Connect with us

Science

Leaked memo reveals California debated cutting wildfire soil testing before disaster chief’s exit

Published

on

Leaked memo reveals California debated cutting wildfire soil testing before disaster chief’s exit

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s disaster chief quietly retired in late December amid criticism over the state’s indecisive stance on whether soil testing was necessary to protect survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires.

One year ago, Nancy Ward, then the director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), petitioned the Federal Emergency Management Agency to spearhead the cleanup of toxic ash and fire debris cloaking more than 12,000 homes across Los Angeles County.

Although Ward’s decision ensured the federal government would assume the bulk of disaster costs, it came with a major trade off. FEMA was unwilling to pay for soil sampling to confirm these homes weren’t still heavily contaminated with toxic substances after the cleanup — testing that California state agencies have typically done following similar fires in the past.

Following intense backlash from fire survivors and California lawmakers, Ward pleaded with FEMA to reconsider its soil-testing stance, writing in a Feb. 19 letter that it is “critical to protect public health” and “ensure that survivors can safely return to their homes.” Her request was denied.

Advertisement

However, in October, Cal OES — under Ward’s leadership — privately considered discontinuing state funding for soil testing in the aftermath of future wildfires, according to a confidential, internal draft memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The Times requested an interview with Ward, and sent questions to her office asking about her initial decision to forgo soil testing and for clarity on the future of state’s fire recovery policy. Ward declined the request; The Times later published an article on Dec. 29 about allegations that federal contractors illegally dumped toxic ash and misused contaminated soil in breach of state policy.

Ward, who served as Cal OES director for three years, retired on Dec. 30; her deputy director, Christina Curry, stepped into the role as the interim chief. Ward also did not respond to several requests for comment for this article.

Ward was the first woman to serve as Cal OES director. She had also previously served as a FEMA regional administrator, overseeing federal disaster response in the Southwest and Pacific Islands from 2006 to 2014.

A Cal OES spokesperson said Ward’s retirement had been planned well in advance.

Advertisement

“Director Nancy Ward has been a steady hand and a compassionate leader through some of California’s largest disasters,” the spokesperson said. “Her decades of service have made our state stronger, safer, and more resilient. The Governor is deeply grateful for her dedication and wishes her the very best in retirement.”

The internal memo obtained by The Times was written by Ward’s assistant director, and titled: “Should the state continue to pay for soil testing as part of Private Property Debris Removal (PPDR) programs? ”

It laid out three possible answers: The state could keep funding soil testing after future wildfires; the state could defer soil testing decisions to the affected counties with the possibility of reimbursing them; or the state could stop paying for soil testing entirely.

A Cal OES spokesperson said the memo was only a draft and did not represent a policy change. “The state’s position on soil testing remains unchanged,” the spokesperson said. “California is committed to advocating for the safe, timely removal of wildfire debris. Protecting the public health and well-being of impacted communities remains the state’s foremost priority.”

The primary reason for soil testing is to prevent harmful exposures to toxic metals, such as brain-damaging lead or cancer-causing arsenic. Since 2007, comprehensive soil testing has been conducted after 64 wildfire cleanups in California, according to the memo. When soil contamination still exceeded state benchmarks after the initial cleanup, the state government redeployed cleanup workers to remove more dirt and then retest the properties.

Advertisement

This approach, the memo said, was critical in identifying harmful substances that “pose exposure hazards via ingestion, inhalation of dust, or through garden/food production.” Soil testing “helps ensure the safety” of children, seniors, pregnant women and people with health issues who are “more vulnerable to soilborne toxins.”

“The State has a long precedent of conducting or paying for soil testing,” the Cal OES assistant director wrote in the memo.  “Pivoting from this would be a significant policy change.”

The memo cites a report from CalRecycle, the agency that has historically carried out state-led fire cleanups, that stresses the importance of the current practice to public health.

“Soil contamination after a wildfire is an invisible threat,” wrote a CalRecycle official. “If not properly cleaned and remediated in a methodical way, property owners may encounter additional hurdles during the rebuilding process and suffer additional trauma.”

“Soil sampling,” the official adds, “is the metric by which Recyclable demonstrates that debris removal operations have successfully remediated the post-disaster threat to public health and the environment.”

Advertisement

However, such soil testing and additional cleanup prolongs the cleanup timeline and can make it more expensive. The memo cites cost estimates from CalRecycle which show that soil testing and additional cleanup work usually costs some $4,000 to $6,000 per parcel, representing 3% to 6% of overall debris removal costs.

The state cost projections align with those made by independent environmental experts. Andrews Whelton, a Purdue University professor who researches natural disasters, estimated that soil testing and further remediation for the Eaton and Palisades fire would cost between $40 million to $70 million.

All told, the CalRecycle report states the usual soil-testing process has been a “relatively low-cost step” to safeguard public health.

Further, although soil testing may add some cost, when it’s taken as a proactive measure, it can save money down the road.

Forgoing soil testing and evidence-backed remediation can generate uncertainty about toxic contamination, which in turn could lower the value of homes in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, Whelton said. What’s more, the property owner may be liable for soil contamination if they fail to disclose environmental risks when selling or leasing.

Advertisement

The internal CalOES memo alludes to this give and take: “Funds saved initially by skipping testing may be outweighed by later unseen costs, for example, reinvesting in remediation, addressing community complaints, litigation, or cleanup failure.”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has fielded over 1,100 complaints filed by property owners affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires — over 20% of which were related to the quality of work. According to internal reports obtained by The Times, federal cleanup repeatedly deviated from cleanup protocols, likely spreading contamination in the process.

Since then, FEMA officials have backed down from their hard-line stance against paying for post-fire soil testing in California in an attempt to shore up public confidence in the federal cleanup.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that FEMA will conduct a limited lead-testing program in the Eaton fire burn scar that is intended to “confirm the effectiveness of cleanup methods,” according to an EPA spokesperson. The initiative has already come under the scrutiny of environmental experts who say it lacks the rigor of California’s soil testing regimen.

It remains unclear if California will continue to implement soil-testing safeguards that made the state a national leader in fire recovery. Though state officials say these will remain unchanged, there is no legal mandate to follow these procedures.

Advertisement

The internal CalOES memo circulated under Ward’s leadership has only added to the cloud of uncertainty.

One thing is clear: It’s a moot point for survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fire.

As state and federal officials debated the value of soil testing, most Altadena and Pacific Palisades residents have been left to investigate the extent of environmental fallout on their own.

Advertisement

Science

The share of Americans medically obese is projected to rise to almost 50% by 2035

Published

on

The share of Americans medically obese is projected to rise to almost 50% by 2035

On Wednesday, a new study published in JAMA by researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle projected that by 2035, nearly half of all American adults, about 126 million individuals, will be living with obesity. The study draws on data from more than 11 million participants via the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and from the independent Gallup Daily Survey.

The projections show a striking increase in the prevalence of obesity over the past few decades in the U.S. In 1990, only 19.3% of U.S. adults were obese, according to the study. That figure more than doubled to 42.5% by 2022, and is forecast to reach 46.9% by 2035.

The study highlights significant disparities across states, ages, and racial and ethnic groups. While every state is expected to see increases, the sharpest rises are projected for Midwestern and Southern states.

For example, nationwide, by 2035, the study projects that 60% (11.5 million adults) of Black women and 54% (14.5 million) of Latino women will suffer from obesity when compared with 47% (36.5 million) of white women. Similarly, 48% (13.2 million) of Latino men will suffer from the disease compared with 45% (34.4 million) of white men and 43% (7.61 million) of Black men.

The findings say California will see similar trends in gender and racial disparities. The study projects that by 2035, obesity rates among Latino and Black women in California will reach nearly 60%, compared with nearly 40% for their white counterparts. Additionally, Latino men in California could see rates over 50%, compared with nearly 40% for their white counterparts.

Advertisement

“These numbers are not surprising, given the systemic inequalities that exist,” in many California cities, said Dr. Amanda Velazquez, director of obesity medicine at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, pointing to economic instability, chronic stress and the car-dependency of Los Angeles and other California metro areas. “There are challenges for access to nutritious foods, depending on where you’re at in the city,” Velazquez said. ”There’s also disparities in the access to healthcare, especially to treatment for obesity.”

That’s recently become more of a challenge, since changes in Medi-Cal plans that went into effect at the beginning of this year mean obesity medication and treatment are no longer covered for hundreds of thousands of low-income Californians. “To take that away is devastating,” said Velazquez.

Despite these disparities, California is projected to fare better than most other states, with its rates of obesity growing more slowly than the national average.

“There are statewide and local policies that influence food, nutrition and social determinants of health for individuals,” said Velazquez.

Church pointed to measures such as SB 12 and SB 677, passed in the mid 2000s, which set strict nutritional standards for schools, existing menu labeling laws at both the state and federal levels requiring restaurants to provide nutritional facts on menu items, and cities like Berkeley and Oakland imposing local soda taxes as key local and statewide initiatives to keep obesity at bay.

To keep up this momentum, both doctors stressed that California must continue to strengthen school nutrition standards, expand transportation infrastructure that encourages walking instead of driving, maintain and expand economic disincentives to unhealthy foods, such as beverage taxes, and address food deserts by incentivizing new grocery stores and farmers’ markets in underserved neighborhoods.

Advertisement

Future efforts, Church says, should prioritize the Black and Latino populations identified by the study as most affected.

Continue Reading

Science

Pediatricians urge Americans to stick with previous vaccine schedule despite CDC’s changes

Published

on

Pediatricians urge Americans to stick with previous vaccine schedule despite CDC’s changes

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spoke with a single voice when advising the nation’s families on when to vaccinate their children.

Since 1995, the two organizations worked together to publish a single vaccine schedule for parents and healthcare providers that clearly laid out which vaccines children should get and exactly when they should get them.

Today, that united front has fractured. This month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced drastic changes to the CDC’s vaccine schedule, slashing the number of diseases that it recommends U.S. children be routinely vaccinated against to 11 from 17. That follows the CDC’s decision last year to reverse its recommendation that all kids get the COVID-19 vaccine.

On Monday, the AAP released its own immunization guidelines, which now look very different from the federal government’s. The organization, which represents most of the nation’s primary care and specialty doctors for children, recommends that children continue to be routinely vaccinated against 18 diseases, just as the CDC did before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took over the nation’s health agencies.

Endorsed by a dozen medical groups, the AAP schedule is far and away the preferred version for most healthcare practitioners. California’s public health department recommends that families and physicians follow the AAP schedule.

Advertisement

“As there is a lot of confusion going on with the constant new recommendations coming out of the federal government, it is important that we have a stable, trusted, evidence-based immunization schedule to follow and that’s the AAP schedule,” said Dr. Pia Pannaraj, a member of AAP’s infectious disease committee and professor of pediatrics at UC San Diego.

Both schedules recommend that all children be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV) and varicella (better known as chickenpox).

AAP urges families to also routinely vaccinate their kids against hepatitis A and B, COVID-19, rotavirus, flu, meningococcal disease and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The CDC, on the other hand, now says these shots are optional for most kids, though it still recommends them for those in certain high-risk groups.

The schedules also vary in the recommended timing of certain shots. AAP advises that children get two doses of HPV vaccine starting at ages 9 to12, while the CDC recommends one dose at age 11 or 12. The AAP advocates starting the vaccine sooner, as younger immune systems produce more antibodies. While several recent studies found that a single dose of the vaccine confers as much protection as two, there is no single-dose HPV vaccine licensed in the U.S. yet.

Advertisement

The pediatricians’ group also continues to recommend the long-standing practice of a single shot combining the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines in order to limit the number of jabs children get. In September, a key CDC advisory panel stocked with hand-picked Kennedy appointees recommended that the MMR and varicella vaccines be given as separate shots, a move that confounded public health experts for its seeming lack of scientific basis.

The AAP is one of several medical groups suing HHS. The AAP’s suit describes as “arbitrary and capricious” Kennedy’s alterations to the nation’s vaccine policy, most of which have been made without the thorough scientific review that previously preceded changes.

Days before AAP released its new guidelines, it was hit with a lawsuit from Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group Kennedy founded and previously led, alleging that its vaccine guidance over the years amounted to a form of racketeering.

The CDC’s efforts to collect the data that typically inform public health policy have noticeably slowed under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS. A review published Monday found that of 82 CDC databases previously updated at least once a month, 38 had unexplained interruptions, with most of those pauses lasting six months or longer. Nearly 90% of the paused databases included vaccination information.

“The evidence is damning: The administration’s anti-vaccine stance has interrupted the reliable flow of the data we need to keep Americans safe from preventable infections,” Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo wrote in an editorial for Annals of Internal Medicine, a scientific journal. Marrazzo, an infectious disease specialist, was fired last year as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases after speaking out against the administration’s public health policies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

‘We’re not going away’: Rob Caughlan, fierce defender of the coastline and Surfrider leader, dies at the age of 82

Published

on

‘We’re not going away’: Rob Caughlan, fierce defender of the coastline and Surfrider leader, dies at the age of 82

Known by friends and colleagues as a “planetary patriot,” a “happy warrior” and the “Golden State Eco-Warrior,” Rob Caughlan, a political operative, savvy public relations specialist and one of the early leaders of the Surfrider Foundation, died at his home in San Mateo, on Jan. 17. He was 82.

His wife of nearly 62 years, Diana, died four days earlier, from lung cancer.

Environmentalists, political operatives and friends responded to his death with grief but also joy as they recalled his passion, talent and sense of humor — and his drive not only to make the world a better place, but to have fun doing it.

“He’d always say that the real winner in a surfing contest was the guy who had the most fun,” said Lennie Roberts, a conservationist in San Mateo County and longtime friend of Caughlan’s. “He was true to that. It’s the way he lived.”

“When he walked into a room, he’d have a big smile on his face. He was a great — a gifted — people person,” said Dan Young, one of the original five founders of the Surfrider Foundation. The organization was cobbled together in the early 1980s by a group of Southern California surfers who felt called to protect the coastline — and their waves.

Advertisement

They also wanted to dispel the stereotype that surfers are lackadaisical stoners — and show the world that surfers could get organized and fight for just causes, said Roberts, citing Caughlan’s 2020 memoir, “The Surfer in the White House and Other Salty Yarns.”

Before joining Surfrider in 1986, Caughlan was a political operative who worked as an environmental adviser in the Carter administration. According to Warner Chabot, an old friend and recently retired executive director of the an Francisco Estuary Institute, Caughlan got his start during the early 1970s when he and his friend, David Oke, formed the Sam Ervin Fan Club, which supported the Southern senator’s efforts to lead the Watergate investigation of President Nixon.

According to Chabot, Caughlan organized the printing of T-shirts with Ervin’s face on them, underneath the text “I Trust Uncle Sam.”

“He was an early social influencer — par extraordinaire,” he said.

Glenn Hening, a surfer, former Jet Propulsion Laboratory space software engineer and another original founder of the Surfrider Foundation, said one of the group’s initial fights was against the city of Malibu, which in the early 1980s was periodically digging up sand in the lagoon right offshore and destroying the waves at one of their favorite surf spots.

Advertisement

According to Hening, it was Caughlin’s unique ability to persuade and charm politicians and donors that put Surfrider’s efforts on the map.

Caughlan served as the foundation’s president from 1986 to 1992.

The foundation grabbed the national spotlight in 1989 when it went after two large paper mills in Humboldt Bay that were discharging toxic wastewater into an excellent surfspot in Northern California. The foundation took aim and in 1991 filed suit alongside the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the paper mills settled for $5.8 million.

Hening said the victory would never have happened without Caughlan.

The mills had tried to brush off the suit by offering a donation to the foundation, Hening said. But Caughlan and Mark Massara — an environmental lawyer with the organization — rebuffed the gesture.

Advertisement

“The paper mill guys said, ‘Well, what can we do here? How can we make this go away?’” said Hening, recalling the conversation. “And Rob said, ‘It’s not going to go away. We’re not going away. We’re surfers.”

Roberts said Caughlan’s legacy can be felt by anyone who has ever spent time on the San Mateo County coastline. In the 1980s, the two spearheaded a successful ballot measure still protects the coast from non-agricultural development and ensured access to the beaches and bluffs. It also prohibits onshore oil facilities for off-shore facilities.

The two also worked on a county measure that led to the development of the Devil’s Slide tunnels on Highway 1 between Pacifica and Montara, designed to make that formerly treacherous path safer for travelers.

The state had wanted to build a six-lane highway over the steep hills in the area. “It would have been dangerous because of the steep slopes, and it would be going up into the fog bank and then back down out of the fog. So it was inherently dangerous,” Roberts said.

Chad Nelsen, the current president of the Surfrider Foundation, said he was first drawn into Caughlan’s orbit in 2010 when Surfrider got involved with a lawsuit pertaining to a beach in San Mateo County. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla purchased 53 acres of Northern California coastline for $32.5 million and closed off access to the public — including a popular stretch known as Martin’s Beach — so Surfrider sued.

Advertisement

Nelsen said that although Caughlan had left the organization about 20 years before, he reappeared with a “sort of unbridled enthusiasm and commitment to the cause,” and the organization ultimately prevailed — the public can once again access the beach “thanks to ‘Birdlegs.’”

Birdlegs was Caughlan’s nickname, and according to Nelsen, it was probably coined in the 1970s by his fellow surfers.

“He had notoriously spindly legs, I guess,” Nelsen said.

Robert Willis Caughlan was born in Alliance, Ohio, on Feb. 27, 1943. His father, who was a parachute instructor with the U.S. Army, died when Caughlan was 4. In 1950, Caughlan moved with his mother and younger brother to San Mateo, where he saw the ocean for the first time.

He rode his his first wave in 1959, at the age of 16, from the breakwater at Half Moon Bay.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending