Firefighting aviation costs have followed a distinct upward trend in the past decade, reaching almost $200 million in 2000. Photo © George Wuerthner
During the White Fire, which was burning the same week as the Angora Fire at Lake Tahoe, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection deployed one of its newest tools: a DC–10 capable of dropping 12,000 gallons of water or fire retardant on the flames. During its run, air turbulence caused the plane to lose altitude and fly low enough to clip some trees, and the jet—which is leased to the agency at a cost of $5 million a year—was grounded after just one day on the job.
As fires grow larger and technology becomes more sophisticated, firefighting equipment is keeping pace. Aerial resources, in particular, are becoming more commonplace, used for retardant and water drops, crew transportation and fire reconnaissance. In addition to California’s DC–10, the U.S. Forest Service is working on the development of a 747 which will be capable of carrying 24,000 gallons of liquid.
It’s difficult to assess, however, whether spending big bucks on sophisticated tools is essential—or even effective—in the war on fire. Tom O’Keefe, a unit chief with the California Department of Forestry, says that the DC–10 can drop ten times what an airtanker can and is much more efficient—under the right conditions. A jet lacks the maneuverability of a tanker, which can move low between contoured ridges, but on a long straight range, a jet can lay down up to a mile of retardant or water. The agency pays fuel, pilot and retardant costs, in addition to the $5 million annual retainer, but O’Keefe says that even when you include these costs, the total amount of money spent on suppression usually amounts to only a small percentage of the overall costs of a big fire. The total financial impact a fire can have on a region includes damage to structures, forests, watersheds and regional businesses.
Armando Gonzalez– Caban, a research economist with the Pacific Southwest Research Station, says that it’s difficult to tell whether increased costs for aerial tools are effective without analyzing the data. “To be fair, you need to do that; you can’t say they’re not helping, cannot say it’s not a worthwhile investment without crunching the numbers.” Though some research exists, there are no standards for economic analysis of post–fire effects, and in a large fire it takes several years to collect the data.
Gonzalez–Caban says that aerial use has been growing worldwide, in part, he believes, because the public demands it. “There is a false impression that by using air fighting resources alone, that you will put out the fires,” he says, adding that unless the fire is very small, retardant or water will only slow the fire’s progress, not suffocate the flames. “We have to be cognizant of the fact that society keeps putting pressure [on the agency] to use resources without really understanding whether they make a difference or not.”