The red clouds of fire retardant dropped onto the flames near Santa Barbara, Calif., on Friday were a welcome sight for owners of the hillside homes.
"Critical," Bill Payne, deputy chief of aviation for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said of the retardant's role in steering fire away from populated areas. "I mean, this is almost downtown Santa Barbara we're talking about."
Retardant, sometimes dropped in 12,000-gallon bursts, has become an increasingly common tool for fighting wildfires. Yet while many residents praise -- and even demand -- its use, the potent mix of chemicals can leave scars of its own, hurting watersheds and wildlife that live in them.
Increasing concerns over retardant are prompting opposition to its use in certain situations and further stirring the debate in the West over how much is too much.
Use of the most common type of retardant, a phosphate-based compound, depends on who oversees the land where a fire is spreading. The Park Service is cautious with retardant, because part of its mission is to protect natural and cultural resources for public use. The state of California, however, uses retardant aggressively not only to contain fires -- retardant's intended purpose -- but also to try to extinguish them before they reach populated areas.
In a sign of how contentious the issue has become, the Forest Service is being sued in federal court in Montana by a group that says retardant threatens endangered species, including salmon, a claim the agency rejects.
NEW YORK TIMES
