Investigation launched into L.A. County’s faulty emergency alert system

Local members of Congress launched an investigation Monday into Los Angeles County’s emergency alert system after delayed electronic warnings were blamed for the loss of life during the Eaton fire and faulty wireless alerts sent to millions of residents who faced no fire risk stoked widespread panic and confusion days later.

Rep. Robert Garcia, a Long Beach Democrat who sits on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is leading the call for an inquiry. Garcia has sent letters requesting information from Los Angeles County, Genasys Inc. — the software company contracted with the county to issue wireless emergency alerts — the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

“This was a massive communications failure and we all witnessed it in real time,” Garcia said in an interview with The Times. “I woke up in the middle of the night, I looked at my phone and said, ‘This is crazy.’ Then I got it again. I’ve had people very concerned: Why are we getting these alerts?”

“Some people,” Garcia added, “never got alerts and they were in the fire’s path.”

The letters, signed by more than a dozen members of L.A.’s congressional delegation, request details on the “precise failures” that led to the erroneous alerts. Garcia wrote that his intention was to determine whether “additional statutory requirements, guidance, or regulations” are needed to prevent future false alarms.

California

After faulty cell alerts during fire emergency, L.A. County overhauls its system

Kevin McGowan, director of L.A. County’s Office of Emergency Management, said that the problem was caused by a software system glitch.

Jan. 11, 2025

On Jan. 9, residents across the metropolitan region of 10 million people received a wireless emergency alert urging them to prepare to evacuate. A correction was issued approximately 20 minutes later, stating the alert was sent “in ERROR.” But a stream of faulty alerts continued to sound out the following day. Residents as far away as Long Beach — more than 35 miles from any active fire — reported receiving pings on their phones.

The letters do not mention delays in electronic emergency alerts sent to areas of Altadena, but Garcia told The Times they would fall within the scope of the investigation. Los Angeles County supervisors have also called for an independent review of the emergency notification system.

When flames erupted from Eaton Canyon on Jan. 7, neighborhoods on Altadena’s eastside got evacuation orders at 7:26 p.m. But residents on the westside did not receive orders until 3:25 a.m. — hours after fires began to blaze through their neighborhoods. All of the 17 people confirmed dead in the Eaton fire were on the westside.

“We’re looking at the whole system,” Garcia said. “Of course, what happened in Altadena and other places, 100% would be part of the inquiry. The bigger issue is why the system didn’t work.”

After the county issued alerts to millions who faced no wildfire threat, county officials said the notices were intended for a smaller group of residents in the Kenneth fire evacuation area near Calabasas. They said the error was due to a software glitch. After switching to a different system, the county released a statement saying it was working with Genasys, FEMA and the FCC to investigate how alerts continued to ping out on phones across L.A. County.

“Due to the incorrect warning, millions who were never under any wildfire danger were unnecessarily alarmed and confused, causing distress in a dangerous time of out-of-control wildfires,” Garcia wrote to Genasys, FEMA and the FCC. “This has serious implications for public safety and well-being at a time of intense distress for our community. Further, the incident raises a serious risk that future alerts could be ignored or downplayed by more recipients, placing lives at risk.”

In a letter to Fesia Davenport, the chief executive of Los Angeles County, Garcia asks the county to provide, no later than April 1, information about how it utilizes Genasys software to provide protective communication tools and to describe the actions taken by both L.A. County and Genasys in the days after the false alarms.

Garcia also asks the county to describe its operating procedures for utilizing Genasys’ evacuation and alert software, the status of its investigation into the cause of the erroneous alerts, what issues were presented by the user interface of Genasys’ alert system, how Genasys has addressed these issues, and whether the county is continuing to use the company for its emergency alerts and messages.

“In life-safety emergencies, appropriately timed, targeted and clear emergency alert messages can mean the difference between life and death,” Garcia wrote. “However, unclear messages sent to the wrong locations, multiple times and after the emergency has passed, can lead to alerting fatigue and erosion of public trust.”

“In this time of intense grief, loss, and dislocation, we are working to learn all of the lessons of the past weeks, and to swiftly implement reforms to ensure they never happen again,” Garcia added.

L.A. County’s Coordinated Joint Information Center, established to coordinate the release of public information during an emergency across multiple departments and agencies, said it welcomed the questions from local members of Congress.

“We appreciate these questions from members of Congress and will provide a response by April 1, as requested,” the center said in a statement.

“The Board of Supervisors has voted for a review specifically related to both evacuations and emergency notifications conducted by an independent third party,” the center added. “Report backs will be due to the board every 90 days and will be shared with the public.”

California

Late evacuation orders in Altadena raise haunting question: Could more lives have been spared?

After a report from The Times, officials have called for an external review into delayed evacuation alerts in western Altadena, during the Eaton fire.

Jan. 23, 2025

Garcia told The Times it is vital that local, state and federal officials fix all problems with L.A. County’s alert system before another natural disaster.

“I don’t think that we should underestimate how serious of a massive disaster this was in a moment of a serious emergency,” Garcia said. “We know that other emergencies are going to happen again. ... We use this system for more than just fires. If there’s another emergency, a natural disaster, and some type of notification that needs to go out, the public needs to know that the system is working correctly.”

After the mistaken alert incidents, Kevin McGowan, director of L.A. County’s Office of Emergency Management, announced Jan. 10 that the county would overhaul its emergency notification systems: It would suspend its alert system operated by Genasys and switch to a separate system, operated by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, for any future emergency alerts via cellphones.

On Jan. 30, the county temporarily switched back to local-led messaging, the Coordinated Joint Information Center said in a statement, “following the implementation of safeguards and required testing by Genasys ... to confirm that system error had been corrected and that necessary guardrails are in place to prevent the error from being replicated.”

FEMA and the FCC were also involved, the center said, in investigating “the separate issue of “echo alerts” that continued to be sent as cell towers came back online after losing power.”

Garcia has asked the county to describe the CalOES system for emergency alert messaging and how it differs from Genasys’.

A separate letter to Genasys CEO Richard S. Danforth asks the company to provide its legal contract with the county and a copy of all emails, text messages or other written communication between Genasys and county officials in the week after the alerts went out.

Garcia also asks Genasys to provide a list of all its contracts with state, tribal or local governments. It also requests the company to describe the operating procedures the county should follow for utilizing its software, what training and oversight it provides staff of public agencies of its software, and if it implements any secondary review, two-person authentication or checklists when targeting and distributing wireless alerts.

Genasys would not comment on the investigation, referring the Times to L.A. County’s communication team.

In a third letter to Tony Robinson, the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator, and Brendan Carr, FCC chair, Garcia asks both agencies to explain the status of the joint investigation between L.A. County and their organizations into the erroneous wireless alert messages and whether the investigation will produce a public after-action report or recommendations.

It also asks FEMA to provide a copy of the minimum requirements for state, tribal and local governments to participate in the public alert and warning system. And it asks what potential problems are posed by the use of third-party technology providers by state, tribal and local government alerting authorities.

L.A. County’s Coordinated Joint Information Center has stated that the county’s Fire and Sheriff’s departments work together in an emergency to recommend and identify evacuation areas and that the Sheriff’s Department approves and carries out those evacuation orders.

“The Office of Emergency Management supports,” the information center said in a statement, “by issuing the evacuation orders via emergency notification systems.”