Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • How to fight an illegal increase
    A small "for rent" sign hangs on the exterior of an apartment building in Koreatown.

    Topline:

    Many renters in Los Angeles and Orange counties are about to get a slight reprieve from double-digit rent hikes. Starting Aug. 1, the maximum allowable rent increase under a key statewide tenant protection law will decline from 10% to 8.8%.

    How it works: For most California tenants living in apartment buildings constructed more than 15 years ago, the statewide Tenant Protection Act puts a ceiling on how much landlords can raise rents each year. The higher inflation gets, the more landlords can raise rents — which is why the law’s maximum allowable rent hike of 10% has been in effect for the past 12 months. Now, lower inflation figures are set to slightly dampen the maximum allowable rent increase that applies to many renters in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The new 8.8% limit will remain in effect until July 31, 2024.

    Why it matters: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles staff attorney Jonathan Jager said falling inflation means landlords can’t give L.A. tenants rent hikes quite as high as last year. But he predicts many will still struggle to keep up with 8.8% increases. “Even though inflation is going down, wages haven't risen,” he said. Renters in many SoCal cities may have stronger rent hike protections under local rent control laws.

    What to do if you receive an illegal rent hike: If you’re an L.A. or Orange County renter covered by the Tenant Protection Act and your landlord gives you a rent increase starting on Aug. 1 that exceeds 8.8%, you are not legally obligated to pay the higher amount. Jager said tenants facing unlawful rent hike demands can continue paying their previous rent.

    Many renters in Los Angeles and Orange counties got a slight reprieve in 2023 from large rent hikes. Starting Aug. 1, 2023 the maximum allowable rent increase under a key statewide tenant protection law declined from 10% to 8.8%.

    The change is due to the state’s Tenant Protection Act. Passed in 2019, the law puts a ceiling on how much landlords can raise rents each year. It covers many, but not all, rentals in California.

    Under the law, allowable rent increases rise along with inflation. The higher inflation gets, the more landlords can raise rents — which is why the law’s maximum allowable rent hike of 10% has been in effect for the past 12 months.

    Then, lower inflation figures dampened allowable rent increases in L.A. and Orange counties. The region’s new 8.8% rent hike limit will remain in place until July 31, 2024.

    Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles staff attorney Jonathan Jager said, “Rents are not allowed to increase more than 5% plus the change in the consumer price index,” a common measure of inflation. And they can never go beyond 10%.

    Wondering what to do if you’re facing a large rent increase that may be illegal? Keep reading for details.

    How the rent hike limit works

    Here’s how the calculation works. You start with the consumer price index for the L.A. metro area, which was 3.8% in April. That month is used each year to calculate the law’s new rent hike limits, which go into effect every August. Add 3.8% to the law’s additional 5% increase, and that brings the total to 8.8%.

    Back in April 2022, the consumer price index for the L.A. area was 7.9%. When the additional 5% was added to that number, it triggered the law’s maximum allowable rent hike of 10%.

    Even with allowable rent hikes slightly down from last year, Jager predicts many renters will struggle to keep up with 8.8% increases.

    “Even though inflation is going down, wages haven't risen,” he said. “Tenants are still looking at relatively large rent increases.”

    How to know if you have additional rent protections

    The Tenant Protection Act generally applies to apartment buildings constructed more than 15 years ago. If you live in a newer building, your landlord is allowed to raise your rent even higher. The law is superseded in about a dozen Southern California cities by stronger local rent control laws that further limit annual rent increases. Here’s our guide to figuring out the rules in your area.

    Does your city have rent control?

    If you live in one of these cities, or an unincorporated area of L.A. County, your housing may be covered by local laws that cap rent hikes below 8.8%. Read our guide for more info.

    • Pasadena
    • West Hollywood
    • Los Angeles
    • Inglewood
    • Santa Monica
    • Cudahy
    • Culver City
    • Beverly Hills
    • Baldwin Park
    • Bell Gardens
    • Santa Ana
    • Pomona

    If all of this sounds very confusing, that’s because it is. Tenants have their work cut out trying to figure out if their housing is covered by state or local rent control laws, to calculate the maximum allowable rent increase in their area, and to know how to protect their rights.

    It also doesn’t help that no branch of California state government has taken responsibility for posting up-to-date information about the law’s rent hike restrictions. When lawmakers passed the Tenant Protection Act, they did not explicitly task any state agency with putting out reliable information about the law’s annual rent hike limits.

    Russ Heimerich, a spokesperson for the agency overseeing the state’s Housing and Community Development department, said, “Enforcement of most landlord-tenant issues — including rent increases — is a civil matter, and so does not go before any state department or agency.”

    When we asked multiple state spokespeople about new local limits under the Tenant Protection Act, they pointed us to a website run by a nonprofit called TenantProtections.Org that allows users to look up rent increase limits based on their ZIP code. But as recently as July 19, that website was incorrectly telling users that rent hikes of up to 10% are allowed in Los Angeles next month.

    Tenant advocates say state agencies should do more to clear up this confusion.

    “It certainly feels like the state is patting itself on the back for passing a tenant protection law, and then doing none of the legwork to make sure that people are aware of how the law affects them,” said Jager with the Legal Aid Foundation of L.A.

    What to do if you receive an illegal rent hike 

    Though state government resources are lacking, renters in L.A. County and the city of L.A. can find information about the 8.8% limit on local government websites. Locally, an LAist review found many other cities have not posted timely information about the new rules.

    Landlords must give tenants a 30-day notice for any rent hike of up to 10%. If you’re an L.A. or Orange County renter covered by the Tenant Protection Act and your landlord gives you a rent increase starting on Aug. 1 that exceeds 8.8%, you are not legally obligated to pay the higher amount.

    Jager said tenants facing unlawful rent hike demands can continue paying their previous rent. If for example you receive an unlawful 10% rent hike, you don’t have to pay an 8.8% increase until your landlord gives you a proper 30-day notice within the legal limits of the state law, he said. Jager noted that landlords can always try to file an eviction case in situations like this, but tenants can use the Tenant Protection Act as a legal defense against eviction.

    If you still have any questions about how these rent increase rules apply to your housing, you can reach out to StayHousedLA.org, a coalition of legal aid organizations funded by the city and county of L.A.

  • DOJ wanted to stop counting of 20K ballots
    People extract ballots from their envelopes and prepare them to be scanned for counting in the Vote-By-Mail Processing Boards area at the Orange County Registrar of Voters Facility in Santa Ana, Calif. on Oct. 28, 2026.

    Topline:

    A federal judge has denied an unprecedented, emergency request by the Department of Justice to segregate thousands of California ballots in the midterm elections.

    What the court said: In his 26-page ruling issued this evening, U.S. District Judge David Carter, a Clinton appointee, denied the Justice Department's request for a temporary restraining order to stop processing the ballots in question. "Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," he wrote. Carter also expressed concern about taking action that could disenfranchise eligible voters and create chaos.

    The backstory: The Justice Department wants California election officials to stop processing ballots pertaining to 20,000 individuals that federal officials say are "likely" noncitizens. State and local officials in California have countered that the DOJ’s list of “likely” noncitizens is unreliable, with a preliminary analysis by Los Angeles County showing that many on the list do not have active voter registrations.

    What's next: The judge said that the federal government can address the issue by continuing to indict people for the crime of illegally voting as noncitizens. DOJ officials say in the last two months they have charged dozens of people for registering or voting without being a U.S. citizen.

    A federal judge has denied an unprecedented, emergency request by the Department of Justice to segregate thousands of California ballots in the midterm elections.

    The Justice Department wants California election officials to stop processing ballots pertaining to 20,000 individuals that federal officials say are "likely" noncitizens.

    State and local officials in California have countered that the DOJ's list of "likely" noncitizens is unreliable, with a preliminary analysis by Los Angeles County showing that many on the list do not have active voter registrations. The officials also claim that setting aside ballots just days before Election Day, when voting and processing mailed ballots are already underway, would be unlawful and infeasible and would disenfranchise eligible voters.

    In his 26-page ruling issued Wednesday evening, U.S. District Judge David Carter, a Clinton appointee, denied the Justice Department's request for a temporary restraining order to stop processing the ballots in question.

    "Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," he wrote.

    Carter also expressed concern about taking action that could disenfranchise eligible voters and create chaos.

    "Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred," Carter wrote at the conclusion of his order. "If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger. This Court declines to be a party to such process."

    The judge said that the federal government can address the issue by continuing to indict people for the crime of illegally voting as noncitizens. DOJ officials say in the last two months they have charged dozens of people for registering or voting without being a U.S. citizen.

    The DOJ's lawsuit in California, which was filed Oct. 15, is among a flurry of unprecedented actions the department has waged in states close to Election Day, raising alarms about federal interference in state election procedures.

    Like in California, on Monday federal prosecutors asked Washington state election officials to review a list of 400 registered voters the DOJ believes are likely noncitizens. And last week, the DOJ filed an unusual lawsuit in Alaska that seeks to stop the state from certifying the results in its Senate race if the Republican incumbent loses due to votes for a longshot candidate with a similar name who is accused of being a spoiler candidate.

    In California's most recent motion to the court, state Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, asked the judge to take into account the circumstances of DOJ's demand. "This litigation is a precursor to further interference here in California," Bonta wrote. "The Court must not be drawn into this chilling degradation of democratic values and constitutional principles."

    The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Carter's denial, and the matter could ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The DOJ has argued the issue is urgent since ballots are already being processed. Once signatures are verified on returned mail ballot envelopes, the ballots are separated from their envelopes to retain voter confidentiality and it then becomes impossible to retrieve an ineligible ballot.

    Federal prosecutors have argued that votes by noncitizens dilute the votes of U.S. citizens. Voting by noncitizens has been shown by audits and investigations to be extremely rare.

    The accuracy of the DOJ's list of "likely" noncitizens is still an ongoing matter of dispute.

    A Los Angeles County analysis of a small sample of people on the DOJ's list found that a significant portion had said in records they were born in the U.S. But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services senior official Nicolas Bartell contested that in recent court filings, writing that his office's review of those individuals found none were U.S.-born.

    Bartell did acknowledge the review found four of those people "might have a claim to U.S. citizenship."

    He also provided the court additional details about the federal government's methodology in creating the list in recent court filings.

    But University of Delaware political scientist Kassra Oskooi, who has been tapped as an expert witness by voting rights groups who are intervening in the case, responded in his own declaration to the court that he believes USCIS's matching protocol "is likely to be unreliable."

  • Sponsored message
  • State officials may pull project funding
    A view from above of a pair of green hills at the bottom of the frame and the ocean in the horizon.
    Catalina Island is home to more than 4,000 residents, who live with slow, unreliable internet connection.

    Topline:

    California’s Public Utilities Commission will decide whether to claw back or keep $37.5 million in grant funding to bring fast, reliable internet to Catalina Island.

    Background: Last December, the CPUC awarded a grant to telecom company AVX Networks to install subsea fiber internet infrastructure between Orange County and the island.

    Why it matters: Catalina Island is home to more than 4,000 residents, and it draws thousands of tourists each year, but the internet connection is often slow and unreliable. The lack of a reliable internet connection affects critical services on the island such as remote learning and emergency response.

    Read on … for more on where things stand.

    California’s Public Utilities Commission will decide on Thursday whether to claw back or keep $37.5 million in grant funding meant to bring fast, reliable internet to Catalina Island.

    The island is home to more than 4,000 residents, and it draws thousands of tourists each year. Its slow, unreliable internet connection affects everything from remote learning to emergency response.

    Lance Ware is CEO of AVX Networks, the company awarded the grant from the CPUC in December 2025. He told LAist host Nereida Moreno that the island depends on a very limited wireless internet link.

    “When the town is busy, for instance, a cruise ship comes … the internet just gets crippled along with all the telephone services,” Ware explained.

    Months after AVX Networks was awarded the grant, CPUC staff accused the company in July 2026 of breaking federal spending rules, citing insufficient justification and documentation for invoices.

    The proposed plan would build the fiber-optic network under the San Pedro Channel from two points on Catalina Island to landings near Huntington Beach. Those cables will then connect to the Middle Mile Broadband Network in Stanton.

    Where do things stand today? 

    CPUC staff allege that AVX Networks violated several program requirements, according to records.

    “Since the award, AVX Networks has not shown itself to have the requisite administrative, technical, and operational capacity to deliver on its project, and AVX Networks has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its award,” the CPUC agenda item records state.

    Ware said he “vehemently disagrees” with those statements.

    “There are allegations on things in there that do not make sense to us in that we've had no due process or cure and correct period to address,” Ware said.

    What’s next? 

    If the commission terminates the contract and pulls the funding, Ware said the project will be delayed, but not stopped.

    “This is not curtains down for us,” Ware added. “It's gonna take longer, and we'll have to find some other way to finance it, but we certainly haven't given up.”

    How to participate in CPUC meetings

    California’s Public Utilities Commission meets on Thursday, Oct. 29 at 11 a.m. You can watch the meeting remotely here.

    To make public comments over the phone: Call (800) 857-1917. When prompted by the operator, unmute your phone and press *1 (star one). You will be prompted to state your name and/or organization. The operator will call on you when it’s your turn to speak.

    To make a written comment: You can submit comments on the CPUC docket page.

    Nereida Moreno contributed to the reporting of this story.

  • All the tax measures on the LA, OC ballots
    An illustrated wallet with cash, a receipt and coins sits before a Los Angeles street scene with palm trees and skyline.
    More than 30 cities in L.A. and Orange counties have tax increases of some kind on the Nov. 3 ballot.

    Topline:

    By LAist’s count, over 30 cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties are asking residents to approve tax measures on Election Day this Tuesday.

    Why now? Municipalities cite stagnant revenues that haven’t kept pace with the rising costs of insurance, maintenance and infrastructure projects, and employee pensions. As a result, big cities, suburbs and small towns alike are all facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits. So they are asking residents to open their wallets — or potentially see deep cuts to basic city services.

    Read on ... to find out if possible hikes are coming your way.

    Southern Californians are feeling squeezed by the rising costs of, well, everything. And now their local governments are asking for more money, too.

    By LAist’s count, more than 30 cities or districts in Los Angeles and Orange counties are asking residents to approve tax measures on Election Day, Nov. 3, citing stagnant revenues that haven’t kept pace with the rising costs of insurance, maintenance and infrastructure projects, and employee pensions. Big cities, suburbs and small towns are all facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits and asking residents to open their wallets — or potentially see deep cuts to basic city services.

    The list of local measures on ballots from Culver City to San Clemente includes sales taxes, hotel taxes, business taxes, parcel taxes and utility taxes. Some ballot measures would extend or increase existing taxes while others are brand-new.

    Much of the answer to why so many tax measures are on the ballot lies in Proposition 13, which capped property taxes in 1978.

    Before Prop. 13, cities and counties relied on property taxes for nearly all of their revenue. In the decades since, they’ve increasingly turned to other types of taxes. Hotel and utility taxes, for example, were essentially nonexistent before the mid-1970s, and sales taxes represented a small sliver of revenue. Even as these taxes have grown, they’ve struggled to replace property tax revenue.

    How Proposition 13 reshaped local taxes 

    • Before 1978, California municipalities could raise taxes without voter approval. But in addition to capping property taxes, Proposition 13 also changed the rules for other taxes. Section 4 of Proposition 13 states that any special taxes (which are taxes designated for a specific use) must be approved by two-thirds of voters. A later proposition passed in 1986 requires that general taxes be approved by a simple majority of voters. General taxes are general purpose funds that cities can allocate as they please.
    • The rules could change again this year with Proposition 43, which would raise the share of votes needed to pass local special tax measures proposed by citizens to two-thirds. Currently, citizen-led special tax initiatives only need to win a simple majority. 
    Despite what the Nov. 3 ballot might suggest, sales tax measures are actually becoming less common, according to Michael Coleman, author of the California Local Government Finance Almanac. “More and more governments have started to exhaust the capacity for that. There’s a limit in how much you can do both legally and in terms of the tolerance of voters,” Coleman said.

    State law caps the maximum combined local and county sales tax rate, and many Southern California cities are already at or near that cap, Coleman said. And sales tax isn’t as reliable as it used to be, amid the broader retail downturn and shift to a service-based economy (most services aren’t taxable in California).

    All of that means cities are increasingly turning to “ticky-tacky, peculiar taxes” to come up with revenue, according to Kirk Stark, a professor of tax law and policy at UCLA.

    The “conventional tax instruments” — property, income and sales taxes — are all limited by state law, Stark said. “Local governments that are hoping to satisfy demand for any kind of public expenditure have to turn to other, less conventional sources of revenue.”

    This year, cities are asking Southern Californians to say yes to a wide range of taxes. Below, we look at three examples in South Gate, Orange and Diamond Bar.

    South Gate: A utility users tax

    South Gate is asking voters to approve something less common: a utility users tax, or UUT for short. If Measure SG is approved, the 8% tax would be added to bills for utilities such as electricity, water, natural gas, cable and phone service. The tax would bring in an estimated $10.4 million per year.

    The city is facing a potential fiscal emergency and a $9.4 million budget deficit. Earlier this year, South Gate began cutting back services, including eliminating its crossing guard program and assigning fewer police officers per shift.

    At a City Council meeting on the tax measure earlier this year, several residents spoke against the measure, with some calling the deficit a result of potential financial mismanagement that shouldn’t be pushed onto residents. Others said the monthly costs would simply add a new burden to already tight budgets.

    “Being a homeowner here for the past 13 years, I have seen my utilities go up as well as the cost of living, my insurance for my house, and my car insurance go up. I believe there’s got to be a way to fix this problem without the UUT measure,” one resident told the City Council.

    “I’m extremely frustrated that you now want to do electricity, water, sewer, cable, cell phone, gas. ... That hurts us. You’re passing that on to us, and that is absolutely not acceptable,” said another.

    The only other utility users tax on the ballot in Los Angeles or Orange counties this year is in San Marino, where residents will decide whether to extend the city’s existing 5% utility users tax, which is set to expire on March 31, 2027, and increase it to 6%. Last year, the tax provided almost $2.2 million in revenue. As of 2021, a total of 162 out of 540 California cities and counties had a utility users tax, according to Coleman’s California Local Government Finance Almanac.

    Orange: Hotel and sales taxes could go up 

    Most people don’t book a hotel in their own city. That’s made hotel taxes an easier pill to swallow for voters, since the tax is mostly levied on visitors.

    The city of Orange is asking voters to approve Measure J, which would raise the hotel tax from 10% to 14%. Orange is one of 10 cities across Los Angeles and Orange counties where voters will decide in November whether to increase or establish a local hotel tax, also known as a “transient occupancy tax.”

    Orange residents will also vote on a 1-cent sales tax measure, as the city projects a $27.6 million deficit that it calls “one of the largest financial challenges in the city’s history.” The sales tax is expected to bring in $37 million annually, and the hotel tax would add $3 million.

    Diamond Bar: A new 1-cent sales tax 

    Diamond Bar voters will decide on Measure Q, a 1% local sales tax that would add a penny per dollar to purchases of taxable items. The city estimates the tax will bring in an additional $6 million annually, which could help plug a projected budget deficit of $5 million a year by 2030.

    “The city’s challenge is simple: costs for city services are going up faster than revenues,” states Diamond Bar’s fact sheet on the measure, which cites rising public safety costs and $100 million in infrastructure and maintenance needs.

    Several other cities have local sales tax measures on the ballot, including Santa Ana’s 1.5% sales tax extension and Los Angeles’ sales tax increase for the Los Angeles Fire Department, Measure FD.

    “There’s a variety because circumstances among these local governments vary. The types of economies among governments vary, the local conditions, even the preferences for what type of revenue measure or tax measure might work varies,” Coleman said. “A local government that’s looking at one of these is going to look at a number of different options and consider what might be most palatable to the voters in their community.”

    What’s on your ballot?

    Our LAist Voter Game Plan is here to help guide you through the Nov. 3 election with guides to races across Los Angeles and Orange counties — and that long list of state propositions — to help you cast a ballot that’s in line with your own personal beliefs and values.

    But the one thing we don’t do? We don’t tell you how to vote. That part is left up to you.

    You can find it all at LAist.com/Vote.

    Further reading

  • LA fires exposed millions to materials
    Person in a red helmet and yellow protective clothing aims a hose at a burning pickup truck as flames and thick orange smoke fill the street.
    A firefighter battles the Eaton Fire, Jan. 8, 2025, in Altadena, Calif.

    Topline:

    At the height of the Los Angeles fires in 2025, millions of residents were exposed in a 24-hour period to toxic lead levels from smoke that were 80 times higher than the typical background level, according to a new study. Researchers from the California Institute of Technology compared the chemical composition of smoke from the Eaton Fire with that of a wildfire and found that the urban plume had more lead, arsenic and halogens (which include chlorine and bromine) linked to burning vehicles, building materials and electronics.

    Why it matters: “The main, key finding is really that wildfire smoke is very different fundamentally from the urban smoke,” said Nga Lee “Sally” Ng, an author of the study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. With the new technology they used to measure what was in the smoke, they were able to “actually see the very detailed component of these particles that we are breathing.”

    Health effects: Ed Avol, professor emeritus in the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California who has researched the health effects of air pollution for decades, said significant exposure to heavy metals is consistent with what he’d expect, “but certainly surprising because we haven’t been able to document this sort of thing.” “One of the real advantages of this study is that it had the opportunity to make measurements sort of hour-by-hour across the sampling network. And typically we make measurements of airborne particulates and so forth a couple of times a week, at best,” said Avol, who wasn’t involved in the study.

    The backstory: The two wind-whipped infernos in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades that ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killed at least 31 people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, mostly homes, and everything in them — cars, paint, furniture, chemicals under sinks and more. Millions of people were exposed to smoke, which across the entire United States has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually. A recent study found that metal mixtures in the leftover smoke, ash and debris from the deadly 2023 Maui wildfires were harmful to the lung health of people living nearby long after the burning ended.

    At the height of the Los Angeles fires in 2025, millions of residents were exposed in a 24-hour period to toxic lead levels from smoke that were 80 times higher than the typical background level, according to a new study.

    Researchers from the California Institute of Technology compared the chemical composition of smoke from the Eaton Fire with that of a wildfire and found that the urban plume had more lead, arsenic and halogens (which include chlorine and bromine) linked to burning vehicles, building materials and electronics.

    “The main, key finding is really that wildfire smoke is very different fundamentally from the urban smoke,” said Nga Lee “Sally” Ng, an author of the study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. With the new technology they used to measure what was in the smoke, they were able to “actually see the very detailed component of these particles that we are breathing.”

    Co-author Haroula Baliaka said understanding the different chemical compositions of smoke from an urban versus a wildland fire helps bridge a missing gap in research. Wildfires are growing larger, more intense, faster-moving and more frequent largely because of drier and warmer weather associated with human-caused climate change. As urban growth and climate change push more fires into cities, researchers said monitoring and emergency response will have to adapt.

    Ed Avol, professor emeritus in the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California who has researched the health effects of air pollution for decades, said significant exposure to heavy metals is consistent with what he’d expect, “but certainly surprising because we haven’t been able to document this sort of thing.”

    “One of the real advantages of this study is that it had the opportunity to make measurements sort of hour-by-hour across the sampling network. And typically we make measurements of airborne particulates and so forth a couple of times a week, at best,” said Avol, who wasn’t involved in the study.

    Thousands of structures burned, releasing toxic chemicals

    The two wind-whipped infernos in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades that ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killed at least 31 people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, mostly homes, and everything in them — cars, paint, furniture, chemicals under sinks and more. Millions of people were exposed to smoke, which across the entire United States has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually. A recent study found that metal mixtures in the leftover smoke, ash and debris from the deadly 2023 Maui wildfires were harmful to the lung health of people living nearby long after the burning ended.

    During the fires, researchers measured trace elements of fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, every hour reported by instruments in the Atmospheric Science and Chemistry mEasurement NeTwork ( ASCENT ), a relatively new network of air quality monitors across the U.S. that measures the size and chemical composition of these particulates in real time. Ng said ASCENT is the U.S.'s first measurement network able to measure the chemical composition of airborne particles in real time.

    Researchers were able to see what chemicals were in the smoke, track how its composition changed over the fire’s course, and distinguish emissions coming from burning structures. From there, they estimated how many people across Los Angeles were exposed to the heavy metals, particularly lead, during the fire’s first days.

    They compared the typical value of lead before the fires and the chemical makeup of smoke from a 2024 fire in Riverside County that burned mostly vegetation with data from the Eaton Fire plume. Contrasted with the wildfire smoke, the plume from the LA fire contained 50 times more lead, three times more arsenic, and seven times more halogens. At the peak of burning, about 7 million people were exposed for 24 hours to lead levels more than 80 times what’s typical.

    Lead is a neurotoxin that can stunt children’s development, lower IQ scores and increase blood pressure in adults. Scientists still don’t know how short-term, high exposure to lead impacts human health. Arsenic exposure is associated with various cancers.

    Yaguang Wei, assistant professor in the department of environmental medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai who researches the health impacts of air pollution, wildfire smoke and severe weather, said their findings reinforced some conclusions of a recent study he co-authored that found, in part, that PM2.5 from wildfire smoke was more toxic than particulates from other sources.

    “I think their findings are not surprising,” said Wei, who was not involved in the study. When fires burn properties, they’re also burning “a lot of lead on your wall paint and the plastics and electronics and those are very toxic” when they burn, he said.

    Monitoring, policies and emergency response need to adapt, experts say

    Wei said the study has “important policy implications.” He thinks governments should take stronger actions to protect public health during these fires by investing in more wildfire monitoring and public alerts, and having more prescribed fires.

    For Avol, the study is a reminder of our “strange and increasingly dangerous new world” where urban and wildland intersect — and increasingly catch fire.

    “It reminds us to be cautious and be concerned and, you know, think about what we can do to minimize this. We’re not going to stop using all these materials containing metals and halogens and so forth in our homes,” he said. “How do we protect people from being exposed to that?”

    The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment