In a remarkable reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will pay for soil testing for lead at 100 homes that were destroyed by the Eaton fire and cleaned up by federal disaster workers.

The forthcoming announcement would mark an about-face for FEMA officials, who repeatedly resisted calls to test properties for toxic substances after federal contractors finished removing fire debris. The new testing initiative follows reporting by The Times that workers repeatedly violated cleanup protocols, possibly leaving fire contaminants behind or moving them into unwanted areas, according to federal reports.

The EPA plan, presented to a small group of environmental experts and community members on Jan. 5, said the agency would randomly select 100 sites from the 5,600 homes that had burned down in the Eaton fire and where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversaw the removal of ash, debris and a layer of soil. The soil samples would be collected near the surface and about 6 inches below ground.

Sampling is expected to begin next week, with test results published in April.

During the Jan. 5 presentation, some attendees questioned whether the testing would meaningfully assess whether properties are safe to rebuild on.

Local environmental health advocates worry the EPA testing is designed only to justify FEMA’s decision not to undertake comprehensive soil testing, instead of providing real relief to their communities.

“The EPA’s plan to run a study that retroactively validates a limited soil-removal response after the L.A. Fires is deeply concerning, especially when there is ample independent data indicating contamination persists beyond what was addressed,” said Jane Lawton Potelle, executive director of the grassroots environmental health group Eaton Fire Residents United, in a statement. “The hard truth is that meaningful contamination recovery still has not been funded or delivered by the federal government or the State of California.“

The EPA’s proposed approach is narrower than soil-testing efforts for previous fires in California. Although lead is one of the most common and dangerous contaminants left behind after fires, federal and state disaster officials have traditionally tested soil for 17 toxic metals, including cancer-causing arsenic and toxic mercury.

The EPA plan also calls for taking soil from 30 different parts of each cleanup area and combining them into one singular representative sample. That method doesn’t align with California’s soil-testing policy and could obscure “hot spots” of contamination on a property.

“If you don’t want to find a high number [of contaminants], you take a lot of samples and you mix them together,” said Andrew Whelton, a Purdue University professor who researches natural disasters.

“Based on the experimental design of [the EPA plan], I do not understand the purpose of what they’re doing, because it is not meant to determine if the properties are safe or not,” Whelton added.

For nearly a year, FEMA refused to pay for soil testing, insisting it was time-consuming, costly and unnecessary. FEMA, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, maintained that removing ash, debris and a layer of soil would be enough to rid properties of toxic substances.

Federal officials insisted any lingering contamination on properties likely predated the fire and was caused by decades’ worth of pollution from cars and industry.

Daisy Rosas Vargas, a chemist and soil scientist with SoilWise, a local soil health and landscaping consulting business, was skeptical that the EPA’s testing, now a year after the fire, could meaningfully distinguish fire-related contamination supposedly on the surface from any legacy contamination deeper underground.

Historic fire data showed about 20% of properties still contain toxic substances above California’s benchmarks for residential properties.

What’s more, a trove of federal reports obtained by The Times revealed federal contractors repeatedly deviated from their cleanup plans for the January 2025 fires, possibly leaving dozens of properties with toxic ash and debris.

FEMA hired inspectors to observe the cleanup process and document any issues; the resulting reports say, in some cases, that workers sprayed contaminated pool water on properties, walked through recently clean properties with dirty boot covers and mixed clean and contaminated soil by using improper equipment.

In one of the most egregious violations, an inspector noted that an official with Environmental Chemical Corp., the primary contractor hired to oversee debris removal in the Eaton and Palisades fires, ordered a work crew to dump ash and debris onto a neighboring property.

A spokesperson for the Army Corps said “all deficiencies logged by” federal inspectors were “addressed and corrected.”

“Our robust quality assurance program was staffed with hundreds of quality assurance inspectors and engineers,” the spokesperson said. “The deficiencies that were identified in the article were corrected immediately or before Final Sign Off.”

The agency did not provide any details about how workers resolved the alleged illegal dumping, or any other deficiencies.

Numerous soil-testing efforts had already found contamination above state standards. Los Angeles Times journalists launched a soil-testing project and published the first evidence that fire-destroyed homes in the Eaton fire still contained elevated levels of soil contamination, even after federal cleanup workers finished removing debris.

Los Angeles County and UCLA-led soil testing initiatives also found elevated levels of contaminants at Army Corps-cleared properties.

EPA officials said the agency would share soil-testing results with property owners, in addition to Los Angeles County and state agencies. However, they did not say whether they intended to remove another layer of soil if lead levels exceed state and federal standards.

After hearing about the EPA plan, Jessica Handy, one of the co-founders of the Dena Soil Project, a grassroots coalition focused on providing soil testing and other aid to those impacted by the Eaton fire, questioned the value of such testing without a commitment to cleanup. “If it does show that there’s still contaminants, what is the solution?” asked Handy, a Pasadena native. “We’re at risk of losing more community members because they’re afraid that they’re going to expose themselves, their families, their pets, their elders.”

U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), who previously called on federal disaster agencies to provide comprehensive soil testing for fire victims, sent an email to her constituents last week saying she is “seeking assurance that they take action if the results of their testing find contamination.”

The Army Corps and its contractors initially aimed to demobilize by Jan. 8, 2026, the one-year anniversary of the fires, but federal cleanup efforts finished much earlier than expected. Federal cleanup workers removed fire debris from the final home enrolled in the federal program in Los Angeles’ Pacific Palisades in early September.

Federal and state officials hailed the Army Corps efforts as the fastest major cleanup in modern American history.

As of Monday afternoon, FEMA and the EPA have not responded to questions sent by The Times regarding specifics of the testing plan.

Football leans on tradition, providing convenient cover for the NFL’s lenient stance on smelling salts, ammonia crystals that players believe enhance performance when inhaled.

Does the olfactory exhilaration also enhance play-calling, amplifying one’s grasp of X’s and O’s?

Kyle Shanahan apparently believes so.

The San Francisco 49ers coach was caught by a Fox television camera moments before a playoff game Sunday against the Philadelphia Eagles taking several whiffs from a small packet before handing it to an assistant.

Earlier this season, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that 49ers players created a system to make sure everyone has immediate access to smelling salts during games. General manager John Lynch and Shanahan are users, according to the story, which stated that Shanahan “isn’t opposed to the occasional whiff.”

Is the NFL OK with this? The answer is a qualified yes.

Ahead of the 2025 season, the league’s head, neck and spine committee recommended that teams end the longtime practice of providing smelling salts to players. The decision was prompted by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning about the potential side effects of inhaling ammonia, which include lung damage and masking signs of a concussion.

Players all but panicked. George Kittle, the 49ers All-Pro tight end, jumped on an NFL Network broadcast to proclaim that smelling salts were crucial to his performance.

“I’m a regular user of smelling salts, taking them for a boost of energy before every offensive drive,” he said. “We have got to figure out a middle ground here, guys. Somebody help me out.”

The NFL came to his rescue, saying smelling salts — also known as ammonia inhalants, or AIs — were not banned. Teams could no longer provide them, but players could bring their own. It’s a compromise that may or may not pass the smell test. Either way, it’s not just the 49ers using them.

An ESPN Magazine piece in 2017 reported that “just a few minutes into the game, the Cowboys have discarded so many capsules that the area in front of their bench looks like the floor of a kid’s bedroom after trick-or-treating.”

Bottom line, legions of NFL players believe AIs enhance performance. They do so by irritating the linings of the nose and lungs, triggering a reflex that increases breathing rate and blood flow, fostering alertness.

Their effectiveness was discovered long before football was invented. Craft beer drinkers know Pliny the Elder as the inspiration for his namesake double IPA. The noted Roman naturalist and historian was indeed an early expert in fermentation, yet he also wrote about “sal ammoniac” — yes, smelling salts — in his encyclopedic work “Natural History,” published in 79 A.D.

Their popularity spread through Europe until, in Victorian tradition, they were used to rouse ladies after fainting spells. Later they were used in battle, with British medics supplying World War II soldiers with a whiff of the substance that doctors say triggers the body’s “fight-or-flight” response.

These days, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that U.S. airlines carry smelling salts onboard in case a pilot needs to be awakened after fainting. Blocking and tackling on a flight, however, remains strictly forbidden.

The NFL’s middling position isn’t curious. Experts say it’s an attempt to reduce liability in case of concussions or other medical complications. But it is their constant use that concerns doctors.

“The use of smelling salts in sports is definitely not their intended use,” Dr. Laura Boxley, a neuropsychologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, told NPR. “What’s happening with some athletes is they’re using them with much higher frequency than their intended use.”

Given the relative safety of the sidelines, Shanahan isn’t in danger of a brain-rattling concussion. Shortly after the NFL ceased supplying AIs, he was asked by a reporter whether he had concerns about their prevalence.

“I mean, I don’t,” Shanahan replied with a grin. “If someone gives me one, I’ll take a smell of the salt. I’m not too worried about it. I like to take one to wake myself up and lock myself in.”

SACRAMENTO — California and its state-funded programs are heading into a period of volatile fiscal uncertainty, driven largely by events in Washington and on Wall Street.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget chief warned Friday that surging revenues tied to the artificial intelligence boom are being offset by rising costs and federal funding cuts. The result: a projected $3-billion state deficit for the next fiscal year despite no major new spending initiatives.

The Newsom administration on Friday released its proposed $348.9-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, formally launching negotiations with the Legislature over spending priorities and policy goals.

“This budget reflects both confidence and caution,” Newsom said in a statement. “California’s economy is strong, revenues are outperforming expectations, and our fiscal position is stable because of years of prudent fiscal management — but we remain disciplined and focused on sustaining progress, not overextending it.”

Newsom’s proposed budget did not include funding to backfill the massive cuts to Medicaid and other public assistance programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, changes expected to lead to millions of low-income Californians losing healthcare coverage and other benefits.

“If the state doesn’t step up, communities across California will crumble,” California State Assn. of Counties Chief Executive Graham Knaus said in a statement.

The governor is expected to revise the plan in May using updated revenue projections after the income tax filing deadline, with lawmakers required to approve a final budget by June 15.

Newsom did not attend the budget presentation Friday, which was out of the ordinary, instead opting to have California Director of Finance Joe Stephenshaw field questions about the governor’s spending plan.

“Without having significant increases of spending, there also are no significant reductions or cuts to programs in the budget,” Stephenshaw said, noting that the proposal is a work in progress.

California has an unusually volatile revenue system — one that relies heavily on personal income taxes from high-earning residents whose capital gains rise and fall sharply with the stock market.

Entering state budget negotiations, many expected to see significant belt tightening after the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in November that California faces a nearly $18-billion budget shortfall. The governor’s office and Department of Finance do not always agree, or use the LAO’s estimates.

On Friday, the Newsom administration said it is projecting a much smaller deficit — about $3 billion — after assuming higher revenues over the next three fiscal years than were forecast last year. The gap between the governor’s estimate and the LAO’s projection largely reflects differing assumptions about risk: The LAO factored in the possibility of a major stock market downturn.

“We do not do that,” Stephenshaw said.

Among the key areas in the budget: