A recent UCLA-USC study published in ACS Environmental Science and Technology surveyed 1,360 Los Angeles County households in 2025 about views on the role of water management in the Los Angeles fires. The study found that partisan cues were the strongest factor linked to whether respondents blamed water management for the fires’ impacts.
The Palisades and Eaton wildfires of January 2025 were the largest wildfires in Los Angeles history and among the most costly in California history. They caused deaths, burned more than 37,000 acres and 16,000 structures, and led to more than $50 billion in direct property damage. The fires also affected the broader region and economy. Eleven county water supply systems were involved in the response in some way.
After the fires, public attention to water systems and wildfire response appears to have increased. Water supply is only one part of wildfire response, and it may not always be the highest-priority investment from a cost-benefit standpoint. Still, public and policymaker discussion of water system operations during wildfires has raised new expectations for water agencies.
The study found that political views, shaped by national partisan messages, were the strongest factor linked to whether people blamed water management for the fires’ impacts. These results are similar to other recent polling on how Californians view the ability of urban water systems to help fight fires. Other factors, such as personal experience with the disaster, main news source, demographics, and other possible explanations discussed in earlier research, were not clearly linked to blaming poor water management.
The study acknowledges several limitations. Among them, the authors note there are few comparable studies of public views after other major fires, and the survey did not measure how views changed before and after the Los Angeles fires. The results also reflect responses from a largely Democratic region, and timing or survey design may have influenced some answers.
However, taken together, this study and related evidence suggest that views about the causes of damage in the January 2025 Los Angeles fires were strongly shaped by political sentiment. The responses also show how views of government performance during climate-related disasters can become more polarized.
For water scholars and managers, the results point to a difficult communication challenge. Water agencies may need to explain more clearly what water systems can and cannot do during wildfires, while also responding to misunderstanding and misinformation. It is unclear how much these efforts can change public views.
Partisan views are hard to shift, and the water sector should not be expected to address them on its own. A practical goal is to provide clear, accessible information about how water systems work before the next crisis occurs. Without that shared understanding, misinformation and frustration may continue to grow, making it harder for water agencies to serve residents during disasters.
RESEARCH ARTICLE: Political sentiment explains regional perception of water system performance in the Los Angeles wildfires
By Gregory Pierce, Ariana Hernandez, Rachel Connolly, Jennifer Gorman, Kyla Thomas, and Evan Sandlin
ABSTRACT: In the wake of the January 2025 Los Angeles Fires, a dramatic shift in perception related to water systems and their ability to fight wildfires may have occurred. This study is the first to empirically examine the extent of regional public opinion regarding the role of water management in the LA fires, leveraging a unique, representative survey of 1,360 Los Angeles County households conducted in February and March 2025. This data source allows us to analyze the degree to which residents in the region who were affected by the fires to different degrees attribute blame for the wildfires to poor water management. It also enables us to study which specific household-level factorsincluding direct or indirect experience of the fires; political sentiment from partisan cues; and longer-standing socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements influence this attribution. We find descriptively that water management was the fifth most common factor perceived to be responsible for the fires’ impact. While several household-level characteristics correspond with this blame attribution, when we further examine potential explanations using multivariate regression techniques, we find that political sentiment from partisan cues was by far the most powerful explanatory factor.
