“It’s certainly a good first step,” Stahl said.Ĭhristensen ordered federal officials to report every six months on their progress.įorest Service spokesperson Wade Muehlhof said the agency believes retardant can be used “without compromising public health and the environment.”
Such a permit could require tighter restrictions on when retardant could be used or for officials to use less-toxic chemicals, said Andy Stahl with Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. The Oregon-based group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics argued in its lawsuit filed last year that the Forest Service was disregarding the Act by continuing to use retardant without taking adequate precautions to protect streams and rivers.Ĭhristensen said stopping the use of fire retardant would “conceivably result in greater harm from wildfires - including to human life and property and to the environment.” The judge said his ruling was limited to 10 western states where members of the plaintiff’s group alleged harm from pollution into waterways that they use.Īfter the lawsuit was filed the Forest Service applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for a permit that would allow it to continue using retardant without breaking the law.
It does very well to suppress fires, but it won’t last.” “Water is only so good because it dries out. “Retardant lasts and even works if it’s dry,” said Scott Upton, a former region chief and air attack group supervisor for California’s state fire agency.
0 kommentar(er)
