It’s like these people don’t even consider the alternative… like the land their trying to protect being sterilized by fire.
And then choke out the same critters with mud and other debris. Oh and minus the forest, too.
2 Likes
This is the group that filed the suit:
Another version of the AP story (perhaps updated):
The lawsuit alleges the continued use of retardant from aircraft violates the Clean Water Act.
It requests a judge to declare the pollution illegal, and was filed in U.S. District Court in Montana by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.
I’d need to see their actual prayer for relief, because this doesn’t quite make sense to me. A judge can rule whether a specific drop violated the Clean Water Act, or any other specific ordinance. But a judge can’t declare the practice illegal, that falls to the legislative branch.
4 Likes
I could see the argument if the tankers were dropping directly on a creek, or body of water, But I don’t ever see that happening. Silly Lawsuit
2 Likes
Straight up b.s.
1 Like
I was surprised to see Eugene based and not CA based.
1 Like
I seem to remember from the previous law suit, something about the decision of a no-retardant zone 300 feet from a body of water (lake, stream or river). It was in the court decision.
1 Like
Being a fly fishermen no one wants to see a Big Fish Kill to my knowledge. But if retardant kills some fish and saves a fire from going extended, property and lives so be it. That’s what the hatcheries are for!
Better Red than Dead was the ole Hemet Ryan AAB motto.
6 Likes
My point had nothing to do with the politics of using retardant. Strictly the point that this has been litigated in the not too distant past with same group.
1 Like
Unfortunately groups like this don’t accept a legal decision unless it’s their point. They just keep filing until they find a judge/court to side with them. Sad days. No a acceptable common groud.
4 Likes
The plaintiffs posted a press release:
It includes a link to their lawsuit, 10 pages:
The law firm representing them:
http://bechtoldlaw.net/
1 Like
I can see a per violation “fee”, cost of doing business. Tough to get evry drop exactly right. Especially under smoke. But a blanket ban on use… tough call.
2 Likes
This paragraph (27) found on page 7, could have significant impact to any and all suppression efforts. If this case is successful, this paragraph could be used later to file injunctions against any water or “pollutant” such as sand silt, mud, etc which is used in suppression efforts not associated with that waterway.
“The term “pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.”
I can understand the argument against the use retardant, I don’t agree with it but I can understand it. This paragraph for me however, is about 10 bridges too far with how they are broadening the scope of their complaint and what that broad scope could mean downrange.
7 Likes
Yep that stuff is all industrial byproducts. Aerial retardant isn’t.
2 Likes
Right. And that’s immediately followed by paragraph 28.
“Fire retardant is a pollutant. Aerially delivered fire retardant formulations currently in use are primarily inorganic fertilizers (ammonium phosphates) or other inorganic salts (magnesium chloride).”
That don’t make no sense. Ammonium phosphates grow our crops and magnesium chloride is road salt. Neither are in the list of pollutants stated above.
I assume they are talking about Phos-Chek. I defer to your knowledge. It’s not like they’re dropping Agent Orange, right?
2 Likes
I totally agree with the concept of 50% in the green 50% in the black
1 Like
Has Ramona AAB gone to liquid retardant admixture instead of the dry (bagged) ?
1 Like
Pretty sure all CalFire bases, and every base in CA uses FX. Which is powder mixed with water. It’s 50/50 FX/LC outside of California. LC seems to be going to the wayside though.
2 Likes
Ramona AAB has been using Phos-Chek powder since mid 80’s. Currently using MVP-FX from Perimeter Solutions.
5 Likes