Elected officials in California are calling on the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Newsom administration to pay for soil testing on properties destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades wildfires, underscoring the public health risk and financial burdens that could be faced by survivors seeking to rebuild in Altadena and Pacific Palisades.
FEMA, the agency leading the wildfire recovery efforts, has come under heavy criticism for its decision not to test properties for contaminants after removing wreckage and up to 6 inches of top soil. That policy differs from how California has handled virtually all wildfire recoveries in the recent past.
After every major wildfire since 2007, federal and state disaster agencies have conducted soil sampling to ensure that debris-cleared properties do not contain unhealthy levels of lead and other toxic metals. In these cases, at properties where agencies detected high levels of contaminants, they typically deployed cleanup crews to remove another layer of soil, and then would perform another round of soil testing. This would be repeated until testing showed that the soil met state standards.
Following the 2025 L.A. wildfires, however, FEMA has repeatedly refused to pay for soil testing, contending that removing wildfire debris and up to 6 inches of topsoil from portions of destroyed homes is sufficient to eliminate any immediate health threats.
This month, U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Pasadena) led a contingent of 28 federal legislators in writing a letter demanding that FEMA reassess its decision. The letter, sent June 3, calls for federal funding for soil testing and for further remediation at properties with soil contamination above California’s standards.
In a separate letter, sent Thursday, state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Barbara) and three other state legislators urged California environmental regulators to step in and conduct soil sampling if federal disaster agencies continue to resist soil testing protocols. The letter recommends that state officials tap a $2.5-billion emergency relief package signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in January, which includes funding for debris cleanup and post-fire assessments.
Allen’s letter said the state’s decision to leave burned-down homes untested “will reverse precedent and lower standards for future disasters.” Without comprehensive government-led soil testing, the letter argued, homeowners would be left to pay for soil sampling themselves or risk returning to a property with unsafe levels of contamination.
“It is deeply unjust that this responsibility has fallen to fire survivors — already burdened by the challenges of total loss recovery — simply because federal partners like FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have failed to lead,” write Allen and his co-signatories in the letter. “The State of California now has the opportunity to fill that gap with leadership that centers science, transparency, and community needs.”
In February, the Newsom administration asked FEMA to reconsider its decision not to conduct post-cleanup soil testing, stressing that fire-related contamination can remain undetected and pose public health risks, even after cleanup crews finish their first pass at a property. But federal officials swiftly rejected the request, and instead suggested that state and local officials should perform this work.
Since then, the pressure has continued for California officials to step up.
Last month, a coalition of environmental researchers wrote a letter to the Newsom administration, urging state agencies pay for soil testing.
The Newsom administration appears to be walking back its concerns about lingering fire-related contamination. In a June 6 letter replying to those researchers, CalEPA Secretary Yana Garcia downplayed the risks of lingering contamination from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires.
Although air quality and soil testing have found high levels of lead downwind of the Eaton fire, Garcia said that some of this soil contamination could have resulted from the historical use of leaded gasoline in cars and heavy industry.
“It is in this environment, not a clean slate, that the Palisades and Eaton Fires occurred,” she wrote in her letter.
Soil testing carried out by Los Angeles Times journalists in March provided the first evidence that homes cleaned by federal cleanup crews still contained elevated levels of lead and arsenic. Soon after, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health also published preliminary data finding 27% of soil samples collected at already-cleaned homes still had lead above state standards for residential properties.
Despite these soil sampling results, Garcia signaled she is satisfied with the federal cleanup.
“Sampling results so far are demonstrating the effectiveness of the existing clean-up approach,” Garcia wrote in the letter.
(The health department denied an L.A. Times public records request seeking the raw data showing the extent of the soil contamination detected, saying the results had yet to be finalized. The department also declined requests for a copy of its contract with Roux Associates, including how much the county had paid the consultant to perform the soil sampling.)
Garcia stressed that blood testing around the wildfire-affected communities showed overall exposure was low. She did not directly respond to the researchers’ request to pay for soil testing for the L.A. wildfires.
Sen. Allen and the three state legislators who cosigned his public letter are seeking more answers from state environmental agencies. The letter calls for state environmental agencies to convene a public meeting by the end of June to discuss post-wildfire soil testing protocols and plans for the L.A. wildfires.
CalEPA officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
