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 there.
'Critical,' Bill Payne, deputy chief of aviation for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said of the retardant`s role in helping to steer the fire away from populated areas, including the exclusive enclave of Montecito. 'I mean, this is almost downtown Santa Barbara we`re talking about. We`re trying to keep it away from the town. We`re trying to herd it back into the forest.'
Retardant, whether released by small planes that sweep low through smoky canyons or by DC-10s in 12,000-gallon bursts, has become an increasingly common tool for fighting wildfires. Yet while many residents praise -- and even demand -- the use of retardant to protect their homes and neighborhoods, the potent mix of chemicals in the most common type can leave scars of its own, hurting watersheds and the fish and other animals 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 when it comes to fighting ...