Excessive use of fire retardant continues to prompt environmental concerns in California

While wildfires have ravaged over 600,000 acres of land throughout California this year, it’s the fire retardants used to fight those blazes that have some people worried about environmental effects. Commonly seen as the red substance dropped from planes over the blazes, the retardant is known as Phos-Chek and has been the subject of ecologic concerns and lawsuits for years.

Worries over the safety of Phos-Chek began in the early 2000s when the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics sued the U.S. Forest Service over concerns about inappropriate fire retardant usage. In response to the suit, the forest service published an environmental analysis in 2007, but the findings in that study weren’t widely accepted.

Phos-Chek is considered the premier tool for slowing down the spread of wildfires and giving firefighting crews on the ground enough time to get ahead of the flames and contain blazes. The U.S. Forest Service cited the retardant’s effectiveness in minimizing the intensity of fires and their rates of growth.

However, it’s the total amount of Phos-Chek used which concerns environmental groups.

Along with ecological impacts, the physical impacts of the fire retardant have also dealt a blow to firefighter groups. A Utah firefighter battling the Mendocino Complex Fire died Aug. 13 after tree debris fell on him. This week, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) released its preliminary report stating that the trees may have broken apart as a result of a massive retardant drop from an air tanker. According to the investigative summary, obtained by the Associated Press, Cal Fire stated that immediate changes would be needed.

Groups have claimed in lawsuits that the forest service is guilty of overusing Phos-Chek in unnecessary situations, such as times when ground crews would be equally effective. This claim was backed by Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology.

“According to forest service studies, a large portion of aerial fire retardant is dumped in places, times and conditions where it is ineffective in slowing fire speed, and there are no ground crews nearby,” Ingalsbee told AccuWeather. “It looks to television viewers that the agency is aggressively fighting the fire, but in essence, they are dumping liquid dollars from the sky hoping for a miracle.”

While Cal Fire has disputed these notions, claiming that it’s a misconception that fire retardants are a replacement for ground crews, the numbers say otherwise. In the course of just one week last October, the agency dropped over 2 million gallons. In 2016, the forest service applied over 19 million gallons.

The 2007 study released by the forest service enacted restrictions to ensure that the retardant avoided certain wildlife areas, such as within 300 feet of bodies of water.

But with nearly 20,000 gallons of Phos-Chek dropped from each aircraft, precision and aim aren’t guaranteed. Ingalsbee added that aim is particularly difficult during large wildfires that emit lots of smoke.

“Pilots must fly ‘blind’ and often drop their loads in the wrong places,” Ingalsbee said. “In some situations, with large columns of heat and smoke rising from large wildfires, retardants may… evaporate before it hits the ground.”

Other reports have emerged in recent years about the damage caused by Phos-Chek. In 2009, dozens of endangered steelhead trout were killed by fire retardant after a fire in Santa Barbara, resulting in another lawsuit. The group claimed that the forest service violated the Endangered Species Act.

Other studies, such as from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have shown that when mixed with rainwater, the chemicals in the retardant can also mix into the soil. This poses a threat to endangered plants by encouraging the growth of invasive weeds that outcompete native plants.

Throughout the controversies, however, Cal Fire, the state’s woodland firefighting agency, has defended the use of Phos-Chek. Cal Fire spokesman Scott McLean has said that there are no other long-term fire retardants that have met the requirements of the forest service qualified products list.

However, Ingalsbee argues that the retardant could be used much more carefully. He agreed that the use of aerial retardant is acceptable when used effectively, which he said was for initial attacks on fires near communities. But he added that it is unacceptable to dump fire retardant in remote, uninhibited woodlands where fires are ecologically beneficial to the ecosystem.

“All chemical retardants have some toxic effects on water and some wildlife, but there are places like near communities where the environmental tradeoffs of using chemical agents to prevent homes from burning are worth the use of retardants,” Ingalesbee said. “However, in sensitive natural areas, the impact of water pollution from using chemical retardant is unacceptable. The best suppression agents in those areas are water and dirt which are best applied by ground crews, not aircraft.”

Report a Typo