Arguing Colorado should equip itself with a fleet of firefighting slurry bombers – and soon – is understandable. Devastating wildfires have ravaged significant parts of this state in recent years, destroyed hundreds of homes and threatened thousands more. And there is no reason to think the future will not see more such danger.
But the impulse to do something is not enough. As frustrating as waiting can be, before the state spends millions of dollars buying or leasing aircraft to fight fires, it should be clear as to if, how and when they actually work.
As the Herald reported Thursday, state Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, wants Colorado to buy or lease helicopters and airplanes to fight fires. But the bill he has introduced together with Senate President Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, which would authorize the state to acquire such aircraft, so far includes no funding. He wants the governor’s help with that.
King wanted to get firefighting planes last year, but the bill that made it through the Legislature instead commissioned a report from the state Division of Fire Prevention and Control. That report was to be made public April 1, but was released Friday. Among other things, it recognizes that “information that is critical for guiding policy, strategy, and decisions regarding the management of wildfire is not sufficient, accessible or readily available.”
Nonetheless, it recommends getting two spotter planes, four single-engine air tankers, four helicopters and two larger air tankers at a cost of more than $30 million. That is in spite of the fact that Doug Young, an advisor to Gov. Hickenlooper, told Fox news in Denver, “Weather conditions and ground crews are the two biggest things.”
At a demonstration Wednesday in Centennial, which King arranged, an air tanker showed its capabilities by dropping simulated fire retardant. What it also made clear, however, was exactly why more answers are needed.
The aircraft, a C-130, is a four-engined, turboprop transport used by all branches of the military and a number of other countries. It is a competent and reliable craft.
Remarkably, the CEO of the company owning the C-130 questioned its effectiveness, saying, “If you asked today, could I get a report on the effectiveness of air tanker? You would find no documentation on the effectiveness of air tankers.”
He also acknowledged firefighters sometimes refer to slurry runs as “CNN drops.” The idea being dropping the colorful, red fire retardant is to show cable news viewers a fire is being fought.
That was reinforced by Young, who said, “With air tankers, it’s more psychological. When you see flames coming across the bend at your property, you want to see those planes in the air. But the reality is the fire is being fought on the ground.”
It may also be slurry drops are effective if used early on when a fire is small and containable. That would argue for a larger fleet of smaller aircraft widely dispersed to enable them to reach a just-started fire anywhere in the state. An arrangement like that would constitute a wholly different answer than acquiring giant planes, like the C-130. In part, the report released Friday seems to echo that with its emphasis on single-engine air tankers and helicopters.
King said he is relieved. As he had said before, “It is hard to understand why we’ve gone two years of us talking about this and still not seen anything done.”
But getting something done is not helpful in itself. Understanding what works, however, is critical. Colorado should move forward based on evidence, not emotion.
