As Wildfires Blaze, Portland Puts Aside Water Quality Concerns

Water officials usually do everything they can to prevent toxic chemicals from entering their drinking water sources. That’s why eyebrows are raising about the Portland Water Bureau’s decision to approve the addition of toxic chemicals to the Bull Run watershed, the water source for nearly 1 million Oregon residents.

“The Portland Water Bureau has approved fire retardant drops in the Bull Run watershed, a decision that allows firefighters to dump toxic chemicals in the city's pristine source of drinking water. The city agency did not publicly announce the decision, confirming it only after repeated inquiries from The Oregonian/OregonLive,” The Oregonian reported.

“The vibrant red retardant commonly used by the Forest Service is about 85 percent water. The rest is fertilizer, which contains ammonia and nitrates, with iron oxide added to give the material its red hue. The slurry works by acting as a barrier to a plant's ignition,” the report said.

Nicole Adams, a bureau spokeswoman, explained the decision in an email to The Oregonian.

"The Portland Water Bureau has authorized unified command to use whatever measures are necessary to fight the fire within the watershed and are prepared to support their efforts in any way we can. During this very critical time of trying to contain the fire, the Water Bureau will not impede the efforts of the firefighters," she said.

The bureau's water quality staff will monitor how the chemicals affect the watershed, according to Adams.

“Adams says the retardant, typically dropped by air, would only be applied to areas that are actively burning,” the Associated Press reported.

[UPDATE: The Portland Water Bureau's FAQ page states that "No retardant has been used in the Bull Run watershed," and Public Information Officer Jaymee Cuti has since reported to Water Online that "The Eagle Creek Fire is no longer posing a risk to the Bull Run Watershed."]

The Oregonian speculated that the decision to allow use of the retardant might draw controversy since Portland residents are cautious about adding chemicals to their drinking water. They have repeatedly rejected the use of fluoride despite support for fluoridation from health officials and health advocacy groups, The Oregonian previously reported.

The backdrop is that a major forest fire is burning through the area, and it could ultimately threaten the use of the Bull Run watershed, The Oregonian reported:

The Eagle Creek fire had burned about 100 acres in a protected buffer surrounding the drainage that yields Portland's water. Adams said the fire still remains far from critical infrastructure and far from the drainage area. The uncontained perimeter is about 7 miles north of the city's headworks facility. If it was threatened, the city would have to abandon its Bull Run supply and get its water from a backup source.

In the past, the U.S. Forest Service has been sued over the use of these fire retardant chemicals, The Oregonian reported.

Andy Stahl, executive director of a Eugene group called Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, criticized the approach as wasteful.

"There is no evidence that it serves any useful purpose in stopping forest fires," Stahl said, per the report. "If retardant was so great at stopping fires, why hasn't it stopped this one?"

He added that the chemicals are unlikely to harm the water supply, but do pose a threat to fish.

For similar stories visit Water Online’s Source Water Contamination Solutions Center.