To the editor: Your recent piece, “Feds won’t test soil after L.A. wildfire cleanup, potentially leaving contamination behind,” touches on a significant issue regarding post-wildfire recovery protocols. However, I noticed an important aspect that wasn’t addressed: Who is responsible for footing the bill when state standards surpass those set by federal authorities?
The article does a commendable job of pointing out the potential health risks posed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to skip soil testing in alignment with state contamination standards. Yet, it leaves unanswered whether California has historically taken on the cost of meeting these heightened standards or whether it ought to.
This question is vital, especially since your article notes that roughly one-third of properties impacted by the Camp fire needed further cleanup beyond the federal mandate of removing six inches of soil.
If California insists on upholding stricter environmental guidelines than those set by the federal government, shouldn’t it also be responsible for the additional costs? Just as the state allocates funds for enforcing its tough vehicle emissions standards, it seems logical that California should cover the expenses for soil testing and cleanup that exceed federal disaster protocols.
Instead of solely critiquing federal agencies for not overextending their roles, let’s foster an open discussion about California’s funding duties when its environmental measures surpass federal stipulations.
Brian Mason, Joshua Tree
To the editor: I propose that every new or rebuilt home in L.A. County incorporate a subterranean rainwater collection system equipped with a pumping mechanism. Such a requirement should extend to new constructions in fire-prone areas as well.
This setup would direct rainwater from gutters into a storage tank. In the event of a fire, a simple button press could activate the pump, distributing water over the home’s roof.
The additional expense during construction would be a minor fraction of the total building cost. Shouldn’t this be a fundamental consideration for city planners aiming at fire prevention?
Dennis McLaughlin, Rancho Palos Verdes
