California’s Fires Have Died Out, but Now Comes the Toxic Ash

Can it be cleaned up before the heavy rains arrive?

Adam Traum/Zuma

This story was originally published by Wired and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration

By any measure, the fires that tore through Northern California were a major disaster. Forty-two people are dead, and 100,000 are displaced. More than 8,400 homes and other buildings were destroyed, more than 160,000 acres burned—and the fires aren’t all out yet.

That devastation leaves behind another potential disaster: ash. No one knows how much. It’ll be full of heavy metals and toxins—no one knows exactly how much, and it depends on what burned and at what temperature. The ash will infiltrate soils, but no one’s really sure how or whether that’ll be a problem. And eventually some of it—maybe a lot—will flow into the regional aquatic ecosystem and ultimately the San Francisco Bay.

That’s the bomb. Here’s the timer: An old, grim joke about California says that the state has only three seasons: summer, fire, and mudslides. Those mudslides happen because of rain; the Santa Ana (or Diablo, if you’d prefer) wind-driven wildfires of autumn give way to a monsoon season that lasts through winter and into spring. The rains of 2016–2017 ended a longstanding drought and broke all kinds of records.

Scientists and environmental health agencies know, mostly, what to expect from ash that comes from burned vegetation. But these fires included something a little new. They burned through the wildland-urban interface and into cities. “For how many structures that were burned in fairly small areas in these fires, I think that’s a first-of-its-kind event,” says Geoffrey Plumlee, associate director of environmental health for the US Geological Survey. “The concern is, can they get it cleaned up before the heavy rains come?”

Chemically, ash is fascinating. If the fire that made it burned at lower than about 840 degrees Fahrenheit, it’ll be darker-colored, maybe even black, and mostly organic carbon. At higher temperatures the carbon burns away, leaving inorganic compounds of stuff like calcium, magnesium, and sodium, and it’ll be whiter and fluffier. Even hotter fires, like above 1,100 degrees, leave nothing but oxides. Inside a single fire, combustion happens at different temperatures in different places, and because ash is so light, wind can transport it, so the composition of ash from the same fire can vary.

So depending on how combusted the ash is, it’ll have different chemical compositions. And that’ll mean the ash will mix either better or worse with underlying soil. Water won’t stick to more hydrophobic ash, so rainfall might run off faster, carrying away the surrounding soil as sediment. More hydrophilic ash might mix into the water and wash into nearby streams.

Now, carbon is the backbone element of organic systems. Having some flow off of burned hillsides and into aquatic ecosystems isn’t necessarily bad. It’ll increase what’s called “primary productivity,” allowing algae to reproduce, which means more food for fish. “Naturally occurring, lower-severity fires can have positive impacts,” says Kevin Bladon, a forest ecohydrologist at Oregon State University. The fires free up organic carbon and put nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous into play. “But the really large, high-severity megafires that we’ve started to observe push the systems in a lot of cases too far.”

That means dangerously large algal blooms, so-called eutrophication that can eat all the dissolved oxygen out of a waterway, making it unlivable for everything else. Sediments freed up by the hydrophobic ash end up making water more turbid—bad for people if that water’s supposed to end up coming out of someone’s tap, and bad for fish because sediment can gum up feeding and breeding grounds.

The problem’s getting more familiar as an after-effect of fires ranging from Australia to Canada to the US. Climate change makes fires and storms more severe. As one of Bladen’s papers notes, the 2002 Hayman Fire in the Colorado Rockies sent 765,000 cubic meters of sediment, ash, and other stuff into Denver’s drinking water reservoirs, and the problems were still there four years later. “We’re anywhere from five years to 100 years in terms of the longevity of effects,” Bladon says. “That really depends on the severity of the fire and our ability to get some vegetation re-established on site.”

It gets even weirder. At high enough combustion temperatures, compounds like potassium carbonate and calcium carbonate turn to oxides. Given the right amount of light rain, calcium oxide—quicklime—slurps carbon dioxide out of the air and forms a crust of essentially cement, limestone. Basically, the ash can pave a forest. “If you had the perfect situation, you can really change a watershed with increased runoff,” says Victoria Balfour, a post-fire hydrologist.

There’s more. Combustion byproducts called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cancer-causing dioxins can all be part of ash. In older forested land that hasn’t burned in decades, pollution may have deposited heavy metals like copper, lead, aluminum, arsenic, and even mercury onto the plants. When the plants burn, the metals stay behind, or run into waterways. The 2009 Station Fire northeast of Los Angeles increased levels of iron, manganese, and mercury in nearby streams … and the storms that followed soon after brought elevated levels of copper, lead, nickel, and selenium.

What makes these latest Northern California fires unique, though, is that they burned not just forest wildland but also cities. And the built environment burns differently. It gets hotter, and it leaves behind different remains. “All of a sudden you’ve got a lot of impervious surfaces,” Bladon says. “Water hits it and flows over. If there are burned materials sitting on the roads, that’s going to move very rapidly into waterways. We have no handle on that at all.” Ash science isn’t much more than a decade old; understanding urban ash science has never really been a necessity—but now megafires are coming to cities.

What’s in that ash depends on how old the buildings are. Pre-1980, the paint will be full of lead. Even more recently, pressure-treated lumber used in landscaping was full of chromate copper arsenate, which leaches arsenic and hexavalent chromium—bad for fish and other living things. “On the good side, there are probably fewer lead phosphor TV screens. There’s a lot more flat screens,” Plumlee says. “There are more LED light bulbs and hopefully fewer fluorescent and compact-fluorescent, which have a concern with mercury. Copper and zinc are also commonly used in building materials.”

All of which means the real trick in Northern California will be debris cleanup. The US Environmental Protection Agency, California’s EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies and NGOs are all onsite—spinning up as a Watershed Protection Taskforce. They’re evaluating the debris and getting it ready for collection—a job done most safely wearing gloves, a Tyvek bodysuit, and an N95 respirator.

Drinking water for the region hasn’t been compromised—it comes from farther north than the fires—but the Napa and Sonoma Rivers (and the associated stream systems) empty straight into San Francisco Bay. “We cherish our creeks and streams, and there’s uncertainty in regards to what may be in all this ash,” says Bennett Horenstein, director of Santa Rosa Water. “So there’s a lot of activity to do everything we can in a thoughtful and safe way to protect the ecosystem.”

Stormwater typically doesn’t get treated, so the inlets in Santa Rosa have gotten barrier protection installed. “We’re all recognizing that this disaster was of such magnitude, the organization is unfolding,” Horenstein says. “But it does seem to be unfolding in a thoughtful, structured way.”

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality already watches what’s in the San Francisco Bay besides water. Some of its scientists now have a proposal to monitor the Napa River for what water watchdogs call “contaminants of emerging concern.” The field is new enough that they’re not even sure what they’re looking for yet—they’re going to use “non-targeted analysis” to look for anything unexpected. The San Francisco Estuary Institute already monitors dioxins, PAHs, metals, and other stuff in the bay, but only annually or semiannually.

That’s probably not fast enough. The ash is on the ground. “Getting through the entire area will take some time,” Horenstein says, “and we’re approaching the wet-weather season. There’s a small storm forecast for next week.” ‘Tis, after all, the season.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate