowners, their only line really to getting access to this information. And many didn't even know that this step wasn't being carried out or that this was traditionally something that was done.

[Tony Brisco]

And what was it like? I mean, just talking with those homeowners and hearing their stories and giving them the results of these tests.

[Joanne O'Neill]

I mean, you'd be really surprised to hear that so many people were appreciative and had no idea that we, you know, when we were reaching out, people weren't aware because this is not something that's subject to, you know, many press conferences. They aren't Going out and telling people, well, we're not doing soil testing, you should do it. So when we were telling people that and offering free testing, they really jumped at the chance to have us go to their property and inform them of the results and take care of that for them. It was very difficult once we got the results back. For the folks where we did see, you know, excessive levels of contamination, it was a tough conversation to have. But I do think that they were very appreciative to have that knowledge to better protect themselves and to kind of figure out what they were going to do after. I mean, for one homeowner who we spoke to, she was able to at least get on the phone with her insurance company to say, well, will you take care of this? You know, while we're, you know, in negotiations about what should be covered, will this be something that, that we do? But I think it's also very important to know the vast majority of these properties. We found there was no excessive level of contamination. And that's the entire point of this, is to give people peace of mind that they are not going to be exposed to toxic substances once they return after a natural disaster. And the fact that that's not happening, most people are very anxious. And so that's what we also kind of heard and, you know, saw when we were, you know, meeting people out and speaking with them about the project.

[Tony Brisco]

And what, I guess what was most significant to you about the findings? I mean, obviously you found contamination. I mean, what would your high level summary be here? Because this was the first, you know, I mean, as you describe it in the story, this was the first evidence, you know, here from the LA Times that federal contractors are leaving toxic contamination behind.

[Joanne O'Neill]

It was alarming and also expected at the same time. I mean, two of the 10 homes that was destroyed and remediated by the Army Corps in the Eaton burn zone had unsafe levels according to state standards, of heavy metals. One had excessive amounts of lead. Another property where the entire home, including detached out buildings, had burned down, had abnormal or high levels of arsenic. And you know, 2 out of 10 is about what you would expect, again, just from fire data of the properties that would still be contaminated. And so if you kind of extrapolate that out to think 10 to 20% of homes, 13,500 homes in total that were destroyed and need to be cleaned up. I mean, the potential for lingering contamination is going to be in the hundreds, if not thousands. And so our study really was the first evidence that indeed contamination can still remain at our home if you do not do soil testing. I think that there is a debate whether or not any of this was pre existing or fire related contamination. But I think a lot of people have expressed concern because you have to think, you know, a lot of rain washed over the area which we know drives contamination deeper into the soil column. We also found that federal contractors were somewhat straying away from best practices in certain cases from what the state had done previous the Army Corps contract. And this actually was not in the story, but we'll be following up on this. They are not apparently removing soil beneath building foundations which could leave contaminated soil at properties if they're not rebuilt, which was the case that we saw at the Altadena woman's home that we, that we interviewed. She didn't have enough money from the insurance payout payout to rebuild. And so this lead contaminated part of her property is going to sit vacant and now she's worried about having friends and family over, especially young relatives who could be potentially exposed to this.

[Tony Brisco]

Yeah, my gosh. I should obviously add a bit of just reporters skepticism here because this is what we do as journalists. It's a small sample size, right? It is, it's 20 properties in the Eaton zone, 20 properties in the Pacific Palisades. So make of that what you will. It's not a peer reviewed study. That said, and also as you talk about, some of this could be preexisting. You have a whole discussion in the story of how we have high levels of arsenic in Southern California and that's important as well. All of that said, as you've just pointed out, none of this is really surprising either. I mean, given all of the evidence and all of the context for what you'd expect. This is what you probably thought you were going to see going in. And there's reason to think that you guys were pretty conservative here in the way you went about this. If you had regulatory agencies with more funding than a newspaper going about this the way they should be going about it, they'd be taking more soil from each site and doing more than the five spots. And then you'd probably be more likely to find those, you know, especially contaminated hotspots which, which we were more likely to miss. So our, you know, estimates are probably, you know, underestimates, if anything, of, you know, contamination at some of these sites. And I think, you know, one of the, the reasons why it's so important that you guys did this work and why I'm so, you know, thrilled that the LA Times invested in this is, you know, we talked about climate change earlier. This is a problem that's only gonna get worse. Wildfires are getting bigger and more destructive. These were the worst wildfires in the history of Los Angeles county, but there's a pretty good chance that these are not going to be the worst wildfires that we see in our lifetimes or maybe even in the next five or 10 years. I mean, this could very well happen again, and this is a problem that we're gonna keep dealing with. So it seems to me, and tell me if you think I'm off base here, but it seems pretty important that we. We figure out as a, you know, as a society, as a state, as a country, how we're going to deal with this contamination problem, because this isn't going anywhere. This is going to get worse, if anything.

[Joanne O'Neill]

Yeah. I think there is a big question to your point, whether or not the cleanup for the LA wildfires sets a precedent for the rest of the country. What is the federal government's role in disaster cleanup after a wildfire, after a hurricane, after a. After any natural disaster? Are they going to abide by a state's cleanup standards and preferences? Do they have their own slate of, you know, cleanup procedures? The Army Corps of Engineers was unwilling to give us even the documents that laid out what they were willing to do in this, which seemed very problematic that they wouldn't share that kind of information. And then the state, you know, which has carried this soil testing out since 2007, has been reticent to step in and fund this as well. So if really all levels of government are comfortable with taking a step back and saying that we're not going to do this, and in this case, really not announce it publicly and acknowledge that there could be contamination throughout these fire areas, what does that mean for the next community that's struck by a wildfire? I don't know if, you know, we have the answer to that, but it's a terrifying question.

[Tony Brisco]

Well, here at the LA Times, we're going to keep asking terrifying questions and doing our best to answer them and maybe occasionally testing soil, if that's what we have to do, because no one else will do it. Tony, thank you very much for your incredible work and to our colleagues as well who are doing this, and thank you for being with us on the Boiling Point podcast.

[Joanne O'Neill]

Really appreciate you for having me, Sammy, thank you.

[Tony Brisco]

If you think this kind of journalism is valuable and you want to support those of us doing it, I hope you'll consider subscribing to the LA Times online or in print. You can do that by going to latimes.com subscribe for those of you who already subscribe, thank you very, very much for your support. Thank you for listening to Boiling Point. I'm your host, Sammy Roth. My producers are Mary Knoff and Jonathan Shiflet. Sound design and original music by Jonathan Shiflett. Elijah Wolfson is our Editor. Denise Callahan is our Studio Manager Ben Church is our Production Manager. Nick Norton is our engineer. Special thanks to LA Times Studio President Anna Magzanian, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Los Angeles Times, Chris Argentieri and Executive Editor of the Los Angeles Times, Terry Tang. Boiling Point is executive produced by Darius Derekshon and created by me, Sami Roth.

[Taya Jeanette]

Ever wonder where your water comes from, what it really means to break up with fossil fuels, or what life might look like in the year 2100? Our friends at the Sierra Club Angelus Chapter, in collaboration with Stranded Astronaut Productions, dive into those questions and more in a new podcast called the Climate Dispatch, launching April 22, just in time for Earth Day. Hosted by Taya Jeanette, the show brings together voices from across the climate movement to share stories, fears and hopes for the future all through the lens of Southern California. Guests include Nayeli Kobo, Torrey Stevens, Arushinea J and Alison Shin. Plus, each episode features music from a local LA band. Listen to the Climate Dispatch at sc.org Climate Dispatch or wherever you get your podcasts. Streaming weekly starting April 22.

[Joanne O'Neill]

The LA Times sports video series Dodgers Debate is coming to your podcast app on March 28th. Tune in for banter analysis and hot takes from me, Dodgers beat reporter Jack.

[Tony Brisco]

Harris and sports columnist Bill Plaschke and Dylan Hernandez.

[Joanne O'Neill]

Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.