Protecting Structures With Water Isn’t Always the Best Strategy

Why protecting structures with water isn’t a good strategy

Water has been the primary weapon for firefighters for thousands of years. Of course, water can be abundant, cheap, and has great effect extinguishing a fire. However, fighting fires the same way Ben Franklin did over 250 years ago isn’t as effective as modern alternatives.

Although water is still an integral component of modern fire extinguishing agents, water alone has proven less effective than its modern counterparts. As a firefighter, I could extinguish an entire room completely engulfed in fire in less than a minute. I would use the ability of the water to convert to steam to cool the contents of the super-hot gases coming off the burning contents. As the water converted to steam due to the intense heat, the cooling effect lowered the ignition temperature of the contents on fire. I used very little water to extinguish the fire since the room was enclosed and contained the steam. So, I’m a big fan of water for extinguishing interior fires.

I’m not a fan, however, of using water to protect structures from wildland fires. Water alone, outside a confined space, is often dissipated into steam and merely evaporates into the superheated gases of the fire. Not that water can’t extinguish a wildland fire when massive amounts of water are used, or when the flame lengths of the fire are minimal. It’s just that water isn’t much of a match against a wall of flames bearing down on everything in its path.

Structure protection specialists, therefore, don’t try to extinguish the fire to save a structure; rather, they use fire retardant to minimize the incoming flames and make the structure fire-resistant to the heat, flames, and embers that are advancing. As Fire-Pro USA founder Don Green often states, “I don’t fight the fire, I just don’t let the house burn.”

If not water, then what? As stated earlier, fire retardant is the key to protecting structures. There are a variety of fire retardants that behave differently, so choosing the best retardant for the fire scenario is the critical factor in defending a structure. Some fire retardants last for months after being applied, and others last only minutes, depending on the outside temperature, humidity, and immediate fire exposure.

It's the application of fire retardant that makes a structure protection specialist more effective than traditional firefighters using just water. I have successfully saved structures with a single structure protection crew (2 people), whereas a strike team of 5 fire engines (20 firefighters) wouldn’t stay to defend the structure. Not that the firefighters weren’t capable and desiring to save the structure, it’s that they knew their water alone couldn’t hold back the flames from overtaking the area and igniting the structure.

By applying fire retardant to the vegetation, I could reduce the fire’s intensity. And by applying a short-term fire retardant to the structure itself, I could encapsulate it in a gel cocoon that prevented the heat and embers from causing the structure to ignite. I’ve even taught non-firefighters to use this same method to stay and defend their home when they were inclined to do so.

I’m not maligning firefighters for using water; the simple fact is, fire retardant can be expensive, and carrying lots of it to use on hundreds of homes isn’t practical financially or logistically. The firefighters are best at fighting the fire directly or indirectly and stopping the advance of the fire. Standing in front of the flames takes immense courage and training to do it effectively. The firefighters facing the flames head-on are indispensable. In fact, a structure protection specialist could not do their job if the firefighters weren’t on the front lines attacking the flames—with water!