As the election nears and ballots have dropped here in Colorado, I’m tempted to be the 47th columnist this week to write about a particular candidate or proposition, and to tell you how you ought to vote. I’ve certainly done my share of such prognostication and pontification already, but today I want to yet again draw your attention in a different direction, to one of my favorite Colorado Politics sections, the Out West Roundup.

In a minute…

First, I want to recommend you take a look at the Colorado Politics voter guide. Here you will find all you need to know about the key dates to remember, as well as great analysis of every race from governor to judicial retention selections. And having once been appointed by then-Gov. Bill Ritter to my area judicial review commission, I’d urge you to actually take a look at the guide to help you figure out how you want to vote on retaining judges, rather than just skipping that part of the ballot. It’s important.

Recent polling is, well, all over the place, but it looks like my old boss Michael Bennet is in good shape, as is our terrific governor, Jared Polis. The brand-new 8th Congressional District – drawn as all districts should be, as highly competitive – will be very interesting to watch. I’m also curious how things will go locally here in my home of Colorado Springs, when voters will decide if recreational marijuana can be sold within the city. Right now, you must drive to Manitou Springs (the next town over, just a few minutes away) to buy weed, but if voters approve, there can be stores here within the Colorado Springs city limits. I’m intrigued by this vote because so many of the GOPers here talk about small government and limiting governmental power and reach, but also seem intent on controlling what adults put into their bodies in the privacy of their own homes… cough… hypocrisy… cough.

But as I said, I’m not going to talk about that.

Instead, I want to draw your attention to the lead story in the Out West Roundup, wherein we learn that in Montana, an environmental group is suing the U.S. government over pollution that resulted from dropping chemical fire retardants onto streams when fighting wildfires. And it is true that the Forest Service did find aircraft fighting fires in that state did, in fact, miss the fire more than once during the time frame of 2012 to 2019. Up to 760,000 gallons of the stuff went directly into streams during that seven-year period, and the chemicals involved – inorganic fertilizers and salts – are bad for critters that live in and around the streams.

I admit, this one is a head-scratcher for me. I count myself as a fairly strong environmentalist, yet it is not entirely clear what the “correct” ecological position on this issue really is. Though the retardant is definitely bad for the wildlife so too is, well, fire. I rather wonder what is worse for the environment: a wildfire going unrestrained, or the occasional dump of retardant chemicals into sensitive waterways?

The Forest Service has a plan they follow to try to avoid such dumps, including putting buffer zones around waterways in the fire’s path. But a study did determine that there is harm being done to imperiled species.

So, what is the government to do?

As is so often the case, there is no clear “right” side to be on. Being anti-pollution doesn’t make you pro-fire, and vice versa. The lawsuit asks the judge to declare the pollution to be illegal. It was filed by the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a group that looks like a collection of nice and caring people, including, according to their website, “thousands of concerned citizens, present, former and retired Forest Service employees, other government resource managers and activists working to change the Forest Service’s basic land management philosophy.” Their stated mission is to protect national forests and to reform the U.S. Forest Service by “advocating environmental ethics, educating citizens and defending whistleblowers.” Those are all laudable goals, and I’m sure the lawsuit is well-intentioned.

That said, I confess that I don’t know who is right here. The FSEEE seems to be arguing for no aerial fighting of wildfires. They seek, according to their press release, to “stop the Forest Service from polluting waterways with aerial fire retardant and force the agency to adhere to the Clean Water Act.” They assert that given the drought conditions we now face and the common high winds in the west, retardant drops don’t really do any good and in fact actually do harm.

Fire management, including controlled burns, and retardant drops are all complicated issues that I don’t claim to fully understand. And having once fled the approaching Waldo Canyon Fire, I get the importance of the rural-urban interface when it comes to fire. At that time, I was quite happy to see drops of retardant between me and the fire, but I admit that I don’t fully know all the implications. The fire did not reach my home, and I’m quite grateful for the amazing work of the firefighters, and I can’t help but wonder if the retardant drops didn’t help, at least some?

I will keep an eye on this lawsuit, as it brings up important issues for us in the west.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.