ARIZONA, USA — Monday, a federal judge heard opening arguments that could cause drops of fire retardants to be restricted.
The lawsuit claims the Forestry Service has violated the Clean Water Act by dropping more than 750,000 gallons of retardant into waterways in the past decade.
"The fire retardant that’s used is highly toxic to fish. It also has heavy metals. It can promote algae blooms that are toxic to people if you drink the water," said Andy Stahl, the group leader filing the lawsuit.
The Forest Service's policy is not to do air drops of retardant within 300 feet of a waterway.
"The problem is the Forest Service is not very accurate," Stahl said.
More than 200 retardant drops have gone into waterways in the past decade, according to the lawsuit.
Stahl's group wants an injunction blocking officials from using aerial retardant until they get a pollution permit. The group also questions the effectiveness of the technique.
“We have been using fire retardant for decades, and guess what? Thousands and thousands of homes have burned down during that time," Stahl said.
“Anyone who says fire retardant doesn’t work hasn’t worked on a fire line,” said CEO of 10 Tankers John Gould.
Gould is a former firefighter. He now flies the planes that drop this retardent.
"Fire retardant works. It slows fires for firefighters to get in there and stop it," Gould said.
Retardent is made up of mostly water but has chemical compounds to allow it to help contain fires after it is dropped. Gould said companies changed the chemical compounds decades ago to lessen the environmental impact.
“It’s overblown. We don’t really have a problem,” Gould said.
An Environmental Engineering Professor at Arizona State University, Paul Westerhoff, said keeping the retardant out of water would be ideal, but any policy change comes with a tradeoff.
"The question often is then, what is the alternative? Is the alternative worse than what they are using?” Westerhoff said.
Alternatives to retardant would likely be dumping water or a gel-like substance.
While friendlier to the environment, Gould and others say they would be less effective in containing wildfires.
Up to Speed
Catch up on the latest news and stories on the 12News YouTube channel. Subscribe today.