Times Standard (Eureka)

Lawsuit jeopardize­s use of wildfire retardant, US Forest Service says

- By Alex Wiggleswor­th

For most California­ns, the sight of aircraft spewing neon pink liquid over flaming trees and brush has become a hallmark of aggressive wildfire suppressio­n campaigns — if not a potent symbol of government’s struggle to control increasing­ly destructiv­e forest fires.

But as the use of aerially delivered retardant has soared in recent years, some forest advocates say the substance does more harm than good. They claim wildfire retardant drops are expensive, ineffectiv­e and a growing source of pollution for rivers and streams.

“There’s no scientific evidence that it makes any difference in wildfire outcomes,” said forester Andy Stahl. “This is like dumping cash out of airplanes, except that it’s toxic and you can’t buy anything with it because it doesn’t work.”

Now, a federal lawsuit in Montana that seeks to stop the U.S. Forest Service from dropping retardant into water could reshape how the agency battles wildfires throughout the western United

States.

The case is being watched particular­ly closely by officials in California, where an extremely wet winter is likely to stoke the growth of so-called connecting fuels — grasses that can carry small flames from a spark on a roadway to chaparral and forested areas.

“This is going to destroy towns and many communitie­s in California, if they allow this to go through,” said Paradise Mayor Greg Bolin, whose town was razed by the Camp fire in 2018. “To maybe save a few fish, really?”

The lawsuit, filed by the Forest

Service Employees for Environmen­tal Ethics, of which Stahl is executive director, accuses the Forest Service of violating the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters without a permit.

The action comes as more retardant is being dropped from the air than ever before amid longer, more active fire seasons. In 2021, 52.8 million gallons of retardant were dumped on federal, state and private land, compared with a 10-year average of about 39 million gallons per year, according to figures provided by the Forest Service. More than half of the retardant the Forest Service used on national forest lands was dropped in California — more than any other state.

The Forest Service primarily uses ammonium phosphateb­ased retardant, which is intended to coat vegetation and other fuels around the edges of a fire to deprive advancing flames of oxygen. The goal is to slow fire spread and lessen its intensity so crews on the ground get a chance to directly attack it.

But the chemical, which is also used as fertilizer, can kill aquatic

life. For example, in Santa Barbara County, dozens of endangered steelhead trout were killed in Maria Ygnacio Creek during the 2009 Jesusita fire. UC Santa Barbara scientists documented elevated ammonia levels in the water and concluded the fish kill was likely due to retardant drops.

The Forest Service has dropped more than 760,000 gallons of retardant into water, both accidental­ly and under an agency directive that such drops are permissibl­e if they mitigate threats to human life or public safety, according to figures the agency released last year.

Plaintiffs in the case have asked the court to enjoin the Forest Service from spilling retardant into waterways. However, the Forest Service contends in court documents that the only way to do so is to stop using retardant altogether — an action that they say would deprive the service of a crucial firefighti­ng tool.

Plaintiffs, however, say the Forest Service could instead increase the width of buffer zones alongside waterways where no retardant can be dropped.

After the suit was filed, the Forest Service asked the Environmen­tal Protection Agency to develop a general permit to cover the discharge of retardant into waterways. The EPA estimates the process will take about 2½ years.

Facing the potential prospect of the Forest Service not being able to apply retardant from the air for more than two years, more than a dozen communitie­s and interest groups have petitioned to intervene in the case. They include Paradise, Butte and Plumas counties in California and trade organizati­ons representi­ng private firefighti­ng companies, the timber industry and agricultur­e.

 ?? IRFAN KHAN — LOS ANGELES TIMES, FILE VIA TNS ?? An air tanker drops fire retardant on a slow moving 45-acre brush fire above Glen Helen Parkway in Lytle Creek.
IRFAN KHAN — LOS ANGELES TIMES, FILE VIA TNS An air tanker drops fire retardant on a slow moving 45-acre brush fire above Glen Helen Parkway in Lytle Creek.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States