[Cyclopath]

https://wildfiretoday.com/2022/10/12/environmental-group-files-lawsuit-against-us-forest-service-over-use-of-fire-retardant/ The suit says government data released earlier this year showed more than 760,000 gallons of fire retardant was dropped into waterways between 2012 and 2019. The lawsuit alleges the continued use of retardant from aircraft violates the Clean Water Act and requests a judge to declare the pollution illegal.

[Schroder]

I thought fire retardant was used as a last resort, mostly because of its cost. It will be interesting to see the property losses if this suit prevails.

[Snowshovel]

What is on the slurry? It started as a pretty simple mixture, a simple detergent, some betonite and a fertilizer. Guess that is not so anymore

[Snowshovel]

https://www.sgvtribune.com/2016/07/23/is-that-red-fire-retardant-dropped-from-planes-during-wildfires-safe-for-humans-and-the-environment/amp/

[jinx'sboy]

This is sort of wash, rinse, repeat…. As the article says, this ground was all plowed 10 years ago, which resulted in an EIS - that established the current ‘buffers’ on fish bearing streams. I think those have largely worked, but not 100%, of course. There are currently several retardants on the market - different ones are used. They are pretty basic; a slurry, some coloring, a thickener and a surfactant to make them spread out on vegetation surfaces. There is also a suite of other slurries and gels - used mostly by helicopter, or applied by ground engines. All of that stuff is mildly caustic. If you get it on you, it is a minor irritant. But it is really bad for fish - hence the buffers… As the article - and the follow-on comments from fire folks point out - the arguments about whether or not retardants work, or are worth the costs, are never ending.

[Snowshovel]

The bellyaching in BC when the Mars were grounded or by Lars Larson when the several iterations of 747 tankers weren’t contracted was epic. Retardants are almost 100% ground based plane dropped, helicopter and amphibians drop water?

[Cyclopath]

Does EPA or anybody else regulate what can and can't go into retardant?

[jinx'sboy]

[jinx'sboy]

Further info on the chemicals and FS policies, etc https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/wildland-fire-chemicals.php ‘Phoscheck’ and ‘Thermogel’ are two that have been around for a long time, but there are many others, now. Info on 2011 Interagency EIS (referred to above) and related documents: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire/chemicals hope that helps

[treeswarper]

Isn't this deja vu all over again? I thought there was a lawsuit about retardent already done about a zillion years ago.

[Ski]

obviously somebody thought we needed some more lawsuits!

[PowderPawn]

Already have buffer zones around waterways. They are alleging they are not effective and will sue for what remedy?

[Cyclopath]

[treeswarper]

[jinx'sboy]

TW - Previous suit was in the early 2000s. I posted the ‘new’ direction, from the EIS (2011) that resulted, near the top of the thread.