Letters to the Editor: If California wants more debris cleanup than the feds offer, who pays?

To the editor: Your article, “Feds won’t test soil after L.A. wildfire cleanup, potentially leaving contamination behind,” raises important concerns about post-fire cleanup standards. But it overlooks a crucial question: Who should pay when state environmental standards exceed federal requirements?

While the article effectively highlights the public health implications of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers skipping soil testing to see if the state’s contamination standards have been met, it never addresses whether California has historically funded the additional cleanup needed to meet its stricter standards, or whether it should.

This is particularly relevant given that, as your article reports, about one-third of properties after the Camp fire required additional cleanup beyond the federal baseline six-inch soil removal.

If California chooses to maintain stricter environmental standards than federal regulations require, shouldn’t the state be prepared to fund the difference? Just as California funds enforcement of its stricter vehicle emissions standards, it seems reasonable that the state would fund soil testing and cleanup beyond federal disaster response standards.

Rather than simply criticizing federal agencies for not exceeding their scope, we should have a transparent discussion about state funding responsibilities when California’s environmental protections go beyond federal requirements.

Brian Mason, Joshua Tree

..

To the editor: I suggest that every rebuilt property in L.A. County be required to include a belowground rainwater capture system with a built-in pumping unit. The same requirement should be part of any new home construction in fire zones.

Rain water would flow from gutters into a capture tank. In a fire emergency, the pump would distribute water to the home’s roof at the push of a button.

The added cost during home construction would be a small fraction of the building expense. Shouldn’t this be a city planner’s first fire prevention thought?

Dennis McLaughlin, Rancho Palos Verdes