HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.09.2024 Board Correspondence - FW_ National Weather ModificationsFrom:Clerk of the Board
To:Jessee, Meegan
Cc:Lee, Lewis
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: National Weather Modifications
Date:Thursday, October 10, 2024 8:26:00 AM
Attachments:National_Weather_Modification_Policies_and_Programs_Submitted_by_the_Secretary_of_Commerce_in_Compliance_with_Public_Law_94-
490.pdf
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 7:17 PM
To: Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>;
assemblymember.gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; Durfee, Peter <PDurfee@buttecounty.net>;
ca01dl.outreach@mail.house.gov; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Ring, Brian
<bring@buttecounty.net>; pcbs@countyofplumas.com; Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>;
Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; tjohns@pcso.net; preyinghawkreport@gmail.com; Clerk of
the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.net>;
davidhollister@countyofplumas.com; District Attorney <District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy
<APickett@buttecounty.net>; senator.dahle@senate.ca.gov
Subject: National Weather Modifications
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
Public Record
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/Digitization_Scans/FY23_S
cans/National_Weather_Modification_Policies_and_Programs_Submitted_by_the_Secretary_of_Commerce_in
_Compliance_with_Public_Law_94-490.pdf__;!!KNMwiTCp4spf!Gk4lTbzxbE7a-
7EVorKfCgsDG28WqrdC3qshExXSz6834Xw6te5LpT5VbyIGSvzWTgfPAMlmN5SS5wc_KMipKLYsjz47Xw$
diana dreiss
� i I
\.
:
�
.us 1979
! QC· 92s.7
A Report to
· The President and
The Congress National Weather Modification Policies and Programs November 1979
� ,.,. • -
A Report to
The President and
The Congress
�ational
Weather Modification
Policies and Programs.
Submitted by the Secretary of Commerce
in compliance with Public Law 94-490
November 1979
..... ILVER SPRl,\ --' -• I \
r:.0.1'. . '. s. [.,::�'. _f
'·
'.:·: I - � I
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock Number 003-017-00470-8
ClC'IJ
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Washington, D.C. 20230
DEC 1 7 1979
Sirs:
It is my honor to submit to you a report on National Weather Modification Policies and Programs. This document contains the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study required by the National Weather Modification Act of 1976, Public Law 95-490.
Enclosure
The President President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction ............................................ 1 Sum.mary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
I. Summary of Major Findings
1. Present and Past Research
in Weather Modification •••••••••••••••••••••••• ..............10 Supercooled Fog
9 Introduction •.•••••.••••••.•••.••••.•.••••••.• 9 The Role of Statistics .........
and Stratus Clouds ••••••••••• 11 Clouds Over Mountainous Regions •••••••••••••• 12 Summer Cumulus Clouds •••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 Winter Cumulus Clouds •••••••••••••••••••••••• 18 Hail Suppression ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19 Hurricane Moderation ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20 Other Applications ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21 Summary ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2. Research Needs .................................
Introduction •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
21
23
23 Basic Scientific Problems •••••••••••••••••••• 24 Field Experiments •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 Specific Weather Modification Techniques ••••• 26
Other Research Require ments •••••••••••••••••• 28 Research Returns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 28
3. Economic Importance •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29
Existing Economic Studies •••••••••••••••••••• 29 Agriculture ••••••••••..•..•••••.•••••••••••••• 30 Water and Energy Enhancement ••••••••••••••••• 33 Hurricane Moderation ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 35
Legal, Social, and Ecological Implications ••••• 37 Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Legal Implications ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 37 Social Implications •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 Ecological Implications •••••••••••••••••••••• 41 5. Model Regulatory Codes ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43 iii
Leg islation Requ irements ••••••••••••••••••••••• 47
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47
State Leg islation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47
Federal Legislation •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48
International Implications ••••••••••••••••••••• 53
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 53 International Importance ••••••••••••••••••••• 53
Domestic Research Activities ••••••••••••••••• 54 u.s. Activities Abroad•••••••••••••••••••••••• 55
Potential International Tensions ••••••••••••• 56
8. Federal Funding •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 59
9. Federal Agencies Involved in Weather Modif ication Research •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 63
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 63
Department of Commerce ••••••••••••••••••••••• 64 Department of Interior ••••••••••••••••••••••• 66
National Science Foundation •••••••••••••••••• 67 Department of Defense •••••••••••••••••••••••• 68 Interagency Coordination ••••••••••••••••••••• 69
10. Need for International Agre ements •••••••••••••• 71 11. Options for a Model International Agr eement •••• 75
Introduction ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 75 Unilateral Declarations of Policy •••••••••••• 75 Mandatory Notif ication and Consultation
Agreements •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 76 Multilateral Research and Develop ment
Agreement • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 77
Comprehensive International Agreement •••••••• 77
II. Other Findings ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 79
III. Recommendations for a National Policy and Research and Development Program ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 83
Introduction ••·•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 83
National Policy ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 83
A National Research and Development Program ••••••• 84 Administration of a National Program •••••••••••••• 85
IV. Recommended Level of Federal Funding •••••••••••••••• 87
v. Recommendations on Organization ••••••••••••••••••••• 89
Advisory Board Recommendations •••••••••••••••••••• 90
iv
VI. Recommendations Concerning Legislation and
International Agreements •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 93
A National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976
(Public Law 94-490)
B The Illinois Weather Modification Control Act
C Rules and Regulations for the Administration and
Enforcement of the Provisions of the Illinois
Weather Modification Act
D The Council of State Governments' Weather Modification Control Act
E Agreement between the United States of America and
Canada Relating to the Exchange of Info rmation on
Weather Modification Activities
F Report of the Weather Modification Advisory Board
on the Management of Weather Resources (Volume I)
G Report of the Statistical Task Force on the Role of
Statistics in the Management of Weather Resources (Volume II)
V
INTRODUCTION
The National Weather Mo dification Policy Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-490),
reproduced as appendix A to this report (the "Act"), directed the
Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehens ive study of the status of
weather modification science and technology and to submit to the
President and the Congress a report on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study. This is the report prepared pursuant to
that Congressional directive.
In January 1977 the Secretary of Commerce established a Weather
Modification Advisory Board (the "Board") to provide independent advice
on the wide range of weather modification issues required to be addressed pursuant to the Act. In April 1977, 17 people with a wide range of
backgrounds and distinguished records of service in private and public
life were appointed to the Board. The Board was chaired by Mr. Harlan
Cleveland, Director of the Program in International Affairs at the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies. Members included experts in weather
modification, atmospheric science, oceanography, law, economics, international affairs, environmental studies, political science, state
government, and public administration.
The Board retained the services of 20 consultants and 6 contractors
to prepare study papers on issues and problems associated with weather modification. It met 12 times in 7 states and the District of Columbia
between May 1977 and June 1978. Board members heard testimony from over
100 individuals and groups, both from this country and abroad. They spent many hours reading documents, drafting statements, weighing the
contributions from consultants, and discussing the issues in public
sessions.
The Board's report was issued in July 1978 and contains a
comprehensive discussion of the current status of weather modification
science, technology, and national and international regulation. The
report is commendable not only because of its artistry and thoroughnessbut also becau se it was primarily a product of the members themselves
rather than the Board's staff. Volume I of the Board's report is
included as appendix F to this report. It is the primary source document
for much of this report. Volume II, a technical study of the role of
statistics in weather resources management, is included as appendix G.
In addition to the Board's report, this report is based on the
documents and studies underlying the Board's report and the studies and expertise of the scientists of the Department of Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other Government
agencies who are engaged in atm ospheric and weather modification research
and in international atmospheric science activities. Public comment on
the Board's report was also requested in connection with its widespread 1
distribution to interested members of the scientific, environmental,
academic, regulatory, and business comm unities, thr ough an invitation to
comment published in the Federal register, and through solicitation of
the views of all 50 State Governors.
This report, submitted in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, is
organized to respond to each of the specific charges to the Secretary in
that Section. As required by Section S(a)(l) of the Act, chapter I of
this report summarizes findings of the Department's study in each of the
11 areas of investigation specified in Section 4 of the Act. As required
by Section 5(a)(2)-(6) of the Act, chapters II through VI discuss other
pertinent findings and set forth recommendations with respect to a
national policy on weather modification and a national weather
modification research and development program, levels of Federal funding
authorizations desirable to facilitate devel opment of a national program,
a management organization to pursue the effort, and the desirable
regulatory and international aspects of a national weather modification
program.
2
SUMMARY
Modification of the weather is scientifically possible. If it is
done reliably and with predictable results, society would benefit
substantial ly, both economically and by savings of lives. To developweather modification science and technology to the point where these
benefits can be achieved, the Federal Government should undertake a coherent research and development program. A success ful program will
require in particular a long-term research plan and better coordination
of Government efforts underway in a number of Federal agencies and Departments.
Background
Weather modification is human intervention to influence the
atmospheric processes and events that comprise the weather. It is now
being done deliberately in a variety of ways for mankind's benefit.
Cloud seeding technologies are employed com mercially in this country in efforts to clear winter fog from airports, augment snow packs in mountain
regions, increase rain from summer showers, and reduce destruction from hail. Experiments in the atmosphere have also yielded promising results in the area of hurricane moderation. Cl oud seeding effects on the
current scale appear to be localized and are not causing irreversible or
large scale weather changes. The weather is also being modified
inadvertently, by cities, powerplants, and agricultural activities such
as irrigation and deforestation.
Weather can be modified by man, but much more knowledge is needed to
intervene in complex atmospheric processes with scientifically
predictable results. There are good reasons to believe that a
coordinated long-term research and development program can supply many of the missing answers. In recent years, striking advances have taken place
in developing the research tools needed to investigate atmospheric
p henomena. Increased computer power and more effective numerical models
offer much greater opportunity to address crucial questions concerning
intra-cloud and cloud-environment interactions. Greatly improved remote
sensing techniques provide tools for studying a variety of cloud
phenomena. Aircraft and sop histicated instruments are available for airborne measurement of many essential cloud and environment variables.
In addition, an adequate manpower base now exists within the U.S.
scientific community to proceed with a sound research and development
program.
Such a program may prove some technologies that now seem possible to
be unworkable or uneconomic. In addition, many members of the public are deeply skeptical about the desirability of "tinkering" with large natural
forces that may have unforseen consequences, even if the scientific
com munity is convinced that weather can be modified predictably and
3
safely. Thus, a national research program will require widespread public
participation and scrutiny at all stages, regulation of activities by the
Goverrnnent when necessary to ensure public safety, and constant
reevaluation of experimental progress, probiems, and prospects.
Potential Benefits
Effective operational weather modification tech•ologies would have
substantial benefits that are likely to outweigh the costs by impressive
amounts.
The ability to deliver more water in the right places and at
the right times for farming, irrigation, hydroelectric power, and
municipal and industrial water use would benefit agricultural and
urban areas.
Substantial economies could be realized by the aviation sector
if a reliable technology existed to dissipate fogs, thus avoiding
cancellation of airport operations arid losses to affected travelers.
The annual reduction in hurricane damage from stonn surges and
winds could be signif icant. In the United States, the annu al
economic losses caused by hurricanes (including accompanying floo ds)
are about $800 million. Three storms since 1964 each resulted in
losses of more than $1.4 billion. Preliminary estimates place
losses from 1979's hurricane Frederic well in excess of $1
billion. We also lose nearly a hundred lives annually as a result
of hurricanes. With the increasing population and industry at risk
in U.S. coastal areas, these losses are almost certain to
escalate. And losses of this magnitude are not limited to the
United States. In Bangladesh, a tropical cyclone killed about
200,000 persons in November 1970. The City of Darwin, Australi a,
was virtually wiped out by cyclone Tracy in December 1974.
Crop and property damages due to hail, which exceed one billion
dollars in the United States alone, would be reduced substantially,
particularly in the Great Plains region.
Program Requirements
To allow weather modif ication to develop to its full potential, the
following changes in the present Federal programs should be undertaken:
A national atmospheric R&D program. A well coordinated, long
tenn national research program into the scientific basis for
management of our weather resources will be required. This should
focus on obtaining a substantially improved understanding of cloud
systems and their behavior, and should include a mixture of
theoretical studies, computer modeling, laboratory experiments,
4
developments in monitoring and cloud seeding technologies, and field experiments in the atmosphere. The research program should also
include studi es to identify and understand the inadvertent
influences of urban and industrial activities on local weather.
Much of this research is related to and should also have broad
application to other national objectives such as weather forecastingand air quality.
Environmental and other studies. For wise application of a
weather modification capability, more knowledge is needed about the
full range of environmental, social, legal, and other benefits and costs that would result before embarking on large-scale operationalweather mo dification programs.
Stable Federal funding. Total funding for deliberate and
inadvertent weather modification research in the Federal Government
has remained relatively level --from $18.6 million in fiscal year
(FY) 1972 to $17.2 million in FY 1980. Seven Federal agencies
supported weather modification research in the early 1970's, but
only the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Science Foundation are now active.
Past on-again off-again efforts refle cted concern over the state of the art and available assessment tools. The field requires
sustained effort over a period of years to achieve reliable
results. Preparation of the Federal budget must include an
effective review of overall annual funding requirements against a comprehensive research and development plan, to assure that
sustained program requirements are met. Modest budget initiatives will be necessary, especially for basic research, to implement such
a plan after it is developed; until such time, current authorizations should provide sufficient flexibility to develop
specific programs to meet the highest priority research needs.
Improved coordination of Federal research efforts. The present
Federal strategy of allowing weather modification efforts to proceedindependently in any agency with a related mission has resulted in a
fragmented weather modification research program. This problem can be alleviated if all Federal weather modification research and
development activities are undertaken in the context of a coherent
overall long-term research plan. To that end, a Weather Modification Subcommittee should be established under the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans of the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering and Technology. This Subcommittee should be charged with developing a 5-to 10-year weather modifiction research
plan for the Federal Government, providing a coordinating mechanism
for the conduct of the plan once approved, and assisting the Office
of Management and Budget in analyzing annual agency program budget
submissions for consistency with the plan.
5
Public involvement. Public acceptance of weather modi fication
research will continue to be an important issue, and a mechanism to ensure public scrutiny of the planning and conduct of a national program is essential. A com mittee of individuals knowledgable in the field of weather modi fication, who represent diverse viewpoints, should be created to act as a special ad visory board to the Weather Modi fication Subcommittee under existing authorities.
Federal legislation. Such legi slation should include: a clear
statement of the national interest in weather resources management; an identifiction of the goals of a national weather modi fication program; and a definition of the respective roles of the state and
Federal governments.
International activities. Because the United States has a long
history of international cooperation in atmospheric scientific activities, we have a unique opportunity to achieve the benefits and
minimize the tensions of weather modi fication science and technology as it develops. A number of actions are now feasible and would be im portant steps toward establishement of a comprehensive international regime for weather modi fication. These include:
adoption by the United States Congress of a unilateral declaration of weather modification policy; negotiation with Mexico and other neighboring countries of bilateral notification and consultation
agreements; development of an international accord on weather
modi fication research activities; and promul gation through an ap propriate international organization of principles of conduct for the guidance of national weather modification programs.
The Advisory Board Report
This report agrees with many of the conclusions of the Weather
Modi fication Advisory Board's Report set forth in appendix F. The reports differ in some important respects:
This report concurs with the Board that as more effective
technologies are developed, the Federal Government will have principal responsibility for the health, welfare, and safety of the
public with respect to the impacts of weather modi fication because of its interstate implications, and that Federal regulation of weather modi fication operators will be necessary. The Board recommends Federal licensing of weather modi fication operators
now. This report concludes that the advantages of licensing at this time are small and are outweighed at present by the associated costs
of a regulatory scheme.
The Board recom mends creation of an autonomous board with
direct authority over the operations of the national program. This
6
report recommends the establishment of a board to advise the Federal
agencies preparing and implementing a Federal research plan.
The Board concluded that legislation was desirable to allow
class actions against the Federal Government under the Federal Tort
Claims Act for damages caused by Federal weather modification
experiments, and that legislation might also be required to ensure
that Federal experiments are not regarded as falling within the
exemption from liability in the Federal Tort Claims Act for
"discretionary functions." This report defers to the Department of
Justice's view that class action legislation is not desirable and
concludes that, in view of its concerns about changes in the Federal
Government's sovereign immunity status, any legislation with respect
to the "discretionary act" exemption should await further experience
with its app lication.
The Board concluded "It seems probable that a much intensified
and steady program of scientific inquiry over the next two decades
will yield regionally important increases in mountain snowpack in
the 1980's, increased rainfall in areas like our High Plains and
Midwest by the la te 1980's (and) reduced hurricane winds and hail
damage by the 1990's." This report agrees with the Board that
modification of the weather in useful ways is scientifically
possible. However, this report does not attempt to project specific
quantitative research results within given time periods, reflecting
less certainty about our ability to predict that the remaining
scientific questions will be answered in a specific period.
The Board concluded that substantially increased levels of
funding will be required to support a national research program.
This report concludes that only modest funding increases will be
required once a new, coordinated Federal research program is
developed by the Weather Modification Subcommittee.
The Board concluded that all civilian weather modification
research and development programs should be centralized in a single
Federal agency. This report concludes that well-coordinated
research and development programs carried out by a number of Federal
agencies can best achieve advances in weather modification science
and technology.
These differences about the manner in which a Federal program is
conducted, while significant, should not overshadow this report's
agreement with the basic conclusions of the Advisory Board that
modification of the weather in useful ways is scientifically possible,
that prudent steps should be taken now to strengthen activities designed
to investigate those possibilities, and that these steps require the
Federal Government to develop a coherent, long-term research program and
organize seriously for a longer term effort.
7
I
Summary of Major Findings
This chapter contains a summary of findings on the "state of
scientific knowledge concerning weather modification, the present state
of development of weather modification technology, and the problems
impeding effective implementation of weather modification technology" in
each of the 11 areas of investigation specified in Section 4 of the Act.
Major Findings -Item 1
Section 4(1) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of the
present and past research efforts to establish practical weather
modification technology, particularly as it relates to reducing
loss of life and crop and property destruction."*
Introduction
A cloud seeding technology currently exists. It is employed
commercially in this country in attempts to clear fog from airports, to
augment snowpacks in mountainous regions, to increase rain from summer
showers, and to reduce destruction by hail. Seventy-eight operational
programs were reported to the Department of Commerce in 1977 under the
provisions of Public Law 92-205, the National Weather Modification
Reporting Act of 1971. In 1978, fifty programs were reported covering
about 5 percent of the country's land area.
The Federal Government has sponsored weather modification research
since cloud seeding became a scientific reality in 1946. Techniques for
clearing supercooled fog from airport runways are now proven. Many
precipitation enhancement projects conducted over the past three decades
present evidence of success. As the Weather Modification Advisory Board
concluded, "The experimental evidence for cloud seeding has not yet
reached the levels of objectivity, repeatability, and predictability
required to establish new knowledge and techniques. There are,
nevertheless, several lines of evidence suggesting that carefully
controlled seeding, using means appropriate to the aims, will result in
weather mo dification effects of useful dimensions." Experiments in
hurricane moderation have also been encouraging, but they are too few for
definitive results. Much more work needs to be done to determine the
efficacy of hail suppression and other weather modification techniques.
*This subject is addressed in chapters 2 and 6 of Volume I and in Volume
II of the Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendixes F and G
respectively).
9
Because many of the conclusions drawn from cloud-seeding experiments
depend upon statistical analyses, a brief summary of the topic is given
in the following paragraphs. The remainder of this section of the report
examines the status of present and past research ef forts in each of the
above subject areas in more detail.
The Role of Statistics
A number of research projects, and a larger number of operational
cloud-seeding ef forts, have been undertaken since 1946. Research
projects, including experimental cloud seeding ef forts, are conducted to learn more about clouds and cloud processes, to determine cloud responses
to seeding, and eventually to develop, through continued exploration and testing under rigidly controlled conditions, reliable techniques for
achieving desirable results at the earth's surface through cloud see ding. Operational cloud seeding is the routine application of such a
technique for the purpose of achieving the maximum possible results
desired by a group seeking to modify the weather.
Because of the inherent natural variability of the weather,
statistics becomes a primary tool for judging what was accomplished
compared with what would have happened if nature had not been altered purposefully. The statistical design used in most past experiments has
called for some form of randomization scheme for allotting the "seed" or
"no-seed" decision to experimental units --for example, a cloud, a
storm, or a day, generally within a designated area. Analyses have
consisted mainly of testing the "null hypothesis" on the resulting
data. The null hypothesis states that the seeded and unseeded samples
are drawn from the same population --that is, the seeding had no
detected effect. If the null hypothesis could be rejected with only a 5
percent chance of being wrong, experimenters have generally accepted that
the populations were significantly dif ferent and the dif ference was
�elated to the seeding.
It is no simple matter to develop a statement regarding the
statistical significance of an experimental result. There are many
pot ential sources of error in the collected data and some of the errors
can be systematic, thus favoring one or the other side of the question.
Once the data set is accepted, it can be used to answer many different
questions. If the experimenter is allowed to ask an unlimited number of
questions, some will appear to be answered positively just by chance.
Thus a minimum number of physically meaningful questions is best. Even
then, many statistical techniques can be applied to the data to answer
the questions selected, and statisticians have legitimate differences of
opinion as to which techniques may be most appropriate for a particular
experiment. Thus, a range of numbers can be given to express the
statistical significance of a given experimental result.
10
A statement of statistical significance is not the final answer to
.the question of whether cloud seeding made any difference. Such a
statement attempts to indicate the probability that the observed dif ference could have arisen by chance. If that probability is as low as
5 percent, one is tempted to accept the reality of the ef fect. But the
physical plausibility of the result, the strength of sup porting evidence,
and other subjective factors are important in making a judgment. Unless
most informed individuals find the totality of evidence persuasive, the
case cannot be considered proven. In assessing results of experiments in
this section, therefore, qualitative terms such as "promising" or
"likely" are prevalent.
Federal activities have been limited almost exclusively to research
and field experimentation. The results from a number of the more recent
seeding test projects have resolved some questions concerning the
responses of various types of clouds to several dif ferent seeding
modes. As the following discussion indicates, however, many other
questions remain unanswered.
Supercooled Fog and Stratus Clouds
The simplest of all sci entific experiments in cloud seeding is to
spread pellets of dry ice or particles of silver iodide into layers of
supercooled fog and low stratus clouds. The resulting transformation of
the cloud comp osit ion from waterdrops into ice crystals is clear,
dramatic, and incontrovertible. Initially, the ice crystals are too
small to fall from the cloud, but they grow at the expense of remaining
waterdrops. As turbulent air motions diffuse them into nearby cloud
regions, they can grow large enough to prod uce a snow shower.
The amount of snowfall produced in this way is trivia:l because the
stratus cloud initially contains so little water. But visibility almost
always improves and often a large hole may be opened in the stratus. The
U. S. Air Force has practiced this technology for many years at various
airbase instal lations in the United States and abroad, and commercial
airlines have used this type of weather modi fication at selected airports
in the northwestern United States. The Soviet Union is said to have
experimented with this type of technique over areas much larger than
airports. The possibility of using this technique to open holes in
winter stratus clouds to increase the am ount of solar radiation reaching
the ground has been discussed but has received little research
attention. Although theoretical calculations have been made to estimate
the level of effort needed to open a hole of suf ficient size to be
meaning ful, few field experiments have been conducted for that specific
purp ose. 1 1
Clouds Over Mountainous Regions
The seeding of orographic clouds to stimulate precipitation has been
one of the most actively pursued weather modification activities. Most
orographic precipitation occurs when winter storm winds encounter
mo untain barriers. These upslope winds are continuously cooled to form
clouds and precipitation. Typically, only about 20 to 50 percent of the
water that is condensed to form orographic clouds actually falls as
precipitation. The rest is reevaporated on the leeward mountain slopes.
Thus orographic clouds are good candidates for seeding to increase the
fraction of water falling on the mountain slopes.
A major portion of the precipitation in the mountainous Western
United States occurs through the orographic process. Snowpack
accumulates during the winter and melts and runs off during the late
spring and summer. Much of this runoff is stored in reservoirs for
future use as irrigation or domestic water supply. Some of this water
helps generate hydroelectric energy. Any increase in the snowpack can
therefore be translated directly into additional useful water.
Consequently, orographic clouds in the Western States have been long-term
targets of both operational and experimental cloud seeding projects.
The 1957 final report of President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee
on Weather Control (ACWC) discussed several winter orographic seeding
projects. Since no research project results were available, the ACWC
studied data from operational seeding projects. They compared target
area precipitation during seeded storms with that which occurred in
nearby, presumably unaffected, control areas. The target/control
precipitation ratios for seeded storms were compared with historical
ratios, obtained from data collected be fore cloud seeding began, to
determine the effect of seeding. The precipitation ratios for seeded
storms were about 10 to 15 percent higher than the historical averages.
These data indicated that precipitation increases had been realized as a
result of seeding. Nevertheless, the ACWC judged that more conclusive
evidence based on carefully designed randomized field trials should be
�ught.
A second review of the state of the science of cloud seeding was
undertaken by the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1966. They reported positive results of
orographic seeding from randomized seeding projects in Australia and
Mexico. The results of four long-term, privately conducted, non
randomized, winter oro graphic cloud seeding projects in California, Utah,
and Oregon were also evaluated. These operational projects were
evaluated on the basis of target/control ratios of seasonal streamflow
rather than precipitation. Streamflow measures in effect integrate
watershed precipitation over the whole season. The target/control
streamflow analysis indicated with a good degree of statistical
confidence that increases in seasonal stream flow of 6 to 18 percent had
12
occurred due to seeding. However, this conclusion could be accepted only
with reservations because of the necessity of relying on non-randomized data.
In 1973, a further report was prepared by a NAS panel. This panel
examined several randomized seeding projects that were either under way
or h d been completed since the 1966 report. Special attention was given
to the combined results of the Climax I (1960-65) and Climax II (1965-70)
projects, both conducted in Colorado under the leadership of Colorado
State University scientists with support from the National Science
Foundation. These bench mark projects were interpreted as giving the
first definitive determination of the nature of the response of
orographic clouds to seeding. The data indicated that orographic clouds
having cloudtop temperatures between -11 ° c and -20 ° c were very favorable
for precipitation enhancement. Precipitation decreases occurred when cloud top temperatures were colder than -26 ° C. Precipitation decreases
also occurred under very strong wind conditions. The NAS panel
concluded: "Hence, in the longest randomized cloud seeding research
project in the United States, involving cold orographic winter clouds, it
has been demonstrated that precipitation can be increased by substantial
amounts on a determinate basis."
Evaluations of the Climax project data subsequent to the NAS report
have sug gested effects extending beyond the time and spatial limits of
seeding for the target area. In some of the experimental years
concentrations of ice nuclei in the target area in excess of the normal
background persisted for days after seeding had been terminated. In
addition, on days when seeding was conducted in the Climax project area,
precipitation as far as 160 kilometers (about 100 miles) east of the
mountains was found to be higher than on non-seeded days.
Subsequent to the Weather Modification Advisory Board's report,
scientists have questioned whether the Climax results may have been
biased because the randomly selected seeded days were naturally more
snowy than non-seeded days. This point is still being studied.
The progression of evidence suggesting beneficial effects from
seeding orographic clouds during the 1950's and 1960's led the Department
of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) to propose large-scale
application of orographic cloud seeding as a water management tool. As a
step toward this goal, BuRec initiated the Colorado River Basin Pilot
Project over the mountains of southwest Colorado during the winter of
1970-71. This 5-year experiment was patterned after the Climax
project. However, post-experiment analyses revealed serious problems in
the operational implementation and transferability to a di fferent area of
what were considered well-tested techniques. The randomization scheme
required accurate 24-hour forecasts of the suitability of cloud
conditions for seeding, a prediction capability beyond the state of the
science. Consequently many hours of seeding occurred when conditions
13
were unsuitable for seeding. This problem was compounded by atmospheric
conditions that on certain occasions trapped seeding agents near the
generators during seeded days and subsequently allowed contamination of
the target area during nonseeded days. The experiment resulted in a
finding of no signi ficant difference in precipitation amount on seeded and nonseeded days.
The Colorado River Basin Pilot Project did help to solidify
knowledge about conditions under which orographic seeding can be employed
beneficially. Reanalysis of the data by meteorological category
reaf firmed the Climax finding of the crucial role of cloud-top
temperature seedability criteria and the importance of the wind speed
across the mountain barrier. It also demonstrated the need for careful
design of demonstration projects.
Bureau of Reclamation scientists recently conducted an analysis of the combined data from the Climax project, the Colorado River Basin Pilot
Project, and five other randomized winter cloud-seeding research projects
conducted in orographic settings in the western Rocky Mountains and on
the U.S. Paci fic coast. Variables were developed and investigated to
establish generalized seedability criteria that would be applicable to a
variety of meteorological and topographic conditions. The investiga tors
found strong positive and negative seeding effects associated with
selected cloud conditions. These results need further verification with
ad ditional data, but meanwhile they can be useful in formulating
hypotheses and designing future experiments.
A randomized project carried out in Tasmania was completed
subsequent to the 1973 NAS report. Aerial seeding was conducted over a
2600-square kilometer mountainous target area during the entire even
numbered calendar years from 1964 to 1970. No seeding was conducted
during the odd-numbered years, to avoid long-term persistence effects
that had been suspected in earlier Au stralian projects. The results
indicated a 20 percent precipitation increase during the autumn season
with some positive ef fect in portions of the target area during winter
and spring and a possible decrease in summer. Statistical tests indicate
a probability of less than 5 percent that the autumn precipitation
increase arose by chance. However, some statisticians point out that
multiple anal yses were carried out within the single experiment (i.e.,
separate analyses for each of the four seasons), thus placing greater
demands on the level of evidence required to reach such a conclusion and
making it dif ficult to attach significance values to the results.
Summer Cumulus Clouds
Cumulus clouds are even more important than orographic clouds as
produc ers of precipitation and generators of severe weather. Cumulus
clouds supply as much as three-forths of the precipitation in middle
latitude crop-growing areas and almost all of the precipitation in the
14
tropics. Thus development of the ability to increase precipitation from
cumlus clouds may have the greatest potential payoff of all possible
weather modification tech niques. However, the complexity of cumulus
clouds and their extreme variability in time and space make modification
of such clouds a much more com plex problem than modification of orographic clouds.
The science of seeding cumulus clouds for more precipitation has
evolved a good deal over the last 30 years. Two seeding concepts
static seeding and dynamic seeding --have been employed.
Static Seeding. The "static seeding" concept was based on the
assumptions that cumulus clouds are naturally de ficient in ice-forming
nuclei and that the addition of ice-forming nuclei by cloud seeding
should bring the ratio of ice crystals to supercooled water to a more
ef ficient balance and result in more precipitation at ground level.
Hundreds of commercial projects based on this concept have operated in
the United States and other countries, especially during the dry years of
the early 1950 1 s.
President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Weather Control
investigated several seeding projects over nonmountainous terrain,
primarily in the eastern and central parts of the United States. Their
1957 report indicated that they were unable to detect any increase in
precipitation from these projects, but they urged more studies of cumulus
cloud seeding because of the high value they attached to even a small
enhancement of precipitation from clouds over agricultural areas.
As a consequence of the ACWC recom mendations, several randomized
cloud-seeding projects were initiated. The 1966 NAS report reviewed a
number of these projects. Special attention was given to Project
Whitetop, conducted in Missouri from 196 0 to 1964 by the University or
Chicago with support from the National Science Foundation. This project
found an increase of 5 to 10 percent in radar echo frequency just
downwind of the seeding location, indicating increased precipitation
activity within the clouds. This ef fect gave way to negative ef fects of
about the same amount beyond 65-80 kilometers (about 40-50 miles)
downwind. The net result was a decrease of precipitation in the target
area as a result of seeding. The net rainfall decreases in Project
Whitetop were attributed to overseeding in the face of high natural ice
particle concentrations.
Another randomized summer cumulus research project was conducted in
southern Arizona from 1957 to 1964 by the University of Arizona also with
NSF funding. The results of this project were inconclusive , but less
precipitation occurred in the target area for seeded cases than for non
seeded cases.
15
In the absence of other results from randomized research projects,
many of which were still under way, the NAS staff reviewed 14 short-term,
nonrandomized operational projects conducted in the eastern United
States. They found evidence of precipitation increases in the range Oto
33 percent, several of them at moderate to low levels. of statistical
significance. They concluded that these results could not be regarded as
conclusive evidence of precipitation increases from cloud seeding, but
that they were sug gestive of positive effects and warranted some
optimism.
The 1973 NAS report discussed two additional randomized summer
cumulus projects that had been completed since the 1966 report. One was
a project carried out over the Sierra Nevada range by Fresno State College scientists, where observational evidence suggested that
precipitation was stimulated by seeding. However, the project design
made no provision for quantitative evaluation of precipitation
increases. The second project was a long-term randomized effort carried
out on the Necaxa River Basin in central Mexico by the Mexican Light and
Power Company. Evaluation of the seeding experiments showed evidence of a strong positive effect, at least in certain categories of precipitation
from special meteorological situations.
The 1973 NAS report also devoted attention to new analyses of the
Project Whitetop data. Several post-hoc statistical analyses by outside
investigators reported, overall, decreases in precipitation in the target
area and extending in all directions from the target. A final analysis
of Project Whitetop by the original investigators reported that negative
effects were associated with southerly low-level winds, while days with
westerly winds showed positive effects. They also found, using radar
echo-top data, that increases in precipitation had occurred when radar
tops were between 6,090 and 12,180 meters (about 20,000-40,000 feet).
When echo tops were higher, there were decreases in precipitation. Thus,
certain conditions for favorable and unfavorable effects due to seeding
seem to have been identified. However, other tests are needed to confirm
this finding.
Dynamic Seeding. The concept of "d ynamic seeding," first suggested
in 1948, was developed and used experimentally during the late 1960's.
This technique employs massive seeding to convert supercooled liquid
water to ice rapidly during the active growth phase of a cloud.
Scientists hypothesize that the resulting release of latent heat
increases cloud buoyancy, invigorates the cloud and prolongs its
lifetime, increases its efficiency, and ultimately enchances rainfall.
Several factors were important in making dynamic seeding practical.
These included the development of numerical cumulus cloud models that
could simulate cloud processes, at least in a crude way, the development
of minicomputers, and the development of pyrotechnic seeding devices.
1 6
Tests of the dynamic seeding concept were conducted in Pennsylvania,
Arizona, the Caribbean, and southern Florida during the late 1960's.
These tests conf irmed the increased growth of the clouds predicted by the
numerical cloud models. Subsequently, the ef fect of dynamic seeding on
rainfall in Florida cumulus clouds was investigated by NOAA in two
projects in 1968 and 1970. A comparison of radar-measured precipitation
from individual seeded and non-seeded clouds showed a 100 to 200 percent
increase in precipitation for seeded clouds. The increase was
signi ficant at the 5 percent level --that is, the hypothesis that there
is no dif ference between the seeded and non-seeded clouds could be
rejected with the probability of being wrong at most 5 times out of 100
(and the probability of being right at least 95 times out of 100).
The Florida Area Cumulus Experiment (FACE) was organized by NOAA in
i970 to determine whether dynamic seeding can be used to augment
precipitation from cumulus clouds over an extensive area in south
Florida. Exploratory field experiments were cond ucted during five
summers from 1970 through 1976. Results from the FACE experiments
suggest that under some conditions dynamic seeding increases rainfall.
Because of the multiplicity of ideas examined and the subjective
influences of those cond ucting the experiment (a problem discussed
further in section 2 of this chapter) --conditions typical of all
exploratory experiments --these conclusions cannot be assigned useful
statistical significance levels. For that reason, a confirmatory Florida
experiment was initiated in the summer of 1978.
In an area-type summer cumulus cloud experiment conducted in South
Dakota from 1969 through 1972 by the South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology, stati stically significant precipitation increases were
reported for days characterized by cum ulus showers. On days with large
thunderstorms, essentially no seeding ef fect occurred. The investigators
ascribed the results to dynamic seeding although the seeding rates used
were much smaller than those in either the FACE or Caribbean
experiments. This points up the fact that there is no hard and fast line
between static and dynamic seeding.
The South Dakota School of Mines and Technology also conducted a
cumulus cloud seeding project for rain enhancement and hail suppression
in North Dakota during the summers of 1969 through 1972. The project was
randomized by day with silver iodide released into cloud updrafts at the
base of the clouds. A recent statistical analysis of this project by the
Weather Modification Advisory Board's statistical task force indicates
that overall dif ferences in rain for seeded and unseeded days were
negligible and not significant. However, they found that when seeded
days are separated into days judged suitable and unsuitable for dynamic
seeding the mean dif ference in average rainfall between (suitable) seeded
days and unseeded days approaches statistical significance.
1 7
Winter Cumulus Clouds
Rand omized tests of seeding winter cumulus clouds for increasing
rainfall were carried out in Israel between 1961 and 1967 (Phase I) and
between 196 9 and 1975 (Phase II). In both experiments, cumulus clouds
moving inland from the Mediterranean Sea were seeded from airplanes at
relatively high dosage rates. The results of Phase I indicated an
increase in precipitation of about 15 percent (with statistical
significance) when cloud tops were between about -10 ° c (+14 ° F) and -2 5 ° C
(-13 ° F). Phase II, considered to be a con firmatory experiment testing
the conclusions of Phase I, indicated a 13 to 15 percent increase in
rainfall at signi ficance levels of 4 percent and 9 percent (in two
signi ficance tests) --that is, the null hypothesis could be rejected
with the probability of being wrong at most 4 and 9 times out of 100,
respectively. When the results of Phase II became known, the Israeli
Government stopped experimenting and launched a program of operational
seeding at every cloud opportunity. A post-hoc analysis of ef fects
downwind of the target indicated a positive response to seeding as far as
160 kilometers (about 100 miles) downwind.
The Weather Modification Advisory Board's Statistical Task Force
reviewed the only report thus far published about Phase II of the Israeli
project. They concluded that "If closer critical analysis of the study
and its data fails to detect flaws, the results of this study would be
judged to constitute con firmatory evidence that rainfall amounts have
been increased by cloud seeding." The Statistical Task Force's report to
the Weather Modification Advisory Board is included as appendix G to this
report.
The closest analogs of the Israel-type cloud systems in this country
appear to be the winter cyclonic storms along the Cali fornia coast and in
the Pacific Northwest. These storms are known to contain numerous convective rain bands within which the highest intensity precipitation is
located.
A randomized seeding project involving this type of winter cloud was
carried out by Aerometric Research, Inc. near Santa Barbara, California,
during the period between 1967 and 1974. During the first 4 years (Phase
1), seeding was accomplished by a high-output pyrotechnic device at a
single site on a 1000-meter (about 3,280-foot) ridge line. The emphasis
was on seeding individual convection bands embedded within winter
cyclonic storms. Seeding was randomized band by band. Analyses of Phase
1 indicated precipitation increases of SO percent or greater from seeded
bands at high levels of statistical significance. There was also
indication of up to 50 percent precipitation increases extending 160
kil ometers (about 100 miles) downwind of the generator site.
18
Phase 2 shifted the scene of action 100 kilometers (about 62 miles)
to the west and further explored the downwind effects. Seeding was
carried out from aircraft flying within convective bands upwind of the
target area. Seedi•ng was randomized in 48-hour periods, but the test was
abandoned before an adequate sample was collected. Rainfall in the
target area and in a region exten ding 250 kilometers (about 155 miles)
downwind was rep orted to have been increased 50 percent or more byseeding. Although Phase 2 was terminated before any statistical significance could reasonably be anticipated, the results of Phase 2
suggest that the dynamic effect was realized in the seeded precipitationbands.
Hail Sup pression
Hail, another form of precipitation from cumulus clouds, is a major cause of agricultural crop losses and property damage in the United
States, especially in the Great Plains region. Most of the damage is caused by the larger hailstones. Consequently, suppressing t'he growth of
large hailstones has been a long-time goal of weather modification
activities. Efforts to suppress hail began in the United States in the
1950's. Privately supported projects over small areas first took place
in high crop loss areas in Nebraska and West Virginia well before
experimentation had established a scientific approach to hail suppression.
Hail research efforts appeared in Canada in the 1950's culminating
in a major hail-suppression project in 1974. The project, a cooperative
effort between segments of the Canadian Goverrnnent and McGill University, wa onducted in the Province of Alberta and began as a mixture of
operations and experimentation using cloud-base and cloud-top seeding
techniques. In 1976 the project became fully operational as a result of
pressure from farming interests. The randomized experiment, lasting only two years, was too short to provide firm scientific conclusions about
seeding to suppress hail.
The first major u. S. hail suppression research experiment occurred
in northeastern Colorado in 1959, but results were inconclusive. Operational programs of hail suppression, without any proof of great
success or any foundation of sound scientific experimentation, continued
into the 1960's and 1970's in Colorado, Kansas, Texas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Between 1958 and 1977, 71 hail suppression field
operations and experiments were conducted, mostly in the Great Plains.
Hail suppression has been practiced on all continents except
Antarctica. United States companies have played an important role,
through exportation of hail-sup pression techniques, in its spread to
Kenya, Italy, South Africa, and other nations. Most of these projects
have been ended by a lack of continued financial support because the
evidence of hail suppression was not strong enough. The Soviet Union has
1 9
developed an ambitious hail-suppression effort and claims a 60 to 80
percent effectiveness in reducing hail. Similar programs have been
fostered in several eastern European countries, and Soviet hail-seeding
equipment and supplies are marketed for sale around the world.
A 7-year experiment in Switzerland between 1957 and 1963 suggested a
66 percent greater frequency of hail days in the seeded sample than in
the unseeded sample, rather than the intended decrease. This difference
was found to be statistically significant. France, Italy, and
Switzerland are currently conducting a joint hail suppression experiment
in Switzerland that is a carefully designed effort to test the
effectiveness of the Soviet system and hypothesis.
In 1971, the Federal Government established a National Hail Research
Experiment in northeastern Colorado. This experiment, a major effort in
applied research on hail suppression, included a randomized seeding test
stimulated by the Russian experience. An analysis of the data collected
after 3 years of experimentation revealed that there was no statistically
significant difference between the seeded and nonseeded incidence of
hail. The planned 5-year statistical experiment was terminated after 3
years because the analyses indicated that statistically significant
results could not be expected after 5 years, and the emphasis
subsequently shifted to more fundamental studies of convective storms.
Hurricane Moderation
Very little experimentation has been done on modification of severe
storms. The single exception is the hurricane --one hurricane
modification concept has undergone some experimentation by NOAA and
Department of Defense scientists. The concept involves strategic silver
iodide seeding of the eyewall and inner rainband clouds of a mature
hurricane in an attempt to displace outward the ring of ascending air in
the eyewall and thereby reduce the maximum wind speed. The idea is to
slow down the hurricane's rotation in the same manner as a spinning ice
skater who extends his arms. Three mature Atlantic hurricanes have been
seeded by project STORMFURY scientists, but only one experiment --on
hurricane Debbie in 1969 --tested the displacement moderation concept.
Hurricane Debbie was seeded five times at 2-hourly i.ntervals on August 18
and again on August 20. On the first seeded day, the maximum wind
dropped 30 percent 4 to 6 hours after the last seeding. It reintensified
on August 19, but again dropped by 15 percent 4 to 6 hours after the last
seeding on August 20.
These results are in the direction predicted by preliminary
numerical models. However more research and experiments are necessary
before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
20
Other Applications
In addition to cloud seeding for rainfall and snowfall enhancement,
hail suppression, hurricane moderation, and opening holes in supercooled
stratus, several other objectives in weather modification have been sought. These include seeding with silver iodide to reduce lightningstrikes, seeding warm fogs with moisture absorbing particles to improve
landing conditions at airports, seeding with dry ice in high-humidity
regions of the clear air to create cloud layers, dusting snow covered surfaces with carbon black to increase the rates of melting, and coating
lakes and reservoirs with long-chain alcohols to reduce evaporation (and
similar treatment of cloud drops to make clouds last longer).
Theoretical research and field experimentation have been conducted in each of these areas, but they all are ideas lying fallow pending further
research or new physical insights.
Summary
As the preceding discussion indicates, the physics and mathematics of the atmosphere have turned out to be even more complex, and the scale
of weather events even greater, than scientists had anticipated in 1946. The behavior of clouds and cloud systems has proved to be so
variable that physical cause and ef fect are difficult to follow and
predict. The technologies for intervening in a predictable manner in
these complex cloud processes are still at an early stage of development.
Most experimental efforts have focused on precipitation
enhancement. There has been evidence of success, although it falls short
of final scientific proof. Of all the orographic cloud seeding projects
reviewed, only one failed to show some positive results, and indicated
precipitation increases ranged as high as 20 percent. Results of the many cumulus cloud precipitation enhancement projects varied more
widely. Some of those using the static seeding concept resulted in apparent decreases in precipitation; others indicated precipitation
increases as high as 33 percent. Most, however, were inconclusive. One project, in Israel, has established statistically convincing results
precipitation increases of about 15 percent --and has gone
operational. Those projects using the dynamic seeding concept have demonstrated fairly conclusively that the growth of a single cumulus
cloud can be stimulated using this technique, but the question of
predictable increases in areal precipitation as a result of growth and
merger of clouds and cloud systems is still open. The Florida cumulus
project has provided evidence of success, and further data will be available from a second phase of that program, which is now in
progress. Results of seeding projects in convective bands in California and cumulus clouds in North Dakota were encouraging, although
inconclusive.
21
There are many reasons fo r this state of af fairs. Research has been
discontinuous and definitive tests are lacking. Operational projects have
not made adequate design provisions for establishing proof of success.
Without proof of effectiveness, applications have been on-again-off-again
and uneven in coverage. Results of the practical application of the
technology are therefore difficult to document. Despite promising
experimental results, there has not yet been any widespread impact in
terms of reducing crop losses or loss of life from storms.
Past seeding activities have suffered from several common deficiencies. Principal among them has been the general inadequacy of
our knowledge of cloud structure and behavior. This deficiency remains
the foremost deterrent to progress in present efforts. Other important
problem areas include project designs that do not provide adequately for
essential statistical evaluations, inadequate measurement techniques and
instrumentation, and unsatisfactory seeding strategies. These matters
are discussed further in the next section of this chapter.
22
Major Findings - Item 2
Section 4(2) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of
research needs in weather modi fication to establish areas in which
more research could be expected to yield the greatest return in
terms of practical weather modi fication technology."*
Introduction
As the Weather Modification Advisory Board concluded, "The prime
requirement of a national weather modification policy is to learn more
about the atmosphere itself." Since most present weather modification
efforts are based on the assumption that the timing or efficiency of
natural cloud and precipitation processes can be manipulated, better
understanding of these processes is critical to the orderly development
of a practical weather modi fication technology. A substantially improved
understanding of cloud systems and their beh avior is essential for
development of the entire range of weather modi fication techniques.
The research program to achieve such an understanding will require a
range of efforts, including laboratory studies of basic cloud processes,
improved computer models and monitoring techniques, and cloud seeding
experiments in the atmosphere. Fundamental cloud processes and their
interactions are poorly understood, and greater research into these basic
scientific problems will be essential for development of the entire range
of weather modification techniques. Large field experiments which seek
to demonstrate the efficacy of weather modi fication techniques by
statistical analysis of observed precip itation should be the culmination,
not the basis, of the Federal Government's research program. However,
two cloud seeding techniques for enhancing snowfall and rainfall are
already well enough developed to warrant proof-of-concept field
experiments, and others (for summer rain enhancement, precipitation
augmentation from winter cumulus clouds, and hurricane amelioration) are
at the stage where exploratory field experiments should be conducted in
connection with other studies.
Scientific uncertainties are typical of the first stages of
development of new technologies. This report agrees with the conclusion
of the Weather Modi fication Advisory Board that, despite such
uncertainties, modification of the weather in useful ways is
*This subject is addressed in chapters 1 through 5 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
23
scientifically possible. As section 3 of this chapter indicates, the
potential benefits of an operational weather modification technology are
so substantial that they should be pursued through a well-organized
Federal research and development program to resolve the outstan ding
scientific issues.
Basic Scientific Problems
Most modification efforts employ the same basic technology --nuclei
are introduced into the supercooled region of a cloud or cloud system to
convert liquid water drops to ice. Lack of understanding of important
intracloud and cloud-environment conditions and interactions makes neat separation of the various modification techniques and responses
difficult. Rain, hail, lightning, and wind are all interrelated, and
attempts to modify one may well affect others. The aim of a national
weather modification research program should therefore be to achieve a
comprehensive understanding of those combinations of cloud-environment
conditions and seeding methods that lead to useful weather changes in a
reliable and predictable manner. Such a program will require a mix of
quantitative theory, laborato ry studies, numerical modeling, and field
experimentation.
Two basic scientific problems are of particular importance and
deserve special attention. The first is the need to expand our
understanding of the interactions between cloud microphysics and cloud
dynamics (i.e., between precipitation devel opment and air motions). The
second is the need to unravel the issue of the origin and initial growth
of ice in natural clouds and to develop more realistic measures of the
ice-forming potential in these clouds.
The most fruitful approach to the first problem will be through
combined high quality observational studies and numerical modeling
ef forts, backed up with specialized laboratory investigations. To cope
with the second problem, good observational data on cloud glaciation must
be obtained in experiments in which the evolution of the cloud is
documented so that account can be taken of all relevant factors, such as
ice nucleus concentrations, droplet spectra, and cloud duration.
Because clouds are variable in space and time, rapid-scanning remote
sensing devices will be a necessary component of these observational
programs. In addition, because cloud behavior varies with geography,
comparative studies will be needed in several parts of the country. For
example, clouds in tropical areas such as Hawaii present special problems
because they often rain by a process that does not involve ice; this
"warm rain" process may be amenable to modification by seeding with
moisture absorbing materials, but such seeding techniques are not well
developed or understood. Finally, the intensive cloud studies described
above should be accompanied by computer model development leading to an
ability to simulate realistically both natural and seeded cloud
24
behavior. The models in turn should enable improved prediction of
precipitation and improved design and evaluation of weather modification
experiments.
Field Experiments
Because of the atmosphere's complexity, atmospheric research cannot
be undertaken solely in the laboratory or with a computer. At some stage
the research must move into the field. Well-designed field experiments
are an essential component of a weather modification research program,
and those experiments must be carried out over many years to obtain
definitive results.
A wide range of opinions exists within the scientific community
about when field experimentation should occur. Some scientists feel that
complete understanding of the cloud processes involved is necessary
before initiating seeding experiments. Others believe that success will
come only through experimentation in the atmosphere itself and that those
experiments should begin at once. The best approach lies between these
extremes. Experience of the last two decades demonstrates that a
substantially improved understanding of cloud systems and their behavior
cannot be achieved by field experiments alone and that major significant
increases in basic understanding come from research carried out in
conjuction with experimental field projects. Experiments in the
atmosphere are needed to test the validity of seeding concepts developed
on the computer or in the laboratory and to search for evidence that will
refine, broaden, or shift those concepts. However, experiments must be
designed carefully to take full advantage of existing knowlege and to
incorporate contributory research.
Two principal types of field experiments must be undertaken -
exploratory and confirmatory. Exploratory experiments may have several
intermediate goals. Some will be aimed at improving knowledge of natural
cloud conditions; others will seek understanding of the effects of
seeding on cloud processes and will test hypotheses about the physical
mechanisms involved. However, the ultimate goal of a good exploratory
seeding experiment will be a physically plausible model of the weather
system under investigation and a clear hypothesis of how and when seeding
will influence the system. These experiments must include a broad range
of observational and modeling techniques. In addition, the experimental
conception, design, conduct, and evaluation should include the expertise
of specialists in statistics, cloud and mesoscale physics, atmospheric
modeling, hydrology, and related disciplines.
The objective of confirmatory seeding experiments is the
establishment of some particular hypothesized seeding ef fect as a fact,
within some small and well-defined margin of error. Confirmatory
experiments must be precisely designed, tightly controlled, and free of
unconscious or accidental bias. Subjective judgments or decisions during
25
the conduct of the experiment or subjectivity in collecting and handling
data could influence the observed results and, as a consequence, totally
invalidate the experiment. Even small biases could be serious, since the
effects of seeding are small and diffi cult to differentiate from natural events. The accepted approach in conducting confirmatory experiments is
to withhold from all those who make decisions or judgements influencing
the numbers to be analyzed any knowledge of whether the period in
question is seeded or unseeded until all data are in final form. This
approach is analogous to the practice in medical experiments where anyone
making subjective judgements concerning the management of the patient
does not know whether the patient is receiving the medication being
tested or a placebo.
Special facilities are needed to provide essential support for many
weather modification studies and most field experiments. Exam ples of
such facilities inclu de calibration equipment for seeding generators ,
specialized radar and other remote sensing systems, instrumented or
seeding aircraft, and mini-computers for on-site data processing. These
facilities are expensive and their need is common to many field
projects. A coordinated joint-use program is needed to manage the
utilization of these common facilities to ensure that they are available
to projects that need them and that they do not sit idle for extended
periods of time.
Specific Weather Modification Techniques
Two cloud seeding techniques --enhancement of orographic snowfall
in the Rocky Mountains and augmentation of subtropical rainfall by
dynamic seeding --are already well enough developed to warrant proof-of
concept experiments. The substantial potential benefits of such
techniques are discussed in section 3 of this chapter of the report.
Satisfactory exploratory experiments have been concluded in these areas
and are discussed in section 1 of this chapter. Confirmatory tests of
these techniques should therefore receive first priority among the field
experiments to be conducted by a national weather modification research
program.
Three other clou d seeding techniques --summer rain enhancement in
mid-latitudes, precipitation augmentation from winter cumulus clouds, and
hurricane amelioration --are at the stage where exploratory experiments
should be conducted as an adjunct to the intensive observational studies
and other research discussed earlier. As discussed in section 3 of this
chapter, the ability to increase rain from summer cumulus clouds appears
to have great potential economic benefits for agriculture. Despite the
weaknesses in our understanding of fundamental cloud processes,
techniques for the modification of showery, warm-season cumulus clouds
over the High Plains and the midwestern United States --areas which are
distinctly different meteorologically --deserve major exploratory tests
as part of a national weather modification research program.
26
Promising research has been conducted on augmenting precipitation
from winter cumulus clouds and cloud bands, especially in California and
over the Great Lakes. Further tests of seeding techniques applicable to
these cloud systems is warranted.
The ability to ameliorate the destructive forces of hurricanes also
promises substantial economic benefits. Research in this area must be
conducted with five closely interacting aims: measurements by direct and
remote sensors from beneath the ocean to the stratosphere in all phases
of storm development; model simulation, including simulation of boundary
and cloud processes, with interacting air and ocean models; technolo gical
a�d tool development, ranging from improvement of treatment chemicals and
dosage and delivery systems to formulation of statistical methodologies;
fu ll-scale seeding experimentation undertaken after the key scientific
questions have been resolved and after a suitable statistical design has
been formulated; and investigation of concepts other than seeding by
feasibility studies, model simulations, measurements, and --if promising
after scrutiny --pilot field tests.
Perhaps the most difficult application of cloud seeding attempted so
far is in the suppression of hail. Many complex scientific issues must
be resolved before randomized seeding experiments are justified.
However, some useful knowledge can be gained by conducting research in
connection with selected private operational hail-suppression projects
and by devoting attention to hail research in the cumulus cloud field
projects mentioned above.
The seeding of cold stratus clouds might have some applicability in
the Great Lakes and northeastern areas of the United States. Maintaining
a clearing in a winter overcast over an urban area during daylight could
reduce heating requirements and improve the efficiency of solar
collectors. The scientific basis for creating holes in certain larger
clouds is firm and incontrovertible, but the technical and economic
feasibility of doing so for several hours over large areas on a regular
basis is not established. A feasibility study of this concept is
warranted.
Other weather modification objectives --such as tornado or flood
prevention --await development of testable hypotheses. Although these
and other severe local storms may someday be found to be responsive to
cloud seeding or some other form of manipulation, too little is known
about them to justify seeding experimentation at this time. At this
point, research is necessary in the form of good observational studies,
laboratory experiments, and theoretical model development.
Finally, the Weather Modification Advisory Board also briefly
examined a number of other weather management techniques "beyond cloud
seeding" that might play a role in the future. They recommended that a
small percentage of the national effort be devoted in the later stages of
27
a long-term research program to techniques of concentrating energies and
moisture to penetrate stable atmospheric layers-(to dissipate fog or
, smog), suppressing lightning discharges, enhancing convection by altering
land surfaces (by dispersing carbon black or substances with similar
radiative properties), and using space or surface power parks for
enhancing rainfall or air circulation. As the Board recognized, research
on these techniques is at such an early stage that current investment of
substantial Federal funds cannot now be expected to produce returns in
terms of practical weather modi fication technology to the same extent as
investments in research of the types discussed above.
Other Research Requirements
Learning more about the atmosphere is only part of the research
program needed to develop a beneficial weather modification capability.
We must learn much more than we know about the economic benefits and
costs of weather modification, about the less tangible impacts on society
of operational programs, and about the environmental impacts of
deliberate changes in the weather. These matters are discussed further
in sections 3 and 4 of this chapter of the report.
Research Ret urns
The Weather Modification Advisory Board concluded that: "It seems
probable that a much intensified and steady program of scientific inquiry
over the next two decades will yield regionally important increases in
mo untain snowpack in the 1980's, increased rainfall in areas like our
High Plains and Midwest by the late 1980's, reduced hurricane winds and
hail damage by the 1990's. The margins of man-produced seasonal weather
change would be 10% to 30% increases for snow and rain. Some hurricane
winds would be reduced by 10% to 20% (with much greater red uctions in
wind damage). Hail would be reduced up to 60% in some kinds of
storms." This report does not attempt to project specific quantitative
research results within given time periods.
The lack of such predictions does not arise from disagreements about
whether or not modification of the weather in useful ways is
scientifically possible --this report agrees with the Board's conclusion
that it is. Rather it reflects less certainty about our ability to
predict that the remaining questions will be answered within a specific
time period.
It is important to recognize that such uncertainties are typical of
the first stages of devel opment of new technologies. As section 3 of
this chapter of the report indicates, an operational weather modi fication
capability would provide important economic benefits to the Nation. This
report agrees with the Advisory Board's conclusion that the potential
bene fits are so su bstantial that they should be pursued through a well
organized Federal research and development program to resolve the
outstanding scientific issues.
28
Major Findi ngs - Item 3
-Section 4(3) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of
existing studies to establish the probable economic importance to
the United States in terms of agricult ural production, energy, and related economic factors if the present weather modification
technology were to be effectively implemented."*
Introduction
This report concurs with the conclusion of the Weather Modification
Advisory Board that, "Although the evidence is not all in, the collective impact of the anal yses now on record suggests that an operational weather
modification capability will provide impressive economic benefits."
_!'leather-related losses in the United States total about $12.7 billion annually. With a dependable weather modification technology, we
would be able to reduce those losses significantly. The agricultural
sector would benefit most, particularly from effective precipitationenhancement and hail suppression techniques --the Board believes that
"weather modification must be considered as one of the most important
agricultural tech nologies awaiting development." The annual reduction in
hurricane damage from storm surge and wind� would also be substantial •
Existing Economic Studies
Few studies of the economic benefits of weather modification have
been conducted. The most thorough and seri ous study thus far was the
Technology Assessment of the Suppression of Hail, a cooperative effort involving five groups under the supervision of Stanley Changnon of the
Illinois State Water Survey. This 18-month project, initiated in 1975
with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), was limited to
hail suppression and related rainfall changes. Another major effort was
undertaken by Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in 1971 on snowpack
augmentation in the Colorado Basin, also under NSF sponsorship. An independent review of all previously published economic weather
modification reports was undertak en by Stephen T. Sonka, of the University of Illinois, as part of the study conducted by the Department
of Commerce to fulfill the requirements of the Weather Modification Act.
*This subject is addressed in chapters 6 and 7 of Volume I of the Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
./
29
A major problem in conducting any economic evaluation of weather
modification technology is related to the performance of the technology itself. Complete economic analyses must stem from knowledge of the
details of altered weather --when, how much, how often, and with what
side effects. For the most part, this knowledge is not available today;
as indicated in sections 1 and 2 of this chapter, scientific uncertainty
currently exists regarding the effectiveness of such technologies. The
results of the economic evaluation are likely to depend heavily on the assumptions made about the effectiveness of the tech nolog y, thereby
assuring that an economic evaluation is also uncertain.
Another problem in evaluation arises from the complex nature of the
results of any successful modification of the weather. Potential losses
may also accompany purposeful efforts to alter weather. An obvious loss
occurs when the physical change is contrary to that intended;
precipitation in the target area in some circumstances may be decreased
rather than increased by aug mentation efforts, or unintended and
undesirable physical ch anges may be caused in regions downwind of the
target area. For example, additional water from snowpack aug mentation
may benefit irrig ation, power generation, and municipal uses in the Lower
Colorado River Basin. But additional snowfall may harm transportation,
mining, and recreation activities in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Less obvious but equally legitimate are the costs associated with the
environmental and ecological impacts of weather modification. All such
costs, whether compensated or not, need to be considered in any economic
analysis.
Such studies must also carefully differentiate between net national
gains and regional gains. Part of any projected regional gains may be
income from other regions. Such transfers must be specified in order to
assess accurately the real impact of weather modification activity on a
specific region or regions.
Agriculture
The agricultural sector of the United States would benefit most from
an operational weather modification capability --particularly from
effective precipitation enhancement and hail suppression techniques.
�recipitation Enhancement. Crops generally respond positively to
increased summertime rainfall only if that rain arrives at the proper
time. Additional rainfall at inopportune times can decrease yields, and
beneficial effects do not occur at the same time for all crops typically
grown in a single region. However, rain enhancement would be broadly
beneficial during droughts. Cloud seeding may be least effective during
droughts because clouds are often scarce during these periods, but the
value of even relatively small increments of moisture to agriculture and
for water supplies may be quite large during drought periods.
30
-------�- -
The following two studies demonstrate the potential benefits of
weather modification for agriculture as well as the limitations of currently available analyses:
A 1972 study by South Dakota State University considered the effects of additional rainfall on a regional level (the Southeastern Crop
Reporting District in South Dakota). This study explicitly took into
'account price declines generated by additional production, costs of obtaining the additional precipitation, associated increases in other production costs, and the effects of induced shifts in types of farming. These effects were evaluated for ten situations, assuming an additional one inch of growing season rainfall in each case but differing
rainfall timing and price effects. Assuming a base regional net farm
income of $65 million with no weather modification, the projected
rainfall and price variations increased the base regional income by a range of 3.1 percent to 34 percent.
A study cond ucted by the National Academy of Sciences in 1976
evaluated the potential impact of a successful weather modification capability on key U.S. crops in the primary national production areas. Average production increases were projected for 10 percent increases in
rainfall in the major producing areas for each major crop; these
estimates are indicated in the following table.
Commodity Additional Quantity Produced
(in millions)
Corn 38.0 bu.
Wheat 34.0 bu.
Soybean 18. 4 bu.
Western Range
Forage 52,500.0 lb.
Range Cattle (10 lbs. beef/120 lbs. forage) 4,375.0 lb.
The crop production increases represent revenue increases of $314 million based on September 1978 prices for corn, wheat, and soybeans. In
many areas of the West a 10 percent increase in precipitation would produce an extra 120 pounds of forage per acre, which has the potential
of producing about 10 pounds of steer beef. Realizing this potential
over the available acreage would, according to the National Academy of
Sciences, produce an additional 4,375 million pounds of beef. This
translates into $2.986 billion at 1978 prices.
The NAS report does not indicate whe)her competitive crop needs and
other factors that affect price, such as those cited in the South Dakota
study, were considered. In neither study were all the economic factors
that affect benefits and costs considered. Despite these very real weaknesses, these studies strongly suggest that small increases in
31
precipitation, if obtained at appropriate times and places, can have
important positive impacts on food production on both a regional and national scale.
The positive impacts are supported in a recent study by scientists at the Kansas State University, who calculated changes in crop yields in
Kansas that might result from cloud seeding. The same study indicated that in some years and for some crops ad ditional rain would not prod uce signi ficant benefits.
Hail Suppression. Donald Friedman of Travelers In corporated has
estimated that crop losses due to hail average $773 million a year based
on 197.5 dollar values, and that property damage due to hail averages $75 million yearly. Because hail losses vary across the Nation, the
incentives for farmers to engage in hail suppression activities also varyregionally. According to the 1977 Final Report of the TechnologyAssessment of the Suppression of Hail (TASH), 6 of the 10 states with greatest crop losses from hail are in the Great Plains area, and croplosses in those states represent about 5 percent of the annual cropvalue. Consequently, the major economic benefits of hail suppression,
both in terms of increases in average income and reductions in variability of income, should occur for farmers in the Great Plains
region.
The TASH team conducted a detailed analysis of the effects of hail
losses on individ ual farmers in six specific agricultural areas -
northwestern Kansas, southwestern North Dakota, north-central Iowa, eastcentral Illinois, west-central Texas, and central North Carolina. The
crops grown in those six areas --wheat, corn, soybeans, and tobacco -
are crops for which hail losses are significant. Three hypothetical
levels of reduction in hail damage were considered in the study --20, SO, and 80 percent. In addition, three levels of hail-season rainfall
were considered for each level of crop damage reduction --a 10 percentreduction, no change, and a 10 percent increase.
The results of the study indicated large differences in potentialbenefits fran a sup pression technology among the regions studied. The
data for farmers in the two easternmost regions --North Carolina and Illinois --�howed little potential for hail suppression benefits as
compared with the no-hail-insurance, no-hail-suppression situation. In contrast, the data for the regions in Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and North
Dakota indicated that economic incentives for hail suppression may
exist. In these four areas, the postulated hail suppression capability
with no rainfall effect was calculated to have potential benefits. Although only Texas would receive net gains when crop damage was reduced
by 20 percent, all four areas would realize increases in net income when crop damages were reduced by SO and 80 percent; the potential benefits
would be even greater if the decreases in hail damage were accompanied by a 10 percent increase in rainfall.
32
The TASH study also computed benefit/cost ratios for the various
hail damage reduction levels. In these computations only the benefits
from reductions of variable production costs and transportation costs were considered. The cost estimates were composed of amortized
expend�tures for future research and development and for design,evaluation, and program infonnation activities. In the cases of
simultaneous decrease in hail and increase in rainfall, the benefit/costratios varied from 1:1 to 15:1.
Both benefits and costs were understated in this analysis. For example, the cost estimate did not include past expenditures for hail
suppression research or the possible detrimental effects of additional
rainfall. Benefits were understated because no benefits for reduction in
variability of income or reduction in property damages were included, and indirect benefits associated with any increased crop outpu� were not estimated. However, the TASH investigators concluded that "on balance,
the positive impacts appear to outweigh the negative impacts if a high
level technology can be developed."
Water and Energy Enhancement
During the past 25 years, many small-scale experiments and operational programs have been conducted in which winter clouds have been
seeded to increase the snowfall in high mountain areas of the western
United States. When the augmented snowpack melts in the spring, the
additional runoff supplies hydr oelectirc power as well as additional
water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses.
In its 1972 Technology Assessment of Winter Orographic Snowpack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado River Basin, the Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) found snowpack enhancement to be an inexpensive method of
augmenting the water supply in the Colorado River Basin. SRI analystsestimated that in an average year a successful seeding technology could generate about 2.3 million acre-feet of augmented runoff within the Basin
and 1.2 million acre-feet outside the Basin. Annual operating costs for such an operation were estimated to average $2.37 per acre-foot for in
Basin runoff alone and $1.58 per acre-foot overall. The direct cost of producing water in this manner was less than that for any other practical
means of obtaining new water in the Basin. It was also less than the cost of most means proposed for reducing water losses.
Evaluating the benefits of such ad ditional water is a complex
problem. The economic benefits derived from any additional snow
enhancement runoff are different for individual water users than for the
Nation. The user's benefit depends on the specific way he or she uses
water. The benefit to the Nation depends on the marginal use of water,
which in the arid West is for agriculture.
33
The SRI study attempted to assess the potential benefits of
enhancing winter snowpack in the Colorado River Basin. It assumed that
such an enhancement project would generate slightly less than 2 million
acre feet of additional water and derived dollar values for the
additional water based on two different scenarios.
The first scenario assumed that no new facilities to store or use
the additional water will be built, that there is currently no shortage
of water in the river, and that without the construction of new
facilities to use additional water there is no reason to believe there
will be a shortage in the future. The chief benefits to be derived from
the additional water generated by cloud seeding under these conditions
are marginal decreases in the salinity of the water and the availability
of additional hydroelectric power to replace more expensive power from
thermal generating plants. These benefits combined with benefits to
municipal, industrial, and agricultural concerns outside the Basin
totaled about $12.8 million. The overall cost of the enhapcement
project, after adjustments for economic detr iments --such as increased
costs of mining operations and timber cutting; interference with road,
rail, and air transport; and costs for avalanche control, flood
forecasting, and environ mental monitoring programs --was estimated to be
about $9.5 million.
The second scenario assumed that additional storage projects and
other facilities authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
1968 (P.L. 90-537) will be constructed and that the first obligation of
these facilities will be to satisfy the water requirements of the Mexican
Treaty, as stipulated by P.L. 90-537. If the facilities are built and
enough natural water is available to satisfy all of the commitments of
P.L. 90-537, the economic analysis is basically the same as in the first
scenario. However, if the facilities are completed and there is
insuf ficient natural water to meet the Treaty com mitments, the snow
augmentation program could "rescue" benefits that would otherwise be
lost. In this situation, all the benefits rescued were attributed to the
cloud seeding program and were assigned a value of $30 million based on
the minumum cost of satisfying the Treaty obligations by the next least
expensive alternative (transferring the water from irrigation users).
Several other studies of the potential benefits of snowpack
augmentation were examined by Sonka in his review of the economics of
weather modification. Projected benefit/cost ratios for the projects he
reviewed ranged from 1:1 to 21:1. Comparison of these studies is
difficult, however, be cause of the varying degrees of comprehensiveness
among them and the difficulties involved in assigning dollar values to
both costs and benefits. Some of the studies compared only benefits and
operational costs without including costs for research and development.
Some did not consider the social costs that may be generated by
additional snowpack. None considered the value of additional water for
34
energy-related purposes other than for the generation of hydroelectric
power (such as cooling of additional thermal plants).
In summary, the value of a successful snow enhancement tech nology is
dif ficult to determine. Irrigation and hyd roelectric power seem to be the prime uses for the additional water produced, and the future value of irrigation water and the secondary benefits to agriculture are especiallyimportant to determining the overall benefits of the technology. But these variables are extremely sensitive to assumptions about the future demands for food and fiber. If these demands result in excess
agricultural capacity, the value of augmented irrigation water may not be
high. If future food demands lead to full employment of our agricultural resources, the value of snowpack enhancement may be very significant.
Hurricane Moderation
Hurricanes are one of the most destructive of all natural hazards. In the United States, the annual economic losses caused by hurricanes are
about $800 million, with three storms since 1965 each resulting in losses of more than $1.4 billion; damages from one of these storms exceeded $3
billion. Preliminary estimates place losses from 1979's hurricane Frederic well in excess of $1 billion. Nearly a hundred lives are also lost annually as a result of hurricanes. With the increasing population and industry at risk in coastal areas, these losses are almoJt certain to
escalate. Losses of• this magnitude are not limited to the United States. In Bangladesh, a tropical cyclone killed about 200,000 persons
in November of 1970. The City of Darwin, Australia, was virtually wiped
out by cyclone Tracy in December of 1974.
The main cau ses of property damage by hurricanes are --in order of decreasing importance --storm tide or storm surge, flooding from precipitation associated with the storm, and wi�ds. Precipitation
induced flooding appears to be essentially independent of the other two causes. While seeding may or may not have some ef fect on precipitation,
the major economic benefits of seeding are expected to occur as a result
of the red uction of storm surge and direct wind damages. Since the force of the wind varies with the square of the wind speed, a reduction of 15
to 30 percent in the maximum wind speeds by seeding could result in a
reduction of 30 to 50 percent in the maximum force of the winds and could
result in an equal reduction in wind damages.
Little in formation exists regarding economic aspects of hurricane
suppression. In a 1973 study, William M. Gray of Colorado State University estimated the benefits from hurricane modification using a model developed by SRI. Assuming a 20 percent reduction in surface wind with no rain changes, he estimated the annual reduction in hurricane
damage from storm surges and winds to be $100 million in the United
States and $800 million globally, based on 1969 U.S. dollars.
35
Any estimate of the average potential reduction in hurricane damage
by cloud seeding must be viewed with caution. The economic and
me teorological data upon which the estimates are based are extremely
crude --accuracy varies substantially from place to place and with time, and there is no separation of the damages caused by storm surge,flooding, and wind. In addition, individual storms of the same physical
characteristics can cause different amounts of damage depending on their landfalls. Even if two similar storms hit the same area the resultingdamage might be different at different times because of changes in the
area's development. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the damagesassociated with a 100 knot storm the winds of which have been reduced to 80 knots are the same as th ose associated with a natural 80 knot storm,
since the wind distribution in the modified storm might differ fr-0m the natural case.
Despite these uncertainties, the magnitude of hurricane-induced damages is so great that a substantial economic incentive exists for the
development of effective modification techniques.
36
Major Findings -Item 4
Section 4(4) of the Act requires "An assessment of the legal,
social, and ecological implications of expanded and ef fective
research and operational weather modification projects."*
Introduction
The past three decades of weather modification activity have
provided a good basis for anticipating the general types of legal
problems that will be created by expanding the number of weather
modification research exper iments and by effective operational weather
modi fication projects. The precise manner of solving these problems
remains to be resolved. However, with the exception of the issues
created by hurricane modification activities, they are not novel
problems, and the general framework of possible solutions can be
foreseen. The social and ecological implications of weather modi fication
have not been examined nearly as extensively as the legal problems, and
much more work rem ains to be done before these implications can be
assessed as confidently.
Legal Implications
Weather modi fication activities raise three major kinds of legal
issues --issues of atmospheric water rights ownership, liability, and
regulation. Current law with respect to these issues stems from
experience with 16 lawsuits relating to cl oud seeding and from weather
modification statutes passed by Congress and 32 states. A considerable
body of periodical and legislative literature on this sub ject has also
developed.
There are three major questions of atmospheric water rights
ownership: Who has ownership rights in atmospheric moisture? Who has
legal rights to precipitation from unseeded or seeded clouds? Who has a
legal claim to runoff that can be identified as the product of
precipitation management? Potential contenders over ownership issues
include the persons who sponsor or conduct precipitation enhancement
projects, other land owners in the the area af fected, water rights
holders on af fected streams, and gover nmental entities affected. The
right to use atmospheric waters, precipitation, and runoff may be
*This subject is addressed in Chapters 7, 8, and 9 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
37
allocated by legislation, administrative determination, litigation., or
Disputes among states may be resolved by Federal legislation, interstate
compacts or other agreements, and litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States.
There is no Federal law allocating atmospheric water rights, and no Supreme Court decision deals with the issue. Several states have made
informal agreements about operations, but there are no interstate weather
modification compacts. Four states have legislative provisions relating
to private ownership rights and three court cases have dealt with the
ownership question. These cases and laws present several options in
determining ownership issues but do not show any trend toward adoption of
a particular option; they merely demonstrate the possibilities.
Individuals harmed by Federal weather modification activities mayseek compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, such
activities, particularly those of an experimental nature, may fall within
the Act's exemption for "discretionary" functions. In addition, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Act precludes class
actions on behalf of all claimants affected by a Federal weather
modification activity. As discussed in section 5 of this chapter of the
report, state liability rules are quite diverse, ranging from judicially
developed principles of recovery for tortious conduct to statutory
formulas dispensing with the requirement to demonstrate fault, and often
including doctrines of governmental immunity. However, the courts have
abolished state sovereign immunity in many states, and state-funded
seeding projects are subject to liability on the same basis as privately
funded projects. Class actions have been brought against both state
funded projects and privately funded projects in state courts. Despite
these variations, however, the case law on liability for the results of
weather modification activities has been quite consistent --no plainti ff
has been able to prove the causal relationship necessary to obtain a
judgment for damages.
No Federal regulations govern the conduct of weather modification
activities. Current Federal law contains only reporting requirements,
which are discussed in section 6 of this chapter. State weather modification regulatory regimes contain a wide variety of content and
complexity, ranging from a complete absence of regulation to elaborate
requirements for state licensing of cloud seeders and permitting of
weather modification activities. These state regulations are discussed
in section 5 of this chapter.
Future legal problems arising from increased weather modification
research activities on the local scale will be similar to the problems
that have arisen in the past. Individuals or groups will continue to
assert that experimental cloud seeding has caused floods, droughts,
storms, crop losses, or ecological damage or has resulted in diversion of
water resources from natural channels. The appropriateness of class
38
actions, issues of cau sation, the proper measure of damages, and the
ability to recover for damages caused by governmental actions will continue to be issues which can be resolved by state and Federal courts as normal matters of common law devel opment or statutory interpretation.
As the science of weather modi fication improves to the point where causation can be demonstrated, and as the number of local operational
programs increases, the pressures will increase for legislation on these
issues. Public regulation of the decision to permit weather modification
activities and the manner in which such activities are conducted will be necessary. Increasing availability of class action remedies will be
demanqed, as will abolition of ap plicable doctrines of governmentalimmunity and development of new forms of private or governmentinsurance. Courts may develop doctrines that shift the burden of proof
to the defendant rather than the plaintiff in damage actions, and ultimately legislatures may enact some version of no-fault insurance or
comp ulsory claims procedure that will remove the burden of assessingdamages from the judicial system.
The legal implications of experimental and operational weather modification activities on regional, interstate, and international scales
are more complex. The extra-area or down-wind effects of large cloud
seeding projects may cross county, state, and international boundaries.
Issues of water rights are complex and fiercely fought, especially in the Western states, and successful weather modification techniques will lead
to pressure for judicial or statutory formulations of rights to enhanced runoff. Although problems have been resolved informally in the past,
statutory methods may be required to resolve an increasing number of
conflicts between states and between the state and Federal governmentsregarding the design and commencement of weather modification
activities. These conflicts could involve not only the question of
whether the Federal Government may proceed with a project over state objections, but also the question of whether states can conduct operations that affect federally owned lands without Federal consent.
Methods of resolving disputes between Federal agencies in a timely manner
will also be necessary; for example, disp utes have already occurred between the Fores t Service and the Bureau of Reclamation over the issue
of cloud seeding affecting wilderness areas. Finally, as sections 7, 10,
and 11 of this chapter discuss in more detail, the international problems
created by modi fications of the weather near national borders will
req�ire resolution through bilateral and multilateral treaties.
Future hurricane modification operations will raise additional
sensitive issues for which mechanisms of resolution must be adopted.
What individual or agency should have the power to authorize modification
of hurricanes? How, and by whom, can those adversely affected by
"modified" hurricanes be compensated for losses of property or lives?
Who will be accountable for the consequences of the decision not to modify a potentially dangerous hurricane if the demonstrated technology
39
to do so exists? What rights of compensation exist when a seeded
hurricane behaves erratically (as many do without seeding) and causes
loss of life or damage to property? Domestically, these issues will
probably arise only when an ef fective technology has been demonstrated.
At that time, better knowledge of the characteristics of modified stonns
and their modified damage patterns should enable meaningful answers to
these questions. Internationally, some of these concerns have already
surfaced. In either case, the issues are so substantial that domestic
legislation or international agreements rather than judicial resolution
will be necessary be fore experimental or operational activities that
could affect land areas can be pennitted.
Social Implications
Research to date on the social aspects of weather modification has
focused on the processes leading to the decision to proceed with field
projects and on local public responses to the decision. Sur veys have
indicated that most projects have not engendered organized opposition,
and that such local controversies as have arisen are well publicizedrather than wi de-spread. At the same time, however, vocal public
opposition has often arisen, emotions have run high, and a substantial
level of public concern about modification of natural processes in the
face of any scientific uncertainties can be expected. There is no
assurance that such opposition would not increase greatly in the face of
large-scale experimental and operational technologies.
A high degree of public acceptance and understanding is desirable
before large-scale weather modification operations are initiated.
Analyses of past conflicts, which have been conducted primarily by the
National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation, indicate the
need for thorough public explanation of plans for seeding (including a
frank exposition of the scientific uncertainties), ef fective public
participation in making decisions about particular projects, and explicit
mechanisms to deal fairly with those whose interests might be damaged as
a result of operations.
Attention should be given to the measurement and evaluation of the
long-term, large-scale effects of applying successful weather modifica
tion technologies. The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared a three volume
programmatic environmental impact statement which addresses the societal
implications of widespread application of cloud seeding to augment
precipitation. The Bureau plans to include such studies in its proposed
large-scale demonstration project in the Colorado River Basin.
The potential social implications in the United States of an
expanded operational weather modification capability are illustrated by
the events of the winter of 1976-77. Severe drought in the West had
widespread consequences; urban domestic water users, agriculture,
industry and business, transportation, schools, and government were all
40
affected directly and indirectly. A variety of reactive measures to deal
with the resulting crises were initiated, inc luding snowpack augmentation
to increase stream flows. The degree of success of these snowpackaugmentation efforts has not been documented. However, if a proven
technology for precipitation enhancement had been available, and if it
had been utilized as part of a water management program both prior to and during the drought, the effects of the drought would certainly have been alleviated somewhat, and the impact on all segments of society would have been significant.
The long-range social impacts of large-scale operational weather modification technologies could be profound. Agricultural yields could
be increased and cropping patterns altered. Ad ditional hydro-electric power could supplement other energy supplies, and regional development in
water-short areas such as the Colorado Basin could be affected. The
quality of life for many citizens could be impacted by changes in
precipitation and cloud cover patterns, by amelioration of the losses of
life and property fran hurricane and storm disasters and droughts, and bythe legal and ecological matters discussed in this section of the
report. Not all of these impacts are necessarily beneficial. And few of them are really understood.
The global impacts of weather modification tech nology could be
equally great. Shortages of food, water, and energy are serious problems
in many areas of the world. The prospect of successful international cooperation in this area itself has important social implications for cooperation in other areas, as does the prospect of increased international tension, dissension, and possible hostile use resulting from the
existence of such technologies. These matters are discussed further in
section 7, 10, and 11 of this chapter.
Ecological Implications
Information about the ecological implications of an operational
weather modification technology is limited. Measuring the environmental
changes resulting from weather modi fication is even more dif ficult than measuring the ef fects of seeding on the weather itself. Any ecological
changes that may result from long periods of modified weather will evolve slowly, and most past cloud seeding projects have not been conducted for
suf ficient periods of time to allow for such evolution, or have not
monitored such changes.
The long-term irreversible effects of weather modification on
circulation patterns and the weather itself should be negligible. Weather
patterns develop and move in systematic fashion and are dominated by the
ef fects of the oceans and the continents. The effects of weather
modi fication activities are local and transient --there is no evidence
that cloud seeding causes anything more than generally small and short
term weather changes. Studies have indicated that most of the seeding 41-
material is recovered in the immediate precipitation area --the
remaining material is rapidly diluted by the normal diffusive turbulence
in the atmosphere --and that the effects of cloud seeding activities
should not be expected to extend any great distance from the target
area. Consequently, the very small changes in local weather caused by
cloud seeding should have no ef fect on the forces driving the general
atmospheric circulation and its associated weather systems.
Terrestrial weather modification ef fects can be both beneficial and
adverse. Enhanced precipitation provides more water for cropland
irrigation, and for natural plant growth through added soil moisture. At
the same time, it may increase soil erosion, river and lake sedimenta
tion, and flooding. Secondary effects also may be important. Increased
forage production would benefit both domestic livestock and herbivorous
wildlife, but it could also adversely impact the habitats of some other
animals or contribute to the demise of endangered species. Less thermal
generation of electricity would be required, but greater use of
electricity might result; water quality may be improved, but increased
industrial and domestic consumption of water and resulting pollution
might occur.
The only Federal agencies that have sponsored research on the
ecological imp lications of weather modification have been the National
Science Foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation. NSF has sponsored
studies involving the ecological aspects of weather modification at
universities and non-profit institutions for over a decade, with emphasis
on the envirornnental impacts of nucleating agents used in weather
modi fication. In a 1976 NSF-sponsored workshop, a panel of 16 scientists
analyzed the available information on the subject and concluded that the
major issues regarding nucleating agents that had been matters of public
concern to date represented negligible environmental hazards. However,
they recommended that research and monitoring activities be continued.
Since 1972 the Bureau of Reclamation has sponsored studies by university
scientists on the environmental implications of winter cloud seeding over
Cali fornia's Sierra-Nevada Mountains; BuRec also supported similar
studies earlier in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. In neither case did
the investigators find evidence that significant environmental changes
would occur from winter seeding research programs.
Questions about the ef fects of silver iodide, the commonly used
seeding agent, will continue to require attention as the scope of weather
modi fication activities enlarges. No known environmental or biologicial
hazards have been experienced from this agent. But the long-range
ef fects of silver accumulation in principal components of the ecosystem,
and the direct and indirect effects of such accumulation, have not been
monitored thoroughly because projects have not lasted long enough.
42
Major Findings -Item 5
Section 4(5) of the Act requires the "Formulation of one or more
options for a model reg ulatory code for domestic weather
modification activities, such code to be based on a review and
analysis of experience and studies in this area, and to be
adaptable to state and national needs."*
Weather modification activities are currently regulated at the state
level, but the extent of such regulations varies considerab ly. Eighteen
states have no weather modi fication laws. Of the 32 states that have
enacted statutes, 13 require cl oud seeders to obtain professional
licenses, 13 have created special weather modification regulatory boards,
23 require either registration of projects or operational permits, and 20
require operators to keep weather modi fication records or to report
operational information to the agency regulating their activities.
Present state statutes are also quite diverse with respect to water
rights and liability issues. In four states --California, Colorado,
Utah, and North Dakota -- atmospheric water resources have been declared
the property of the people of the state and are subject to the same laws
as natural precipitation. However, court decisions in weather
modification lawsuits in other states have ruled that property owners
have no vested property rights in the clouds or the moisture therein and
that the right of every landowner to the clouds and water in them is
subject to weather modification activities undertaken under governmental
authority. West Virginia and Pennsyl vania weather modification statutes
do not require a plaintiff to prove fault to recover for losses caused by
droughts or floods that are the results of cl oud seeding (although the
plaintiff must still prove causation). In Texas the general rule of
strict liability for the effects of weather modi fication activities does
not apply to licensed operations.
The Illinois Weather Modification Act, which was adopted in 1973,
was designed as a model regulatory statute. It was prepared after
extensive technical, economic, and legal research and reflects the
contributions of interested professional groups. The Illinois Act was
relied on heavily in formulating recently enacted Minnesota, Indiana,
Wisconsin, and Michigan statutes.
*This subject is addressed in chapter 9 of Volume I of the Weather
Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
43
A copy of the Illinois Act is included in appendix B to this
report. Under the Act, authority to regulate weather modification
activities is delegated to a state administrative agency, which licenses
weather modifiers only if they demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
agency, the necessary competence to engage in weather modification
operations in accordance with the agency's regulations. In addition, no
licensed operator may undertake a weather modification project without a
specific permit for the project. To obtain the permit, the operator must
furnish proof of his or her ability to pay any liabilities that might
reasonably result fran the operation (generally by filing an insurance
policy or bond with the agency) and must demonstrate to the agency that
the proposed plan of operation is reasonably conceived to produce
beneficial results and contains adequate safeguards to minimize possible
dama ges.
The Illinois Act authorizes the administrative agency to hold public
hearings before granting a project permit and to impose con ditions on the
permit relating to matters such as area and timing of operations,
materials and methods used in operations, and emergency shut-down
pr ocedures. The agency is authorized to adopt regulations to impose
record keeping and re porting requirements for matters such as the places
and times of operation and the equipment and methods used; such records
and reports are available to the public.
The Illinois Act exe mpts from its regulatory scheme weather
modification operations by the Federal Government and research operations
by state and local agencies, educational institutions, and research
corporations. It confirms state immunity for results of licensed
operations but permits recovery of damages against private operators
under normal rules of liability for intentionally harmful actions or
negligent conduct. The Act also established a five-member advisory
board, composed of residents with qualifications and practical experience
in agriculture, law, meteorology, and water resources.
The Illinois Act leaves considerable discretion to the administering
agency to adopt regulations providing the detail necessary to implement
the statutory requirements. After 4 years of experience, the Illinois
regulations were recently modified to strengthen the requirements for the
plan to be submitted to qualify for a project permit. The new rules
specify minimum facilities and equipment of communication, aircraft,
radar, and seeding devices. The primary purpose of these recent
modifications was to obtain data for evaluating the effectiveness of the
project. A copy of the current Illinois regulations is included as
appendix C to this report.
In 1977 the Council of State Goverrnnents (CSG) expanded the
provisions of its p!:9posed legislation published in 1953 and recommended
new model weather modification legislation for use by states wishing to
enact new or revised statutes. A copy of the model legislation is
44
included as ap pendix D to this report. The basic framework of the CSG
model code is the same as that of the Illinois Act, but a number of
additional refinements have been added. The CSG code provides for the
legal right to use runoff resulting from precipitation enhancement,
speci fies advisory board recommendation functions in greater detail,
prohibits operations intended to affect the weather in target areas in
other jurisdictions unless they are conducted in full compliance with the
laws of those jurisdictions, allows record keeping and reporting
requirements to be imposed on exe mpted operations, and expressly requires
emergency shut-down procedures as part of the operating plan.
The CSG model code represents the best formula tion to date of a
model regulatory code for domestic weather modifications activities. It
is consistent with the current state of weather modification science and
technology and leaves ample room for evolution through administrative
regulations as the science and technology develop further. A review and
analysis of experience to date indicates that the model code is
adequate. Over time, consideration should be given to improving the
model code as follows:
o Public hearings could be mandatory before certain permits are
issued, in order to maximize public understanding and acceptance
of the process.
o Permitting requirements could be applied to all weather
modification projects, whether or not they are research projects
and whether or not they are conducted by public authorities or
universities. The public impacts of such projects are the same
as those of private projects and require the same levels of
public protection and understanding.
o Environmental impact assessment requirements could be applicable
to permit proceedings, either by operation of other laws or by
specific reference in the model code.
o A reasonable effort could be made to evaluate the consequences
and effectiveness of ap propriate projects, thereby providing
state regulatory agencies with information needed to make
decisions and to improve the reg ula tory process, as well as
contributing to the information base required for further
improvement of the technology.
o Further consideration should be given to the questions of whether
public entities should be liable for weather modification
operations in the same manner and to the same extent as private
operations, and whether class actions should be explicitly
permitted to recover damages.
45
The concepts in such a model code could in theory be used at either
the state or Federal levels althou gh, as discussed in section 6 of this chapter, Federal regulation of weather modi fication ac tivities at this time would be premature.
46
Major Findings -Item 6
Section 4(6) of the Act requires "Recommendations concerning
legislation desirable at all levels of government to implement a national weather modification policy and program."*
Introduction
At this stage of the development of weather modification technology,voluntary enactment of legislation by states should be the vehicle for
ensuring that projects are carried out professionally. Although the
Federal Government will have principal responsibility for regulation of
the impacts of weather modification as more ef fective technologies are
developed, because of their interstate implications, compre hensive Federal legislation is not yet necessary. Some Federal legislation is
desirable at this time, however --to state clearly the national interest
in weather resources management, identify the role of a national weather
modification program, and set forth the respective roles of the state and Federal governments. A series of ot her Federal administrative actions
should also be considered.
State Legislation
The Council of State Governments model weather modification control
act, supplemented as discussed in section 5 of this chapter, should be
voluntarily adopted and implemented by all states in which weather modification activities are conducted (with such changes as may be
necessary to adapt the model code to local circu mstances). Although many
states have enacted legislation in this area, standards tend to be loose
and in many cases are perfunctory. In most states no special educational or technical qualifications are necessary to obtain a license, and only
general good character and financial responsibility are examined. Standards for project design and operation are either non-existent or do
not adequately reflect the state of the scientific, technical, and
regulatory arts.
State enactment and implementation of the CSG model code should
assure that weather modification projects are carried out profession ally,
with due regard for public safety and after adequate public discussion of
*This subject is addressed in chapters 9 and 10 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
47
the risks and benefits. It would also assure reporting of information that will be a useful source of data for scientists, project designers,
and government agencies in evaluating the impacts of such projects.
Federal Legislation
The Federal Government has enacted little weather modification
legislation. In 1958 P.L. 85-510, which amended the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, contained the first Federal legislation on the subject. It was limited to authorization for research, reporting of
projects, and annual reports to Congress by the National Science Foundation. The Act was rescinded by the National Science Foundation Reorganization Act of 1968, but the reporting responsibilities were
reinstituted in 1971 by the Weather Modification Reporting Act (P.L. 92-205) and assigned to the Department of Commerce. This Act requires that
all non-Federal attempts to modify the weather must be reported to the Secretary of Commerce, who will maintain records of such activities and publish summaries of the information from time to time. Deliberate violation of the Act, or any rule issued under it, could result in a fine
upon conviction. In 1972 the Secretary of Commerce delegated to NOAA the
responsibility for administering the reporting program . In 1973 Federal
agencies agreed to report their weather modification activities to NOAA,
and since then NOAA has published periodic reports summarizing all
weather modification activities in the United States.
A number of levels of Federal legislation are possible that this
report concludes are not currently necessary:
Comprehensive legislation. Because weather does not respect either
state or national boundaries, as more ef fective technologies are developed the Federal Government will have the principal responsibility
for the health, welfare, and safety of the public with respect to the
impacts of weather modi fication. However, despite this potential
responsibility there is no need for the Federal Government to adopt a comprehensive legal regime for weather modi fication at this time. The
private industry is small (less than $6 mil lion in gross annual contracts), and operations are general ly localized within state
bo undaries and do not create major risks. In addition, maximizing local
control of weather modification decisions is crucial to the development
and acceptance of this potentially controversial technology.
Federal minimum standards. A greater assurance of accep table levels of public safety in the conduct of weather modification experiments and
projects might be achieved by promulgation of a comprehensive Federal regu latory system that would apply in any state that does not have its
own regulatory system meeting minimum Federal standards. A comprehensiveFederal regulatory regime will be needed in the future as private weather
modi fication activities become more common and their results become more
widespread. Such extensive Federal regulation is not desirable at this
48
time, however, in view of the relatively smal l levels and limited impacts
of non-Federal weather modification activities.
Federal licensing. A system of Federal licensing of operators, as
recommended by the Weather Modification Advisory Board, might provide
some assurances of public safety in states without adequate standards of
their own and could have the additional advantage of facilitating multi
state operations by providing for uniform licensing. In addition,
enactment of a Federal licensing system now might avoid a proliferation
of state regulatory regimes that might complicate the enactment of
comprehensive Federal legislation at a later date. On the other hand,
even a licensing system requires a Federal regulatory system --for
setting standards to renew and revoke licenses and to monitor per formance
that approaches a comprehensive system of regulation of operations.
The advantages of Federal licensing are small: non-Federal
activities can currently be regulated by states that choose to do so to
protect their citizens, and a state's failure to adopt regulations will
currently impact only the citizens of that state. On balance, at this
time the small advantages of instituting Federal licensing of all weather
modification operato rs are outweighed by the costs of the regulatory
scheme necessary to issue and monitor such licenses. However, the
Federal Goverrnnent should continue to periodically re-examine this issue so that comprehensive legislation can be adopted at the appropriate time.
Federal permitting of state operations. State weather modification
operations occasional ly affect federally owned lands, and Federal
legislation could require that such operations be conducted only in
accordance with Federal pennits. However, Federal agencies have been
able to resolve infonnally any problems that have arisen in the past from
such state operations, and such problems are not likely to become more
serious in the near future. Federal regulation of such state activities
should await the institution of a com prehensive Federal regulatory
regime.
State permitting of Federal activities. The Federal Government
could be required to obtain state permits to conduct weather modification
activities as a method of assuring full local control and acceptance of
such activities. As a matter of policy, the Federal Government should
not proceed with weather modification activities in any state unless
state concerns about the safety of such activities are fully satisfied,
except under extraordinary circumstances. No such problems have arisen
in the past, and none is anticipated, since the states have generally
been eager beneficiaries of Federal activities. However, some type of
extraordinary disagreements can be envisioned --a change in state
administration or administrative personnel could lead to reversal of a
prior approval, mid-way into a 10-year Federal experiment; the Federal
Government may believe snowpack enhancement is necessary to meet its
treaty obligations regarding the salinity levels of Colorado River water
49
flowing into Mexico; and states may di sagree about the desirability of
seeding a hurricane to reduce its impact, given any uncertainties that
may attend the technology. Experience may indicate that full local
control of all Federal weather modification activities is desirable,
despite these potential problems. Until we have further experience,
however, legislation negating the current Federal preemption of weather
modification authority would be premature.
Federal liability legislation. The Advisory Board concluded that
the Federal Tort Claims Act and the regulations implementing the Act
should be amended to ensure that an individual affected by Federal
weather modification activities may apply to the Federal Government on
behalf of a class of similarly af fected claimants for an administrative
settlement of their claims, and to ensure that if the claims are denied
by the Government that a class action can be brought in the courts on
behalf of such claimants. This conclusion was based on the observation
that the basic facts governing liability are common to all property
owners af fected by weather modification act ivities; only the amount of damages dif ferentiates one claimant from another. In the view of the
Department of Justice, settlement ad justment or litigation of personal
injury claims is necessarily an individual matter, and the common nature
of the causal factor is not enough to warrant class actions. In
addition, in its view, ample authority already exists to consolidate mass
tort actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings so that com mon matters
can be addressed.
The Advisory Board also noted that legislation might be required to
ensure that Federal experimental actions are not regarded as falling
within the Federal Tort Claims Act's exemption from liability for
"di scretionary functions", as private parties who can demonstrate that
they have been damaged as a result of Federal weather modification
experiments should be appropriately compensated for such damage. The
Department of Justice believes that the exemption is jurisdictional in
nature and relates to the sovereign immunity retained by the United
States Government and could not be waived as a matter of policy absent
specific legislation, which would have to be carefully reviewed. This
report concludes that in view of this concern, any such legislation
should await further experience so that the extent of the problem created
by the exemption, if any, can be better assessed.
However, Federal legislation should be enacted now that contains a
statement of national weather modification policy indicating the
importance of a national program for weather resources management,
identi fies the goals of a national weather modification program, and sets
forth the respective roles of the state and Federal governments.
In addition, a series of Federal administrative actions, which do
not require legislation to implement, should be seriously considered:
50
o A new framework for the conduct of Federal weather modification
activities should be established. This framework should provide
for coordination of Federal weather modification research and
development, and a pub lic board to provide advice on the planning
and conduct of the Federal program. The details of these
recommended actions are set forth in chapter V of this report.
o As a matter of policy, Federal field activities should be
preceded by consultation with state and local authorities in the
area to be affected and by one or more public hearings in the
area. Public acceptance of field activities will be a necessary
prerequisite to continued development of weather modification
science and technology. This public acceptance can best b�
assured by procedures that guaran tee consideration of the
concerns of the public that will be affected by proposed Federal
projects.
o The interagency Weather Modification Subcommittee recommended in
this report should develop a set of guidelines for sound weather
modification practices to be followed in conducting Federal
weather modification projects and in projects to which Federal
funds are contributed. These guidelines should cover matters
such as project design, environmental assessment, project
operation, data collection, reporting, and evaluation. The
Advisory Board recommended that legislation be adopted to pennit
the adop tion of such guidelines for general dissemination to
interested state regulators and private operators. For the same
reasons discussed above with respect to regulation of private
operations, such guidelines would be premature at this time.
o As a matter of policy, all future Federal weather modification
activities should be followed by an assessment of the
envirornnental consequences of such activities. Such a
requirement would complement the prospective assessment now made
pursuant to the National Envirornnental Protection Act. Post
project analysis will help make the design of future weather
modification projects more sensitive to environmental needs.
o Federal cost-sharing programs with states should be exp lored for
evaluation of selected weather modification operations and for
cooperative research and development operations. Such project
evaluation support is a cost effective way of providing more
definitive in fonnation on the effects of weather modification
activities with broad applications.
o Federal programs should also consider technical assistance (on a
reimbursable basis) to, and information exchange with, interested
states, communities, and private operators. The Federal program
51
is a repository of knowledge and in fonnation about the changing
state of the art in weather modification, and such in formation
should be made available through publications and other methods
of tech nology transfer.
o Federal reg ulations should be amended to increase the advance
notice of proposed projects now required by the reporting rules
under P.L. 92-205 from at least 10 days to at least 30 days. As
a matter of policy under current authorities, the Federal
Government should promptly transmit copies of pre-project
notifications received by it to states without their own
noti fication requirements. An increase in the current 10-day
notice period would allow time for such notification.
52
Major Findings - Item 7
Section 4(7) of the Act requires "A review of the international
importance and implications of weather modification activities by
the United States."*
Introduction
United States weather modification activities are of substantial
international importance. The technologies developed to modify our
weather will be applicable to other areas of the world and could play
important roles in alleviating global shortages of food, water, and
energy and in reducing the loss of life from severe stonns. In addition,
U.S. activities and technologies could be the source of future
international tensions as well as benefits, unless appropriate methods of
international cooperation are developed in parallel with these new
technologies.
The United States has a long history of international cooperation in
atmospheric activities, and in 1968 the Congress declared it to be U.S.
policy to cooperate with other nations in atmospheric research and
development. In this context, the fact that weather modification science
and technology are at an early stage provides a unique opportunity to
both achieve the benefits and minimize the tensions of the technology as
it develops. As the Weather Modification Advisory Board concluded, "Much
will be gained and little lost by forging now the links among scientists
and nations that will better prepare us for the stresses and strains (of
a successful technology) which, in the absence of well-rehearsed
cooperation, could easily get out of hand."
International Importance
Effective weather modification programs could help alleviate
shortages of food, water, and energy in other countries and help to
moderate severe stonn damages. Seventy-four countries have used weather
modification techniques at some time, and 17 nations reported projects to
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1978. The greatest
interest is in precipitation enhancement for increasing yields in dry
land fanning. Targeting added rainfall into drainage basins and
*This subject is addressed in chapters 6 and 10 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board Report (Appendix F).
53
reservoirs for water storage, and subsequent irrigation and hydro
electric power generation, has also been an aim of a number of foreign
programs. In addition, cloud seeding to reduce hail damage to valuable
crops has been practiced in over 20 countries.
Much of the weather modification research and technology development
in the United States is ap plicable to other parts of the world. The
results of U.S. research are made available to all interested scientists,
and some U.S. agencies are now partici pating in international weather
modi fication experiments and providing direct advice and technical
assistance to foreign countries. In addition, private U.S. operators are
conducting activities abroad for foreign governments and private
interests.
The transfer of appropriate information and technology to other
countries is important for humanitarian and economic reasons. It is also
an aspect of international competition in scientific and technological matters. As the Weather Modification Advisory Board stated, "The
emerging techniques of weather modification offer promise for helping
cope with global and regional shortages of foods, water, energy, and
other resources for a still growing world population. There are,
moreover, attractive possibilities for technology transfer to developing
countries by involving their scientists in the national experiments of
industrialized countries and transf erring this experience to those areas
where the human needs for nearby food, usable water, and affordable
energy are the greatest."
International cooperation and a free flow of information about
weather modi fication are important for other reasons as well. The United
States is not the world leader in all aspects of weather modi fication
research. Israel, Russia, Australia, and Switzerland, among others, have
active experimental projects from which we can learn. Furthermore, the
United States will not be able to conduct some aspects of weather
modi fication research without cooperation from other nations. For
example, U.S. hurricane experiments are currently limited to the North
Atlantic Ocean, since that is the only location in which such storms are
unlikely to affect other countries. However, a more rapid rate of
experimental progress would be achieved by experimentation in the Western
Pacific, which has the highest frequency of tropical cyclones. The
United States has no plans to conduct such experiments at the present
time because of past reservations about such activities on the part of
the Japanese and Chinese governments.
Domestic Research Activities
U.S. weather modification research results are published and are
regularly followed by scientists in other countries. As indicated in
section 2 of this chapter, the first requirement of any weather
modification research program for any country is to learn more about the
54
atmosphere itself. Thus all U.S. research into basic atmospheric science
problems has implications for weather modification ef forts abroad, particularly in the u.s.s.R., which rivals the United States as the most
advanced country in the field of weather modi fication science.
Field experimental programs in the United States are directed at
regional problems that are also relevant to foreign countries, although the resulting technology cannot be transferred to even similar geo
graphical areas without extensive studies of local meteorolo gical
conditions and in many cases further testing. The Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) of the Department of the Interior is planning snowpack augm entation experiments in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and
the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, the results of which will be important
to a number of mid-latitude countries (such as Iran) where mountain snows are a valuable resource. BuRec is also conducting preliminary studies
for summertime seeding experiments in areas in Montana, Kansas, and Texas
with some what dif ferent cloud structures and behavior that are basicallysimilar to those of other continental regions around the world (such as the Soviet Union).
NOAA has pursued an experimental program since 1967 to study the potential for augmenting rainfall from subtropical cumulus clouds, the results of which will have important implications for developing
countries in the tropics, where clouds of this type account for most of
the rainfall. In addition, NOAA's Project STO RMFURY is aimed at reducing
the peak winds of hurricanes. As discussed in section 3 of this chapter,the U.S. is not unique in its exposure to these destructive storms.
Single tropical cyclones have caused over 200,000 deaths in Asia, and a working technology to reduce peak winds by 15 to 20 percent has been estimated to result in worldwide savings of over $1 billion per year.
Weather modi fication technology developed in the United States has
also been important for other countries. For example, as discussed in section 9 of this chapter, the U.S. Navy developed the pyrotechnic
seeding devices now used by many cloud seeders.
U.S. Activities Abroad
U.S. scientists have provided specialized advice and consultations
on weather modification to many foreign countries through the WMO .
Several Federal agencies have also provided advice for foreign govern
ments regarding the potential for weather modi fication or the conduct of
specific projects; for example, NOAA provided such advice to Niger in
1973 and Jordan in 1976. In addition, the Department of Defense has
occasionally received requests from foreign governments to provideaircraft or personnel to seed clouds during drought emergencies. Such
service was rendered by the U.S. Navy in India in 1967 and jointly with
the Air Force in the Philippines in 1969 and in the Azores in 1972.
55
Private weather modific ation firms incorp orated in the United States
conduct several millions of dollars of business operations abroad each
year. Contracts have been signed with governments and with private
.associations such as farm cooperatives. There is no mandatory reportingrequirement for such activities conducted by U.S. citizens or firms, and
the full extent of such foreign commerical activities is not known accurately.
In 1968 Concurrent Resolution 67 of the 90th Congress declared that
U.S. policy was to cooperate with other nations in atmospheric research
and development. This policy is now being implemented in the weath�r
modification field. The United States initiated negotiations with Mexico
in 1978 toward the possibility of a joint experimental program on hurricanes in the Eastern Pacific. Technical discussions are underway
with Australia which may lead to a similar joint research effort in that
region. The United States has supported the establishment of an
international program for weather modification research in the WMO. And
we are now helping to organize and run the WMO's Precipitation
Enhancement Program (PEP), which is pursuing the feasibility of a 5-year
field experiment in Spain for seeding convective cloud systems in an area
of several thousand square miles and so far involves participation by
five other countries.
Potential International Tensions
U.S. weather mo di fication activities have important implictions for
international peace as well as international prosperity. Unless countries use weather modification techniques with prudence and close
consultation with the rest of the international community, such
techniques could become sources of international tensions and the entire
field could become highly politicized.
The United States attempted to use weather modification technology
to inhibit passage of North Vietnamese troops along dirt roads. As a
result of this experience, the Department of Defense concluded that
"weather modification has little utility as a weapon of war." An
International Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which began as a joint U.S.-Soviet initiative in 1974, has been approved by the United
Nations General Assembly and was opened for signature in 1977. It came into effect on October 5, 1978, when it was certified by the required
total of 20 nations. Although it has been signed by both the United
States and the Soviet Union, it has not yet been ratified by the
Senate. The basic restriction against "hostile use of environmental
modification techniques having wide-spread, long-lasting or severe
effects as a means of destruction, damage or injury" is of limited scope,
but it is a sound first step in removing all future threats from hostile
use of weather modification technology.
56
International concerns can also arise from research, experimen
tation, and operations in weather modification for non-hostile
purposes. For example, in 1971 the United States proposed transferring
its project STORMFURY experiments from the Atlantic Ocean to the Western
Paci fic, and informal consultations were held with representatives of the
scienti fic communities and Government agencies of potentially affected countries. These plans were canceled when strong reservations about the
experiments became evident on the part of the Japanese and Chinese Governments.
Even activities conducted within the jurisdiction of the United
States could be perceived to have an influence on its neighbors. For
example, se eding projects have been carried out in the Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico as well as near the Canadian border. Concern in Canada
regarding proposed commercial seeding in northern Washington prompted
negotiations in 1975 of a U.S.-Canada agreement on weather modification
information exchange. This agreement is discussed further in section 11
of this chapter.
Smaller nations with more neighbors than the United States will
require even closer cooperation. An informal meeting of experts held by
the WMO/United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in April 1978 to
establish legal principles for weather modi fication agreed that it was
desirable for States to consult in advance with o�her States that might
be af fected by proposed weather modification activities but left to the
potentially affected State the initiation of such consultation. The WMO
has set up a voluntary system for reporting weather modification
activities with which the United States compli es, but these reports are
circulated well after the activities have com menced and often after they
are concluded. Other principles recom mended by the WMO-UNEP meeting of
experts included mandatory notice of major weather modification
activities to WMO, assessment of the environmental impact of weather
modification activities be fore they are implemented, and monitoring by
each country of weather modification activities under its jurisdiction or
control.
57
Major Findings - Item 8
Section 4(8) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of present
and past funding for weather modification from all sources to
detennine the sources and adequacy of funding in the light of the
needs of the Nation."*
Although Federal involvement in and support of weather modification
research goes back to the beginning of scientific weather modification in
1946, no readily available accounting of Federal funding for those
purposes existed until fiscal year (FY) 1959. At that time Congress
directed the National Science Foundation "to initiate and support a
program of study, research, and evaluation in the field of weather
modification" and "to report annually to the President and the Congress
thereon." Beginning with about $3 million in FY 1959, Federal funding
for research in deliberate and inadvertent weather modification rose to a
peak level of $18.6 million in FY 1972 and involved as many as seven
Federal agencies. These funds supported research and experimentation in
precipitation enhancement, fog and cloud modification, hail and lightning
suppression, hurricane modification, and unintentional weather
modification.
The following table sets forth the annual levels of Federal funding
for deliberate weather modification and directly related cloud physics
research since FY 1972 and identifies the principal participating
agencies. It also presents total funding figures identified by the
Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) agencies as
supporting research on the inadvertent modification of both weather and
climate.
The funding identified in the table as supporting deliberate weather
modification research includes only those efforts that are aimed at
problems constraining the development of weather modification science and
technology. It therefore excludes some meteorological research efforts
that could have possible application to aspects of weather
modification. Such efforts include research in physical and dynamic
meteorology, observations, instrumentation, and short-range weather
prediction.
*This subject is addressed in chapter 11 of Volume I of the Weather
Modification Advisory Board's Report (Appendix F).
59
The differences between unintended weather modification and
unintended climate modification are subtle and hard to define. The
Weather Modification Advis ory Board used unintended weather modification
to refer to "shorter term effects found to occur only during certain
atmos pheric conditions, and occurring over smaller geographic scales."
Urban-induced changes in weather such as those studied by METROMEX are
examples. Climate modification "implies a persistant bias imposed on the
transient atmospheric events that comprise weathe r" and is usuallythought of in terms of "hemispheric or global processes." The postulated
change in the global radiation as a result of increased co 2 in the
atmosphere is an example of climate modification.
The funding for inadvertent weather modification and inadvertent
climate modification are identified separately in the table for fiscal
years 1972, 1979, and 1980 for purposes of comparison. Support for the
intermediate years could not be differentiated between the two
categories, so only the totals are given. For the purposes of this
report only inadvertent weather modification is included as part of a
national weather modification research program. Inadvertent climate
modification is considered to be a concern of the National Climate
Program as suggested by the Advisory Board.
Expenditures for two major weather modification-related equipment
devel opment and procurement programs are also not included in the
table. The Air Force spent approximately $4 million between FY 1975 and
FY 1978 to build and test a prototype thermal system for dispersing warm
fog; this project was terminated in FY 1978. NOAA spent $28 million
between FY 1974 and FY 1977 to improve its research aircraft capability
by purchasing and instrumenting two new P-3D aircraft and updating the
instrumentation on existing aircraft, primarily for use in Project
STORMFURY.
In addition to these research and development expendi tures, the
Federal Government has funded some operational weather modification
projects that are not included in the table. For several years the U.S.
Air Force has conducted operations to clear supercooled fog over some of
its airbases in this country and overseas; the cost of these ongoing
operations averages approximately $60,000 per year. As discussed in
section 7 of this chapter, the Department of Defense conducted an operational precipitation enhancement project in Southeast Asia from
March 1967 to July 1972, at an average annual cost of approximately $3.6
million.
60
The Federal Research Program for Weather Modification Allocation of Funding (Millions of Dollars)a
Department FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
72 73 75 76 77 78 79 80
Commerce 3.9 3.8 3.0 2.5 4.3 2.1 3.6 3.1 4.3
Defense 1.8 1.2 0.9 1.1 1 .4 1 .o o.9 0 0 Interior 6.7 6.4 3.9 4.0 4.6 6.4 7.6 8.6 10.3 NSF 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.7 5.1 4.9 2.4 I.IC 1.2c
Other 0.8 0.8 o.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Total 18.1 16.4 12.3 12.4 15.5 15.1 14.5 12.8 15.8 Deliberate
Inadvertent Weather 0.5 1.1 Climate 1.3 2.0
Total
Inadver. 1.8 3.3 3.8 5.2 4.8 3.7 4.2 3.1 4.6
TOTAL 19.9 19.7 16.1 17.6 20.3 18.8 18.7 15.9 20.4
a FY 1972-79 figures are from the Interdepartmental Com mittee for Atmospheric S ciences (ICAS). FY 1980 figures are estimates from
agency representatives. b Distribution of funds expended are estimated for DOC and NSF; total
is from ICAS.
c NSF has no specific budget request for wea ther modification. This
is an estimate as to how much will be devoted to research directly
rela ted to weather modification.
While the resear ch c ommunity works to place cloud seeding on a
secure scientific founda tion, priva te individuals and state and local
governments continue to invest in operational cloud seeding. About a dozen rela tively small contractors regula rly furnish commercial cloud
seeding services in the United States. The tota l wea ther modification business of these companies in 1977 is estima ted by NOAA to have been
about $5 million; of this total about $2.5 million was appropriated by
state governments.
The Federal weather modification research effort has not sustained
the position it held in the early 1970's in the participating agencies'
list of priorities. When the effects of infla tion are considered, the total Federa l FY 1979 research effort, and tha t projected for FY 80, are
61
well below half that of FY 1972 in terms of buying power. Seven agencies
supported weather modification research in the early 197O's, but only
three can now be considered active participants --NOAA, BuRec, and
NSF. The present weather modification research activities reflected in
the table can hardly be considered a national program, as the activities
lack an overall design or strategy.
During the 197O's the Federal weather modi fication research effort
has been subject to criticism by various review groups, such as the
National Adv isory Committee on Oceans and Atmosp here, the National
Academy of Sciences, and the General Accounting Office. The most
consistent criticisms included the lack of a national policy, fragmented
programs, and subcritical funding levels. The Weather Modification
Advisory Board observed that "We are tackling 2O-year problems with 5-
year projects staffed by short-term contracts and funded by 1-year
appropriations. It is not good enough."
62
Major Findings - Item 9
Section 4(9) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of the
purpose, policy, methods, and funding of the Federal departments
and agencies involved in weather modification and of the existing
interagency coordination of weather modification research efforts."*
Introduction
To date, the Federal Government has preferred that weather
modification research be undertaken by agencies and departments as their respective missions dictate and that such ef forts be accompanied by
interagency coordination. The most recent formulation of these policies
was in a letter of June 5, 1975, from the Assistant Director of the Domestic Council to Representative Gilbert T. Gude. He indicated that
weather modification may have the potential to assist in solving manydifferent national problems, but that understanding of weather
modification and its complexities is in its infancy. He also stated that the types of scientific research conducted by Federal agencies differ in
approach, techniques, and types of equipment employed, depending on the
particular weather phenomena being addressed, and that an agency charged
with the responsibility for dealing with a national problem should be given the latitude to seek the best approach or solution to the
problem. In his view, to the extent there were common problems and
solutions among the programs, they should be and were being coordinated.
The majority of weather modification research in the Federal
Goverrnnent during recent years has been funded through four Departments
or agencies --the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Interior, and the National Science Foundation. Other participants such as the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Transportation, and the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration have conducted occasional small weather modification
programs in support of specific mission ef forts. For example, the
suppression of lightning which may result in forest fires was investigated by the Department of Agriculture for many years.
*This subject is addressed in chapters 11 and 12 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board's Report (Appendix F).
63
Department of Commerce
NOAA has broad responsibility to provide atmospheric and oceanic
ser vices and to undertake related research and development. As the Weather Modification Advisory Board indicated, "NOAA regards itself and is regarded by Congress, as the focal Agency for matters having to do with the atmosphere and the oceans."
NOAA is the repository of a substantial portion of the Federal Goverrnnent's research and development talent in the oceanic and
atmospheric areas. NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories conduct a wide range of laboratory experiments and studies, field experiments, and
computer modeling research in atmospheric sciences. These include the following activities:
o NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Ok lahoma, is
dedicated to understanding the origin, structure, and life
history of tornadoes, thunderstorms, and other forms of severe convection. It maintains the most advanced Doppler radar for
studying destructive storm systems. It is a leader in the theoretical and field analysis of mesoscale storm phenomena -the kind of weather situation often associated with moderate or
heavy precipitation.
o NOAA's National Hurricane and Experimental Meteorology Laboratory
in Miami, Florida, conducts theoretical and analytical work on
the dynamic structure and energetics of hurricanes. It penetrates tropical hurricanes using NOAA's instru mented
aircraft, measures the natural structure and variability of these storms, and seeks to develop numerical models for use in analysis
as well as forecasting. This Laboratory also conducts Project
ST ORMFURY --the ef fort to understand the dynamics of hurricanes,
evaluate the potentialities of cloud seeding to ameliorate the ef fects ot hurricanes, and conduct field experiments as
appropriate. In addition, it is responsible for the Florida Area Cumulus Experiment.
o NOAA's Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, is devoting special attention to the numerical modeling
of mesoscale meteorological phenomena important to precipitation. These models will aid in the understanding of the
dynamics of mesoscale cloud systems. Although the ef fort is
primarily devoted to improving our ability to forecast these
phenomena, the program will have immediate applicability to
certain problems of weather modification technique development. The Laboratory also carries out theoretical and experimental
programs in cloud microphysics, aerosol physics and chemistry,
and nucleation chemistry.
64
o NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New
Jersey, is best known as the international leader in mathematical
modeling of the atmosphere's general circulation. But it also
purs ues an active program of numerical sim ulation and theoretical
study of the smaller scale motions related to convective
processes and cloud dynamics so important to weather modification
techniques.
o NOAA's Research Facilities Center in Miami, Florida, provides
instrumented aircraft in support of a variety of research
programs. These aircraft, equipped with the latest sensing and
recording systems, radar, and seeding devices, are essential to
NOAA's hurricane research program and Project STORMFURY and can
make significant contributions to many other weather modification
field ex periments.
o NOAA's Wave Propagation Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, is a
world leader in the development and experimental application of
new methods for remote sensing of the atmosphere. Remote
measuring concepts and techniques developed in this laboratory
provide important opportunities to add to our basic understanding
of mesoscale cloud and precipitation processes.
o NOAA's Air Resources Laboratories, located at various sites
around the country, provide valuable ins ights into the
concentration and chemical character of atmospheric aerosols and
small-scale air motions near the surface, both of which are
important factors for evaluating the potential for and effects of
intentional and inadvertent weather modification.
NOAA is also responsible for the Federal Government's civilian
atmospheric services, including the National Weather Service, the
National Environmental Satellite Service, and the Environmental Data and
Information Service. It is thus the primary source within the Federal
Government of the talents, observations, data, and information essential
to weather modification field programs and evaluations.
NOAA and its predecessor agencies (the Environmental Science Service
Administration and the Weather Bureau) have conducted weather
modification research since 1948. Since 1972 NOAA has collected and
periodically reported on all weather modification activities in the
United States pursuant to P.L. 92-205. NOAA, in concert with �he
Department of State, also provides Federal Government leadership in
connection with those multinational organizations involved in areas most
closely aligned with weather modification. The Associate Administrator
of NOAA keeps the WMO infonned regarding weather modification activities
underway in the United States. NOAA is the initiator or major proponent
of most of the international climate and weather modification programs
65
now being pursued by the United States, such as the Global Atmospheric
Research Program and the Precipitation Enhancement Project. And, through
the Department of State, NOAA has commenced formal negotiations with the Gover nment of Mexico and informal discussions with representatives of the
Government of Australia to conduct bilateral hurricane seeding programs.
The Weather Modification Advisory Board concluded that NOAA's pastperformance in weather modification was seriously deficient in certain
respects. The Board was "not satisfied that the scientific commitment to
weather modification (at NOAA) has been adequate to the job at hand," and
noted that skepticism about weather modification ef forts persists in some parts of NOAA. In addition, the Board noted that NOAA has been exclusively concerned with the scientific aspects of weather modification and has been oriented toward in-house activity in the atmospheric
sciences --thereby failing to use adequately the academic community and the private sector and to develop ef fective relationships with state and local weather modification constituencies. As a result of these factors and the Weather Bureau's early opposition to weather modification, the
Board noted that "an attitude of hostility and suspicion on the part of the weather modification community ••• does not seem to have been fullyovercome."
The majority of NOAA's weather modi fication research is conducted by
its own staff. Some support activities are contracted out, and a small
percentage of its limited weather modi fication funds support focused research ef forts in universities and industry. NOAA's orientation to inhouse activity in the atmospheric sciences has been criticized by
National Academy of Science Advisory panels as well as the Weather Modi fication Advisory Board. NOAA is determined to remedy this
situation.
During recent years, NOAA's weather modification efforts have
concentrated on enhancing precipitation from tropical convective clouds
through the Florida Area Cumulus Experiment (FACE), and on amelioriatinghurricanes through Project STORMFURY. Exploratory planning and
background observations have also been undertaken for the Precipitation
Augmentation for Crops Experiment (PACE) --a proposed major summertime experiment in the Midwest. In addition, NOAA has supported fundamental studies of ice nucleation and other aspects of cloud physics, lightningsuppression studies, and U.S. efforts of the international PrecipitationEnhancement Project (PEP) discussed in section 7 of this chapter.
Department of Interior
The Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec) has broad
Federal responsibility for managing water resources in 17 western
states. It administers a water resources program covering municipal,
industrial, and irrigation water supply; hydro-electric power generation;
water quality monitoring and improvement; flood control; recreation, fish
66
and wildlife improvement; and support of the natural environment. In
1976, BuRec operated 320 storage reservoirs, 344 diversion dams, 14,400
miles of canals, and 900 miles of water pipelines. It managed 50 power
plants and 145 pumping stations. BuRec delivered 27.9 million acre-feet
of water during 1976 and served 18.1 million people --31 percent of the
population of the 17 western states. This water irrigated 146,000 farms
and generated 60.9 million kilowatt hours of electric energy, the latter
bringing $283 million in revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Flood control
benefits of $52.8 million have been estimated for the year.
BuRec's weather modification activities are motivated by the need
for additional water in these western states. Increased population in
many regions of the west has resulted in increased demand for water for
municipal and commerci al purposes. Increasing energy requirements are
also placing greater demands on available water resources --not only for
cooling nuclear and thermal generating plants but also for coal slurry
pipelines and oil shale development.
The BuRec program was initiated in 1962 by a Congressional
appropriation for "research on increasing rainfall by cloud seeding."
Overall, BuRec has maintained only a small technical staff and has
contracted out most of its applied research ef forts to universities and
industry. BuRec has involved the public in all aspects of decision
making regarding its various cloud seeding programs under Project
Skywater, the Bureau's weather modification program. This has been
accomplished by conducting surveys of the population in the project
areas, holding meetings of citizen advisory councils, sponsoring
technical conferences, making environmental and ecological impact
assessments, and cooperating with local and state authorities in joint
projects. The Weather Modification Advisory Board recognized the value
of this strong interaction with users. However, they also indicated that
this "desire to maintain 'grass roots' support has resulted in emphasis
on 'promises of result' while tending to underplay the scientific
uncertainties and risks of disbenefits." According to the Board, "BuRec
has not evidenced the interest in research that we believe is so central
to the new National Program, although its concern with development and
application is an asset that must be retained."
In recent years, BuRec has organized several large, randomized,
winter orographic cloud seeding projects in the Rocky Mountains (the
Colorado River Pilot Project) and the Sierra Nevada Mountains (the Sierra
Cooperative Pilot Project), as well as a summertime cumulus convective
program in the High Plains (HIPLEX --High Plains Experiment). It has
also supported related legal, social, and economic studies.
National Science Foundation
NSF is responsible fo r supporting and developing the underlying
bases of all aspects of science in the United States, primarily at our
67
universities. In addition, in 1958, early in the development of weather
modification, Congress instructed NSF (in P.L. 85-510) to make special
NSF complied by establishing aefforts in weather modification research.
special Weather Modification Program Office, which it maintained until
1977 although the thespecial NSF mandate was dropped by Congress during
NSF reorganization of 1968. During that 20-year period NSF sponsored
several field experiments, including the highly important Whitetop and
Climax experiments.
In 1978, NSF merged its weather modi fication program into the
Atmospheric Research Section of its Directorate for Astronomical, Atmospheric, Earth and Ocean Sciences. NSF currently supports
unsolicited basic research proposals in the field through a Program for
Experimental Meteorology and Weather Modi fication. Some of the projects
contribute directly to weather modification research. For example, the
NSF supervises a grant which provides for most of the U.S. participation
in the WMO Precipitation Enhancement Project, now in its early stages in Spain. Other projects contribute indirectly to an understanding of clouds and cloud systems that is fundamental to long-term progress in
weather modification.
During recent years, most of the NSF-supported work in weather modi fication consisted of the National Hail Research Experiment (NHRE),
undertaken by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
cooperative university groups, and the Metropolitan Meteorological
Experiment (METROMEX), an investigation of inadvertent weather modification conducted by a group of university and other laboratories. With
the termination of both NHRE and METROMEX and the elimination of a specific weather modification program within NSF, the work now supported
by NSF consists of a long-term study of convective storms at NCAR, a
limited university grants programs in areas related to weather
modi fication, and the previously mentioned WMO Precipitation Enhancement
Project.
Department of Defense
DOD has been active in weather modification research and developmentsince 1946. During World War II and for the following decade, DOD
provided the impetus and much of the financial support for all phases of atmospheric research in the United States, including weather
modification. Project Cirrus --the original cloud seeding research
ef forts of Langmuir, Schaefer, and Vonnegut, who are generally credited as the founders of modern weather modification --was supported by DOD.
DOD maintained a very active weather modification research program
until a few years ago. It participated jointly with NOAA in hurricane
moderation research and carried out operational rainmaking ef forts at the
request of several foreign governments. The Navy has been the world's leader in the development of pyrotechnic seeding devices, now routinely
used by all cloud seeders. The Air Force perfected the practice of
68
seeding cold fogs in winter to permit additional aircraft operations, a
procedure now practiced at some civilian airports in the northwestern
United States. The Air Force has also supported much of the weather
modification research directed toward the modi fication of warm fog.
Following the Vietnam War, DOD gradually reduced its weather modi fication research ef fort. Because weather modification can enhance
the effectiveness of aircraft and helicopter forces, DOD's most recent ef forts were directed solely at fog and cloud dissipation. Although DOD
no longer has a weather modi fication research program, it does plan to continue supporting a vigorous program of basic research in cloud physicsand atmospheric dynamics.
Interagency Coordination
To date Federal weather modification efforts have not been coordinated as parts of a comprehensive national weather modification plan.
The Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) was formed in 1959 under authority of the President's Scienti fic Ad visor to
coordinate all aspects of the Federal Atmospheric Sciences program.Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director of the National Science Foundation, served
as its first chairman. An ICAS subcommittee on weather modi fication was
formed in 1960, consisting of representatives of those Federal agencies
having or contemplating active programs in weather modification. The subcom mittee met periodically each year and acted primarily as an
information exchange. It sponsored a yearly retreat of scientists and managers from all Federal agencies conducting weather modification
activities to discuss their research and plans. ICAS was recently
abolished and its functions were transferred to the Com mittee on
Atmosphere and Oceans (CAO) of the Federal Coordinating Council for Sciences, Engineering and Technology. CAO consists of representatives
from all sci entific and engineering agencies of the Federal Government
that have interests in the atmosphere or oceans. However, it has not been active in the weather modi fication area.
United States international weather modi fication activities are reviewed and coordinated and decisions made through the National Security
Council's ad hoc Working Group on Weather Modi fication, chaired by the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs. The Group examines U.S. international weather modi fication initiatives and positions from the standpoint of the
Department of State's broader foreign policy framework while taking into
account the views of the various Federal agencies involved.
In formation exchange by scientists and administrators involved with
weather modi fication activities has also taken place through publica
tions, professional societies, presentation of papers at meetings, and
informal discussion of plans.
69
Major Findings -Item 10
Section 4(10) of the Act requires "A review and analysis of the
necessity and feasibility of negotiating an international
agreement concerning the peaceful uses of weather modification."*
As the Weather Modi fication Advisory Board concluded, "The weather
is inherently transnational." Even local weather modification projects
may affect a neighboring country if the site is close to a border.
Moreover, future ef forts to in fluence the weather will doubtlessly
involve projects intended to affect large areas, increasing the
possibility of extended ef fects over other countries. For these and the
other reasons discussed in section 7 of this chapter, the interests of
the United States and all other countries favor international
collaboration in the development of weather modification science and
technology. We have a unique opportunity to build the framework for such
collaboration as the science and technology develop.
Fortunately there is a long history of successful international
cooperation in meteorolog y. The WMO and its predecessor, the
International Meteorological Organization, have been actively sup ported
as a forum for discussion of atmospheric issues for more than a
century. The World Weather Watch began in 1961 and today is the central
information system on which most forecasting in the United States and
other countries is based. The Global Atmospheric Research Program
(GARP), the research part of the World Weather Program, mounts special
observational experiments designed to improve our understanding of the
global atmosphere; these experiments involve scientists and technicians
from many nations. The GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE), for
example, conducted a very large atmospheric research project in 1974 that
included the United States and 60 other countries. The Global Weather
Experiment, which began in late 1978, includes contributions by 147
countries. The global arrangements have worked to date because of the
recognition by many countries of the need to cooperate in forecastingtheir weather and improving their understanding of weather and climate
sys tems.
As indicated in section 7 of this chapter, discussions are taking
place within the WMO and the United Nations Environment Program to
* This subject is addressed in Chapters 6, 10, and 11 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board's Report (Appendix F).
71
develop a set of international principles to guide the conduct of
countries performing weather modification activities. These principles
deal with dedication to peaceful purposes, encouraging and facilitating
inf ormation exchange, advance notification of activities, environmental
impact assessment, and consult ation with interested states. These
discussions are not expected to lead to a specific international
agreement but may result in generally recognized standards of behavior
that can form the basis for more formalized commitments among nations
concerned with this subject . In addition, international agreement has
been reached on limiting some hostile uses of weather modification
techniques through a Convention on Prohibition of Military or Any Other
Hostile Uses of Environmental Modification Techniques. The United States
is not yet a party to the convention, pending advice and consent of the Senate.
The first steps toward establishing international mechanisms to deal
with weather modification problems should be taken in the area of
research. The emphasis in future weather modification activities in this
country and elsewhere is likely to move toward larger scale research
enterprises that will require international cooperation. Furthermore, obtaining international cooperation in weather modification research is
feasible. It builds on established patterns of activity. It can provide
important benefits to all countries by encouraging the sharing of
expenses and the transfer of information, technology, and expertise. And
it can be perceived by all as an effective means of achieving common
understanding on what can and cannot be done to modify the weather,
thereby forming the groundwork for more comprehensive agreements that
will stimulate development of the science, and creating an ambience in
which more comprehensive multilateral agre ements can be developed.
A comprehensive international framework for the peaceful uses of
operational weather modification will eventually be necessary in order to
maximize the benefits and minimize the tensions created by application of
the technology. Reference to peaceful uses of weather modification is
made in the previously mentioned Convention on prohibition of hostile
uses of environmental modification. Article III of the Convention states
that parties to the Convention should "undertake to facilitate, and have
the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific
and technical information on the use of environmental modification
techniques for peaceful purposes." However, a strong need for a
comprehensive agreement on peaceful uses of the technology is not yet
widely perceived because the scientific basis for widespread operations
has not yet been established.
So far, international problems arising from experimentation and
limited operations have been adequately dealt with through the
established mechanisms and the WMO. No serious incidents between nations
have occurred as a result of peaceful weather modification activities,
72
and in the near future any potential problems can probably be handled
conveniently through bilateral agreements.
Thus, while our objective should be the the ultimate establishment of a comprehensive international framework, we will be required to move toward its ac complishment slowly in order to develop more shared
international experience with weather modification activities and to build a consens us that such an approach is desirable. For now, U.S.
efforts can best be devoted to developing an international accord with
respect to the problems raised by weather modification research. This sh ould involve acceleration of the current dialogue in the WMO, UNEP, and
elsewhere, and advancing bilateral or regional research agreements open to all interested parties wherever possible, either under a WMO framework or otherwise.
73
Major Findings -Item 11
Section 4(11) of the Act requires the "Formulation of one or more
options for a model international agreement concerning the
peaceful uses of weather modification and the regulation of
national weather modi fication activities; and a review and
analysis of the necessity and feasibility of negotiating such an
agreement."*
Introduction
Options for international cooperation concerning peaceful uses and
regulation of weather modification include informal arrangements
resulting from common declarations of weather modi fication policy adopted
unilaterally by a number of countrie s, mandatory notification and
consultation agreements, multilateral research and development
agreements, and a comprehensive multilateral treaty governing all aspects
of weather modification. All are desirable, and all but the last may be
currently feasible.
Unilateral Declarations of Policy
The United States Congress could adopt a unilateral declaration of
weather modification policy containing the foll owing elements and could
encourage other countries to adopt the same or similar policies:
o The atmosphere is a global resource, the use and protection of
which is the legitimate concern of the entire international
community.
o All U.S. research and operations in weather modi fication will
continue to be conducted openly and with the objective of
promoting peaceful uses of weather modi fication science and
technology.
o Because of the desirability of carrying out theoretical and field
research programs with wide ap plicability in developing as well
as developed countries, the United States will cooperate with
other nations on scientific research and development to the
*This subject is addressed in chapters 6, 10, and 11 of Volume I of the
Weather Modification Advisory Board's Report (Appendix F).
75
maximum extent practicable, through bilateral and multilateral
agreements and through participation in internationally sponsored
experiments and research institutions.
o The United States will ensure that thorough environmental impact
assessments are made of all Federal weather modification
activities, including examinations of the possible impacts of
s uch activities outside its borders.
o The United States will notify in advance any country which it
believes will be subject to a significant possibility of impact
from a proposed U.S. Government weather modification activity and
will cons ult with such country in advance of such activity if
requested to do so. If there is objection to our proposed
activity, the program will be reconsidered.
Ad option of such policy by the Congress would be feasible because it
essential ly restates current United States policy. The feasibility of
adoption by other countries is less certain, but most would probably be
willing to do so with our encouragement.
Adoption of su ch a policy by the United States would be a useful way
of encouraging other countries to adopt similar policies. Adoption of
such policies by a number of the major countries that conduct weather
modi fication operations would establish internationally accepted
practices of conduct that would ease the later institution of agreements
and mechanisms concerning peace ful uses and regulation of weather
modification.
Mandatory Notification and Cons ultation Agreements
One option, which would formalize the unilateral declarations of
policy referred to above, is the negotiation of agreements concerning
weather modification activities. A first step along these lines has
already been taken between the United States and Canada. An agreement
relating to the exchange of information on weather modification
activities, reproduced in appendix E to this report, was signed by the
two countries in March 1975. It provides for advance notification and
consultation with respect to activities conducted within 200 miles of the
international boundary or whenever either party believes the ef fects of
weather modification activities are significant to the other party.
Consultations under the agreement have not yet been necessary.
Acceptance of the principle of mandatory consultation is a necessary
step toward ensuring that the tensions inherent in weather modification
science are mitigated. The United States -Canada agreement demonstrates
that the negotiation of such general bilateral agreements is feasible.
U.S. negotiation of similar agreements with Mexico and other neighboring
countries would be desirable, despite the fact that activities near our
76
borders have not been an issue to date. The feasibility of bilateral
agreements between other countries and their neighbors depends on the state of their respective relationships.
Multilateral Research and Development Agreement
A still more comprehensive approach would be negotiation of an
international convention on weather modi fication research activities.
Such an agreement could include provisions such as the following:
o A statement concerning what weather modification may be capable
of achieving and what it is likely not to be capable of
achieving.
o Recognition of the inherent constraints and conditions on
research resulting from the widespread effects of some weather
modi fication projects, and procedures for dealing with such
constraints and conditions.
o Procedures for avoiding the impediments to research that can
occur when experiments must be carried out over international
waters.
o Recognition that research programs must be carried out in such a
way that a sufficient basis of scientific measurement and
analysis exists to make possible the transferability of the
results.
o Creation of mechanisms to implement a cooperative internationally
funded program for long-term weather modification research,
perhaps including a fully integrated research institution.
As indicated in section 10 of this chapter, negotiation of such an
agreement may be feasible in the near future and would be an important
step toward establishment of a comprehensive international regime for
weather modi fication. Meanwhile, some of these provisions may be
subsumed by WM0 decisions; others might be handled through a WM0 Congress
Resolution.
Comprehensive International Agreement
A comprehensive agreement would include mandatory notification and
consultation provisions, mechanisms for international conduct or approval
of large-scale research projects, and procedures to deal with problems of
liability or compensation for transborder damages. If weather
modi fication grows and succeeds as a technology, negotiation of a
comprehensive international agreement will be necessary. However, as
discussed in section 10 of this chapter, such negotiation is not yet
feasible.
77
As a step in that direction it may be feasible to encourage ef forts
to adopt national le gislation concerning weather modification experiments
and operations. Guidelines for such legislation have been discussed
within the United Nations Environment Program. The guidelines would
contain provisions aimed at preventing damage to persons, property, and
the environment. Suggested administrative provisions would include
licensing of ope rators, authorization of specific projects, registration
and monitoring of projects, and civil liability for damages. If
promulgated, such guidelines should be a useful way of acquainting
governments with the needs for regulation of weather modification
activities and the ways of implementing such regulation.
78
79
II
Other Findings Which are Pertinent to the Determination and Implementation of a National Policy on Weather Modification
The Weather Modification Ad visory Board discussed in detail one
issue --unintended weather modification --not included within the definition of "weather modification" in the National Weather Modification
Policy Act. Cities, power plants, and many agricultural activities
modify the weather on local and regional scales, often dramatically� The
Board concluded that "these unintentional effects are so important and
pervasive that an analysis of their scale and nature, and their policyimplications, is essential to judgments about a national policy and
program for the management of weather."
Most unintentional modification of weather has resulted from land
alteration and power generation. For example, agricultural fields have
replaced forests, concrete and asphalt have covered natural fields, and
artificial lakes have filled once arid valleys. Changes in surface color, texture, and topography cause changes in evaporation and solar
radiation absorption, which in turn result in substantial diff erences in
surface temperature and other low-level weather conditions. Changedroughness of the land surface, such as the erection of a major city in
flat country or removal of a large forest, also affects the airflow mechanically --altering wind speed and direction. Changes in the
atmosphere's moisture content, usually increases in humidity from industrial processes, irrigation, or large artificial lakes, produce more
clouds under some conditions. This in turn can affect temperatures and precipitation.
Changes are also cau sed by the release into the atmosphere of
particulates and certain gases, such as so 2, that become particulates. These particulates form haze layers that affect the weather and may also
affect the condensation-precipitation process in clouds. In addition, the total energy released by use of fossil fuels has resulted in a
significant additional amount of energy that must be disposed of through
radiation to space. Such a change in outgoing radiation produces heat
changes and affects cl oud growth.
The Metropolitan Meteorological Experiment (METROMEX), a major field
investigation designed to study the link age between urban land use and
the overlying distribution of wind, heat, moisture, and aerosols and the formation and development of clouds and precipitation, has provided the
most conclusive information on inad vertent weather modification to date. METROMEX, performed at St. Louis in the early 1970's under the
sponsorship of the National Science Foundation, the Atomic EnergyCommission, the State of Illinois, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, definitely showed that the St. Louis urban-industrial complex
influences convective storm behavior in such a way as to increase
cloudiness by 10 percent, total summer rainfall by 20 percent, and severe
storm activity by 100 percent. These effects were observed in a
localized area within 25 miles of the city center.
Impacts of these inad vertent weather changes on society and the
env ironment are difficult to assess with any deg ree of certainty. The
METROMEX studies suggest that the urban-induced inc reases in rainfall and
severe storm activity impact adversely on the urban-suburban lowlands and
have mixed beneficial and adverse impacts on the rural uplands to the
east of the city. Other than the more obvious impacts due to urban
inauced weather changes, little is yet known specifical ly about the
environmental effects resul ting from unintended weather modification.
Atmospheric scientists general ly ag ree that the magnitude and extent of
unintended weather modification are growing in the United States.
The Weather Modification Advisory Board identified seven general
research need s that should be add ressed by a comprehensive program to
study unintended weather modification. They are, in order of priority,
the following:
o Field studies, modeling, laboratory work, and historical data
investigations to identify and understand urban influences on
weather.
o Field measurements and modeling research into the weather
influence of large power plants and future power parks.
o Fiel d investigations to determine the potential for weather
modification from regional-scale land-use modifications such as
large-scale irrigation, deforestation, large manmade lakes, and
large-scale strip mining.
o Cumulative studies of all the different land-use changes in an
entire region to determine their synergistic effects.
o Studies of the effects of unintended modification of the weather
on health, on human behavior, on the environment, on the use of
ener gy, on industrial production, and on structures.
o Societal studies of or ganizational patterns for dealing with
unintended weather modification.
o Ef forts to combine all of the foregoing research requirements to
establish the total environmental effects of unintentional
weather modification.
80
Knowing more about the causes and ef fects of unintended weather
modification could assist in research aimed at intentionally modifying
the weather. Studies leading to understanding urban influences and the
effects of power generation would be the most useful for this purpose.
In addition, however, the growing magnitude and extent of unintentional
weather modification is a national problem that deserves study to ensure
that we understand, and can plan for or counteract, the resulting
ef fects. As the Board and others have observed, such studies have lacked
coordination among Federal agencies in the same manner as those relating
to deliberate weather modification. They should be conducted as part of
the national weather modification program and should be closely
coordinated with ef forts of the recently established Nationa l Climate
Program.
81
III
Recommendations for a National Policy and Research and Devel opment
Program for Weather Modification
Introduction
As discussed in chapter I, past policies regarding Federal weather
modification activities have resulted in poor coordination of Federal
programs, and lack of continuity of effort toward a clearly articulated set of goals. This chapter sets forth recommendations for a national weather modification policy, a national weather modification research and development program, and methods of administering such a program .
National .Policy
A statement of national policy regarding weather modification should include the following elements:
o Because of the potential benefits of a capability to manage
weather resources --even within the relatively narrow bounds
that now appear feasible --further research into the developmentof such a capability warrants a place in the Nation's research
program. Such research should be devoted not only to the atmospheric processes to be modified but also to the full
ecological, social, political, legal, and economic implicationsof weather modification technology.
o The atmosphere is a global resource, the use and protection of
which is the legitimate concern of the entire world community . Because the atmosphere belongs to no person or interest, its deliberate modification should not be carried out in the face of serious objection by those likely to be af fected, whether in this
country or elsewhere.
o As more ef fective techniques are develop ed, the Federal Government will have principal responsibility for the regulationof weather modification within the United States. At the present stage in the development of the science, adequate protection of
the public and the environment can best be achieved by allowing
the states to maintain control of local activities.
o All United States research and operations in weather modification
will continue to be conducted openly and with the objective of promoting peaceful uses of weather modification science and
technology.
83
o Because of the desirability of carrying out theoretical and field
research programs with wide applicablility in developing as well
as developed countries, the United States will cooperate with
other nations on scientific research and development in weather
m odification to the maximum extent practicable, through bilateral
and multilateral agreements and through participation in inter
nationally sponsored experiments and research institutions.
o The United States will ensure that thorough environmental impact
assessments are made of all Federal weather modification activi
ties, including examinations of the possible impacts of such
activities outside its borders.
o The United States will notify in advance any country that it
believes will be subject to a significant possibility of impact
from a proposed Federal Government weather modification activity
and will consult with such country in advance of such activity if
requested to do so.
A National Research and Development Program
The goal of a national weather modification research and development
program is to develop weather modification science and technology in an
environmentally sound and so cially acceptable manner as a potential tool
for exerting a beneficial influence over destructive weather events and
for augmenting water supplies in areas where additional water is needed
for energy, food, and fiber production. Attainment of this goal will
require a well-coordinated, long-term research and development program.
Essential elements of such a program are discussed in section 2 of chapter I of this report and include the following:
o Basic research to provide the scientific foundation for all
relevant forms of enhancement of the atmospheric environment
particularly to improve our understanding of the interactions
between cloud microphysics and cloud dynamics and of the origin
and initial growth of ice in nat ural clouds and to develop more
realistic measures of the ice-forming potential in those clouds.
o A focused ef fort to prove and refine existing techniques, and to develop new ones, for increasing precipitation through cloud
seeding. The areas of highest priority are snowpack augmentation from winter clouds and rain enhancement from convective clouds in
agricultural regions during growing seasons. Experimental
programs should include both exploratory field experiments and
confirmatory field tests, as ap propriate, to provide essential
background measurements of cloud parameters using specially
instrumented aircraft, to test the validity of particular seeding
concepts, and to determine whether a particular concept or
concepts can be applied usefully.
84
o An effort to develop techniques for reducing peak winds in
hurricanes, and possibly other damaging characteristics of
hurricanes, through cloud seeding.
o Basic studies aimed at developing an understanding of the
formation of hail and other "severe weather" phenomena, with a
view to their deliberate moderation.
o The development of instruments and techniques needed to improve
the conduct, monitoring, and evaluation of experiments and
operations in weather modification.
o A coordinated facilities program to develop specialized
instrumen tation and equipment that satisfy needs common to many
field projects and to manage the ef ficient utilization of core
facilities.
o Studies to provide essential informat '.on on economic costs and
benefits, environmental impact, and st �ondary benefits and costs
of weather modification projects; to explore the institu tional
and legal framework for modifying the weather; and to assess the
societal responses to operational programs.
o Research on techniques other than cloud seeding to modify the
weather, such as ocean surface temperature alteration and
evaporation suppression in connection with hurricanes.
Adm inistration of a National Program
A national research and development program for weather modification
should be administered in accordance with the following principles as
well as those speci fied above as elements of the national policy:
o The Weather Modification Advisory Board expressed concern about
the pressure that has existed in the past to give low priority to
long-term exploratory inquiries and to prematurely convert them
into confirmatory exe rcises. The design of any research and
development program should recognize that a continuity of effort
over a period of up to 20 years may be needed to reach definitive
determinations. As the Statistical Task Force of the Board
concluded, it should be "generally understood that the decade,
not the year, is the time step within which we hope to make
progress.
o The research and development program should be planned to fully
utilize the wide range of research skills and expertise already
available in universities and industry, as well as in the Federal
Government. The creation of one or more small, dedicated weather
85
modification laboratories at universities, as recommended by the
Weather Modification Ad visory Board, would help assure the utilization of the expertise.
o A program of partial Federal support primarily for developing and implementing the experimental design of selected state and local
weather modi fication projects should be pursued. As discussed in
section 6 of chapter I of this re port, this may be a cost
e ffective way of providing more de finitive information. For
example, the Weather Modification Ad visory Board sug gested that state and local managers may be willing to modify the designs of
their proje cts to randomize what might otherwise be unrandomized exercises.
o A program of technical assistance (on a reimbursable basis) to,
and in formation exchange with, state and local communities to
help them develop and evaluate weather modification operations
should be pursued, as discussed in section 6 of chapter I of this report, to disseminate the knowledge and information developed bythe national program with respect to the changing state of th e
art.
o The civilian research and development programs carried out by the
various Federal agencies should be coordinated as part of an overall Federal plan, the development and implementation of which
should be assisted by a group of wel l-qualified pub lic advisors,
as discussed in chapter V of this report.
86
IV
Recommendations for Levels of Federal Funding Sufficient to
Support Adequately a National Weather Modi fication Research and
Development Program
A continuity of effort ov er a 20-year period may be needed to
undertake and execute the tasks required for a national weather
modification program. The funds necessary to implement the program will
have to be requested and appropriated in the usual manner and will be
subject to nonnal overall Federal budgeting limitations and policies.
During the six-month period in which the newly organized interagency
Weather Modi fications Subcommittee recommended by this report is developing a comprehensive Federal research and development plan, current
authorization levels should provide sufficient flexibility to develop
specific programs to meet the highest priority research needs.
Thereafter, modest budget initiatives may be necessary to support the new program, especially for basic research. Any such increases should also
include provisions for cost-sharing by the states when the research
programs have major payoffs in particular areas or the findings will be
of use primarily to small areas or types of operation.
Precise levels of funding will depend on the development by the new
Subcommittee of the detailed structure of the research and development
program, which is likely to parallel in many respects the program details
and research priorities recommended by the Weather Modi fication Advisory
Board. Funding levels will also depend on the results in the early years
of the program and regular mid-course evaluations of the direction and
progress of the program by management and the national weather resources
management board. Finally, they will depend on the extent to which the
Federal Government succeeds in negotiating arrangements for states to
share some of the costs of cooperative research and development and
evaluation programs as recommended in this report.
The following is a brief description of the kinds of programs the
Subcommittee should consider in developing a plan and budget for a
national effort:
o An invigorated research program to support application of a wide
range of research skills and expertise now available in
universities, industry, and the Federal Government to fundamental
problems directly related to weather modification.
o Experimental programs, including both exploratory field
experiments and confirmatory field tests as appropriate, to
provide essential background measurements of cloud physics data
87
using specially instrum ented aircraft and remote sensing
techniques, to test the validity of particular seeding concepts,
and to prove that some particular concept or concepts may be
usefully applied. Essential components of these experimental
projects include supporting modeling and laboratory research,
economic analyses and environmental assessments to evaluate the
operational usefulness of the techniques, and studies to assess the societal impacts of the techniques.
o Field investigations and associated laboratory and modeling
studies to identify and understand the inadvertent influences of
local or regional activities on weather and the subsequent impact
of those weather changes on society and the environment. This
does not include research programs in inadvertent climate
modification as defined in section 8 of chapter 1 of this report.
o Participation in international cooperative weather modification
efforts.
o Studies to provide essential information on economic costs and
benefits, environmental impacts, and secondary benefits and costs
of weather modification activities; the institutional and legal
framework for conducting the activities; the societal responses
to the program; and alternative ways of approaching the problem
to be solved by the proposed weather modification activities.
o Establishing a program for partial Federal Government support of
carefully selected state or local cloud seeding programs in which
the long-term research benefits are substantial and the support
can provide savings for the Federal program.
o Developing and operating, either directly or under contract,
those essential facilities common to many weather modification
experiments and studies, such as calibration equipment,
specialized radar and lidar, instrumented aircraft, and computer
resources.
o Administrative costs including normal administrative services
(such as personnel and purchasing), scientific and technical
leadership costs, senior management costs, technical monitoring
of contracts, and planning and supervising the use of the core
facilities.
88
V
Recommendations for Organizational Changes Needed to Implement
Effectively the Recommended National Policy on Weather Modification
and the Recommended Research and Development Program
As indicated in section 9 of chapter I of this report, to date the
Federal Government has preferred that weather modification research be
undertaken by agencies and Departments as their respective missions
dictate, and that such efforts be accompanied by "voluntary" interagency
coordination as necessary. In recent years, the majority of weather
modification research in the Federal Government has been funded through
four Departments or agencies --the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and
Interior, and the National Science Foundation. These efforts have not
been coordinated as parts of a comprehensive national weather
modification plan.
This report concludes that the present Federal strategy of viewing
particular weather modification efforts as one of several possible
approaches to achieving various agency missions must be changed in some
respects. It has not sufficiently recognized that all weather
modification efforts presently employ the same basic technology and can
benefit from a centrally focused research effort on fundamental cloud
processes. Nor has it resulted in sufficient coordination among the
various agencies to ensure that program funds are spent in the most
productive manner. If development of an effective weather modification
science and technology is a national goal, this goal can best be achieved
if all Federal civilian weather modification research and development
activities are carried out in the context of a well-coordinated,
coherent, long-range research plan.
To achieve these goals, this report recommends that a Weather
Modifiction Subcommittee be established under the Committee on Atmosphere
and Oceans of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering
and Technology. All agencies actively participating in weather
modification research and development activities should be represented on
the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee should be charged with developing
within the next 6 months a 5-to 1O-year Federal weather modification
research plan that emphasizes fundamental research on cloud physics and
mesoscale meteorology, as well as the effect of seeding on the structure
and dynamics of cloud systems. The program should also include a careful
analysis of required field experiments, especially with respect to
effective monitoring and improved scientific and statistical design.
Once the plan is approved, the Subcommittee should provide a
coordinating mechanism for the conduct of the plan. In addition, the
89
Subcommittee should assist the Office of Management and Budget in
analyzing annual agency program budget submissions, to ensure consistencywith the plan.
To ensure close public scrutiny and invo lvement in the planning and
conduct of the Federal program as it is carried forward, this report also
recommends the establishment under existing authorities of a committee of
individuals knowledgeable in the field of weather modification, to act as
a special advisory board to the Subcommittee.
Advisory Board Recommendations
The Advisory Board believed that such organizational arrangements
would not be sufficient to implement effectively a national policy and
program on weather modification. In its view, even a stronger "lead agency" designation that included some kind of budgetary authority over
the entire program would only create responsibility without authority,
because patterns of bureaucratic behavior, constituencies, and
Congressional relations are so ingrained that it could not be
effective. Furthermore, in the Advisory Board's view, even such
authority is inevitably weakened over time by the forces that impel peeragencies to avoid controversy and maintain control over their own
programs. And finally, by continuing a situation in which each agency's
weather modification program is a very small part of its total budget,
the Advisory Board believed that the necessary long-term funding
continuity could not be assured, as the program would be required to
compete for funds in each agency with other larger programs mo re central
to the agency's mission.
Accordingly, the Advisory Board proposed that existing weather
modification activities throughout the Federal Government be consolidated
into a single national weather resources management program. It
recommended that a newly organized Department of Natura l Resources was a
logical agency to conduct a centralized program but that, in the absence
of such a Department, such activities should be centralized in NOAA.
The Advisory Board also proposed an unusual measure of autonomy for
a ne wly reorganized Federal program -- "a situation in which the
(national weather resources management program) would be given the
authority, freedom, flexibility, and responsibility to determine its own
destiny and to develop and execute its program as if it were an
independent agency." To implement its recommendations about autonomy,
the Board proposed creation of a six or nine member national weather
resources management board ("NWRMB ") with the following attributes and
authority:
o NWRMB members would be appointed by the President for six-year
staggered terms. They would be distinguished professionals, with
90
responsible experience in or with the Government, who would be
willing to devote a reasonable portion of their time and efforts
to NWRMB activities.
o The NWRMB would appoint the Director of the national weather
modification program, with the concurrence of the head of the
Federal agency in which the program was organizationally located.
o The NWRMB, through its Director, would have full authority over
personnel acquisition, classification, and allocation within the
program, subject to arrangements assuring compatibility with the
host agency as to personnel practices and compensation polici es.
o The NWRMB would have full responsibility for the design of a
national weather modification program in consultation with
responsible managers of affected Federal agencies.
o The NWRMB would have full responsibility for the development of a
budget to carry out on a timely basis the national program, and
the full authority to carry out the program once the budget is
approved. The President's budget would contain a separate line
item for the program, and personnel ceilings and budgetary
resources would not be determined as a result of tradeoffs or
competition for such resources between other programs of the host
agency and the national weather modification program. The
management of the program would be responsible for defending its
budget before the Congress.
o The NWRMB would be responsible for the development of productive
relationships with states and other potential and actual user
groups, and for similar activities involving the universities and
capabilities of the private sector and pertinent professional
societies.
o The NWRMB would arrange with the host Federal agency for
provision of most administrative sup port functions such as office
services and maintenance, payroll, custodial and security
services, under appropriate supervisory and reimbursement
arrangements worked out between the parties.
o The NWRMB would be authorized to build, lease, or other wise
acquire laboratories, office accommodations, equipment, and other
items necessary for the conduct of its research and development
and experimental activities, including aircraft.
o The NWRMB would be responsible for instituting and administering
the Federal licensing and guideline procedures recommended by the
Board.
91
o The NWRMB would prepare for the President and the Congress an
ann ual report of its activities and plans, which would be widelydistributed.
This report does not adopt either of the Advisory Board's
organizational recommendations. The Administration believes that because
a number of Federal agencies have valid mission interests in the weather
modi fication, and the field can benefit from a variety of approaches,
advances in weather modi fication science and technology can best be
achieved by well-coordinated programs carried out by a number of
agencies. It believes that the development of a formal research plan
under the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and
Technology structure, coupled with continuing scrutiny by a knowledgeable
advisory committee and annual analysis by the Office of Management and
Budget to ensure that agency funding submissions adhere to the plan, can
ensure the high-level attention necessary to overcome established
bureaucratic patterns and to ensure adequate long-term funding of
programs.
The Administration recognizes the need for close public scrutiny and
involvement in weather modification programs but does not believe that it
is necessary or desirable for an independent board of private citizens to
manage such Government programs. The advisory committee recommended by
this report parallels others successfully established on other national
research and development programs in the past under existing
authorities. Such a committee can provide valuable scrutiny of the
planning and conduct of the Federal program as it is carried forward.
92
VI
Recommendations Concerning Legislation to Implement the Proposed
Weather Modi fication Policy and Programs and International
Agreements Relating to the Proposed Uses of Weather Modification
As discussed in section 6 of chapter I of this report, most of the
actions necessary to implement a national weather mo dification policy and
program can be taken administratively, without the need for legislation.
However, the Administration does support the enactment of legislation now
that contains a statement of national weather modification policy
indicating the importance of a national program for weather resources
management, identifies the goals of a national weather modification
program, and sets forth the respective roles of the state and Federal
governments.
As indicated in section 10 of chapter I, neg otiation of a
comprehensive international agreement concerning all aspects of weather
modification is not yet feasible. The following actions, however, would
be feasible and important steps toward establishment of a comprehensive
international regime for weather modification:
o Adoption by the Congress of a unilateral declaration of weather
modification policy.
o Negotiation by the United States, with Mexico and other neigh
boring countries, of bilateral notification and consultation
agreements like the agreement already in force with Canada.
o Development of an international accord on weather modification
research activities.
o Promulgation through an appropriate international organization of
principles of conduct for the guidance of States concerning
weather modification experiments and operations.
The details of such agreements are discussed in section 11 of chapter I
of this report.
93
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC LAW 94-490-0CT.13, 1976
Public Law 94-490
94th Congress
An Act
To authorize and direct the Secretary of Commerce to develop a
national policy on weather modification, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be
cited as the "National Weather Modidication Policy Act of 1976".
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY. (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) Weather related disasters and hazards, including drought,
hurricanes, tornadoes, hail, lightning, fog, floods, and frost, result
in substantial human suffering and loss of life, billions of dollars of
annual economic losses to owners of crops and other property, and
substantial financial loss to the United States Treasury;
(2) Weather modification techn ology has significant potential for
preventing, diverting, moderating, or ameliorating the adverse ef fects
of such disasters and hazards and enhancing crop production and the
availability of water;
(3) The interstate nature of climatic and related phenomena, the
severe economic hardships ex perienced as the result of occasional
drought and other adverse meteorological conditions, and the existing
role and responsibilites of the Federal Government with respect to
disaster relief, require ap propriate Federal action to prevent or
alleviate such disasters and hazards; and
(4) Weather modification programs may have long-range and
unexpected effects on existing climatic patterns which are not con fined
by national boundaries.
(b) PURPOSE.--It is therefore declared to be the purpose of the
Congress in this Act to develop a com prehensive and coordinated national
weather modi fication policy and a national program of weather
modification research and devel opment--(!) to determine the means by which deliberate weather
modi fication can be used at the present time to decrease the adverse
impact of weather on agriculture, economic growth, and the general
public wel fare, and to determine the potential for weather modification;
(2) to conduct research into those scientific areas considered
most likely to lead to practical techniques for drought prevention or
alleviation and other forms of deliberate weather modification;
(3) to develop practical methods and devices for weather
modification;
A-1
(4) to make weather modification research findings available to interested parties;
(5) to assess the economic, social, environmental, and legal
impact of an operational weather modification program;(6) to develop both national and international mechanisms designed
to minimize conflicts which may arise with respect to the peaceful uses of weather modification; and
(7) to integrate the results of existing experience and studies in
weather modification activities into model codes and agreements for
regulation of domestic and international weather modification activities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce.
(2) The term "State" means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or any Commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.
(3) The term "weather modification" means any activity performed
with the intention and expectation of producing changes in
pr ecipitation, wind, fog, lightning, and other atmospheric phenomena.
SEC. 4. STUDY.
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive investigation and studyof the state of scientific knowledge concerning weather modification, the
present state of development of weather modification technology, the
problems impeding effective implementation of weather modification
technology, and other related matters. Such study shall include--(!) a review and analysis of the present and past resear ch efforts
to establish practical weather modification technology, particularly as
it relates to reducing loss of life and crop and property destruction;
(2) a review and analysis of research needs in weather
modification to establish areas in which more research could be expected
to yield the gr eatest return in terms of practical weather modification
technology;
(3) a review and analysis of existing studies to establish the
probable economic importance to the United States in terms of
agricultural production, energy, and related economic factors if the
present weather modification technology were to be effectively
imp lemented;
(4) an assessment of the legal, social, and ecological
implications of expanded and effective research and operational weather
modification projects;
(5) formulation of one or more options for a model regulatory code
for domestic weather modification activities, such code to be based on a
review and analysis of experience and studies in this area, and to be
adaptable to State and national needs;
(6) recommendations concerning legislation desirable at all levels
of government to imp lement a national weather modification policy and
program;
A-2
(7) a review of the international importance and implications of
weather modification activities by the United States;
(8) a review and analysis of present and past funding for weather
modification from all sources to determine the sources and adequacy of
funding in the light of the needs of the Nation;
(9) a review and analysis of the purpose, policy, methods, and
funding of the Federal departments and agencies involved in weather
modification and of the existing interagency coordination of weather
modi fication research efforts;
(10) a review and analysis of the necessity and feasibility of
negotiating an international agreement concerning the peaceful uses of
weather modification; and
(11) formulation of one or more options for a model international
agreement concerning the peaceful uses of weather modification and the
regu lation of national weather modification activites; and a review and
analysis of the necessity and feasibi lity of negotiating such an
agreement.
SEC. 5. REPORT.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
President and the Congress, within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, a final report on the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study conducted pursuant to section 4. Such
report shall include:
(1) a summary of the findings made with respect to each of the
areas of investigation specified in section 4;
(2) ot her findings which are pertinent to the determination and
implementation of a national policy on weather modifications;
(3) a recommended national policy on weather modification and a
recommended national weather modification research and development
program which is consistent with, and likely to contribute to, achieving
the objectives of such policy;
(4) recommendations for levels of Federal funding sufficient to
supp ort adequately a national weather mo dification research and
development program;
(5) recommendations for any changes in the organization and
involvement of Federal departments and agencies in weather modification
which may be needed to implement effectively the recommended national
policy on weather modification and the recommended research and
development program; and
(6) recommendations for any regulatory and other legislation which
may be required to imp lement such policy and program or for any
international agreement which may be appr opriate concerning the peaceful
uses of weather modification, including recom mendations concerning the
dissemination, refinement, and possible implementation of the model
domestic code and international agreement developed under the
speci fications of section 4.
Each department, agency, and other instrumentality of the Federal
Government is authorized and directed to furnish the Secretary any
information which the Secretary deems necessary to carry out his
functions under this Act.
A-3
(b) OPERATION AND CONSULTATION.--The Secretary shall so licit and consi der the views of State agencies, private firms, institutions of
higher learning, and other interested persons and governmental entities in the conduct of the study required by section 4, and in the
preparation of the report required by subsection (a).
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act not to exceed $1,000,000.
(b) Section 6 of the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the reportingof weather modif ication activities to the Federal Government", approved
December 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 736; 88 Stat. 1212; 15 u.s.c. 330e), is further amended by striking out "1973, 1974, 1975, 1976� and 1977," and
inserting in lieu thereof " 1973 through 1980,". Approved Oct. 13, 1976.
A-4
APPENDIX B
WEATHER MODIFICATION CONTROL ACT
ILL. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 146 3/4, Sec. 1 to 32 STATE OF ILLINOIS
AN ACT to regulate weather modification in this State and amending
certain Acts therein named in connection therewith. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
ARTICLE I. WEATHER MODIFICATION CONTROL ACT
Section 1. (Short Title.) This Act shall be known and may be cited
as the "Weather Modification Control Act."
Section 2. (Declaration of Purpose.)
(a) The General Assembly hereby declares that weather modification
affects the public health, safety and welfare and the envirorunent, and is
subject to regulation and control in the public interest. Properly
conducted weather modification operations can improve water quality and
quantity, reduce losses from weather hazards and provide economic
benefits for the people of the State. Therefore weather modification
operations and research and development shal l be encouraged. In order to
minimize possible adverse effects, weather modification activities shall
be carried on with proper safeguards, and accurate information concerningsuch activities shall be recorded and reported to the Department of Registration and Education.
(b) This Act shall be liberally construed to carry out these objectives and purposes.
Section 3. (Definitions.) As used in this Act unless the context
otherwise requires, the terms specified in Sections 3.01 through 3.11
have the meanings ascribed to them in those Sections.
Section 3.01. "Department" means the Department of Registration and
Education.
Section 3.02. "Director" means the Director of Registration and
Education.
Section 3. 03. "Board" means the Weather Modification Board
appointed pursuant to this Act.
Section 3.04. "Weather Modification" means any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition,
motions and resulting behavior of the atmosphere.
B-1
Section 3.05. "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
as sociation, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, any State
or local government or any agency thereof, or any other organization,
whether commercial or nonprofit, who is performing weather modification
operations or resea rch and development, except where acting solely as an
employee, agent or independent contractor of the United States of America
or any agency thereof. "Person" does not include the United States of
America or any agency thereof.
Section 3.06. "Operation" means the performance of any weather
modification activity undertaken for the purpose of producing or
attempting to produce any form of modifying effect upon the weather
within a specified geographical area over a specified time interval.
Section 3.07. "Research and Development" means exploration, field
experimentation and extension of investigative findings and theories of a
scientific or tech nical nature into practical application for
experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental
production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials and
processes.
Section 3.08. "License" means a professional license issued by the
Director indicating that a specified person has met the standards for
certification as a weather modifier and is approved to conduct weather
modification operations for which permits have been issued under this
Act.
Section 3.09. "Licensee" means a person who holds a professional
weather modi fication license issued under this Act.
Section 3.10. "Permit" means an operational permit issued by the
Director indicating that approval has been given for conducting a
specified weather modi fication operation within the State subject to the
conditions and within the limitations estab lished under the provisions of
this Act.
Section 3.11. "Permittee" means a person who holds an operational
permit issued under this Act.
Section 4. (Administration.)
(a) The powers and duties enumerated in this Act shall be exercised
by the Director.
(b) The Director shall exercise the powers and duties enu merated in
this Act, except th ose enumerated in Section S, only upon the
recommendation and report in writing of the majority of the members of
the Board.
B-2
Section 5. (Weather Modification Board.) There is created the
Weather Modification Board to be composed of 5 residents of the State who
shall be appointed by the Director. In selecting members of the Board the
Director shall include individuals with qualifications and practical
experience in agriculture, law, meteorology and water resources.
The Director shall appoint one member of the Board to a term of one
year, 2 members to terms of 2 years and 2 members to terms of 3 years,
commencing January 1, 1974. After expiration of the terms of the _members
first appointed purs uant to this Act, each of their respective successors
shall hold of fice for a term of 3 years and until their successors are
appointed and qualified. Members of the Board shall be eligible for reappointment.
In the event a member of the Board shall be disqualified from
considering business before the Board because of a con flict of interest,
the Director may appoint a resident of the State to serve temporarily on
the Board. After the Board decides upon its recommendation to the
Director concerning such business, the member will resume his position on the Board.
The chairman of the Board shall be designated by the Director from
among the members.
Each member of the Board shall be paid the sum of $25 for every day
he is actually engaged in its services, and shall be reimbursed for such
actual and necessary expenses as he may incur in performance of the
functions of the Board.
The Board shall hold an annual meeting at Springfield, Illinois, and
such other meetings at such times and places and upon such notice as the
Board may determine. Three members of the Board shall constitute a
quorum for performance of its functions.
Section 6. (Regulations.) The Department shall make reasonable
rules and regulations necessary to the exercise of its powers and the
performance of its duties under this Act.
In order to effectuate the objectives and purposes of this Act, the
Department shall make reasonable rules and regulations establishing
quali fications, procedures and conditions for issuance, renewal,
revocation, suspension, refusal to renew, refusal to issue, restoration
and modi fication of licenses and permits.
In order to minimize possible adverse effects to the public health,
safety and welfare and the environment, the Department shall make
reasonable rules and regulations establishing standards and instructions
to govern weather modification operations and research and development.
In order to make accurate information available concerning weather
modi fication operations and research and development in the State, the
Department shall make reasonable rules and regulations requiring record
keeping and reporting and shall establish procedures and forms for such
record keeping and reporting.
B-3
Section 7. (Investigations.) The Department shall have the power
to investigate the weather modification operations and research and
development of any person holding or claiming to hold a license or a permit issued under this Act.
Duly authorized agents of the Department shall have the power to
enter and inspect any place in which there is reasonable belief that
weather modification operations or research and development is taking
place, in which weather modification operations or research and
development is in fact taking place and the premises of any perso n
holding a permit issued under this Act.
Section 8. (Hearings.) Except for emergency modifications of
operational permits as provided for in Section 21 (b) of this Act, before
suspending, revoking, refusing to renew or modifying a license or a
permit, the Department shall issue a citation notifying the licensee or
permittee of the time and place when and where a hearing of the matter
shall be had. Such citation shall contain a statement of the reasons for
the proposed action. Such citation shall be served on the licensee or
permittee at least 10 days prior to the date therein set for the hearing,
either by delivery of the citation personally to the licensee or
permittee or by mailing it by registered mail to his last known place of
business.
The Department shall hear the matter at the time and place fixed in
such citation unless the licensee or permittee waives his right to a
hearing. Both the Department and the licensee or permittee shall be
accorded ample opportunity to present, in person or by counsel, such
statements, testimo ny, evidence and argument as may be pertinent to the
matter.
The Department may continue such hearing from time to time. If the
Department shall not be sitting at the time and place fixed in the
citation or at the time and place to which a hearing shall have been
continued, the Department shall continue such hearing for a period not to
exceed 30 days.
Any circuit court or any judge thereof, upon the application of the
licensee or permittee or of the Department, may by order duly entered,
require the attendance of witnesses and the production of relevant books,
records, documents and instruments before the Department in any hearing
relative to refusal to renew, suspension, revocation or modification of a
license or a permit, and the court or judge may compel obedience to its
or his order by proceedings for contempt.
In conducting any hearing, the Department or a representative
designated by it may administer oaths and examine witnesses.
The Department, at its expense, shall provide a stenographer to
record the testimony and preserve a record of all proceedings at the
hearing of any case wherein a license or permit is revoked, suspended,
not renewed or modified. The notice of hearing and all other documents
in the nature of pleadings and written motions filed in the proceedings,
B-4
B-5
the transcript of testimony, the report of the Board and the orders of
the Department constitute the record of such proceedings.
Section 9. (Interstate Compacts.) The Department may represent the
State in matters pertaining to plans, procedures or negotiations for
interstate com pacts relating to weather modi fication.
Section 10. (License and Permit Required.) Except as provided in
Section 11 of this Act, no person may engage in weather modification activities:
(a) Without both a professional weather modification license issued
under Section 12 of this Act and a weather modi fication operationalpermit issued under Section 18 of this Act; or
(b) In violation of any term, condition or limitation of such license or permit.
Section 11. (Exemptions.)(a) The Department may provide rules and regulations for exemptionof the following activities from the license and permit requirements of this Act:
� (1) Research and development conducted by the State, its
subdivisions and agencies of the State and of its subdivisions,
institutions of higher learning and bona fide research coporations;(2) Activities for protection against tire, fr ost or fog; and
(3) Activities normal ly conducted for purposes other than inducing, increasing, decreasing or preventing hail, precipitation, or
tornadoes. (b) Exempted activities shal l be so conducted as not to interfere with weather modification operations conducted under a permit issued in
accordance with this Act.
Section 12. (Issuance of license.)
(a) The Department shall provide by rules and regulations the procedure and criteria for is suance of licenses. Criteria established by
rules and regulations shall be consistent with the qualifications
recognized by national or international profes sional and scientific associations concerned with weather modification and meteorology, and shall be designed to carry out the objectives and pur poses of this Act.
(b) The Department, in accordance with its rules and regulations,shall issue a weather modification license to each applicant who:
(1) Pays the license fee establi shed by Section 13 of this Act; and
(2) Demonstrates, to the sati sfaction of the Department, com petence necessary to engage in weather modification operations.(c) If an applicant for a license does not pay the license fee established by Section 13 of this Act or does not demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Department, competence necessary to engage in weather modification operations, the Department shall deny the application for
the license.
Section 13. (License Fee.) The fee for an original license is
$100. The fee for a renewal license is $20.
Section 14. (Expiration Date.) Each original or renewal license
shall expire on October 31 of each year.
Section 15. (Renewal of License.) At the expiration of the license
period, the Department shall issue a renewal license to each applicant
who pays the renewal license fee established by Section 13 of this Act,
and who has the quali fications then necessary for issuance of an original
license.
Section 16. (Suspension, Revocation, Refusal to Renew A License.)
The Department may suspend, revoke or ref use to renew a license for any
one or any combination of the following causes:
(a) Incompetency;
(b) Dishonest practice;
(c) False or fraudulent representation in obtaining a license or
permit under this Act;
(d) Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or any
of the rules and regulations of the Department made under this Act; and
(e) Aiding other persons who fail to comply with any of the
provisions of this Act or any of the rules and regulations of the
Department made under this Act.
Section 17. (Issuance of Permit.)
(a) The Department shall provide by rules and regulations the
procedure and criteria for issuance of permits. Criteria established by
rules and regulations shall be designed to carry out the objectives and
purposes of this Act.
(b) A person applying for a weather modi fication operational permit
shall file with the Department an ap plication which shall contain such
information as the Department by rules and regulations may require and
which in addition shall:
(1) List the name and address of the applicant;
(2) List the name and address of the person on whose behalf
the operation is to be conducted;
(3) Indicate that the applicant holds, or if the applicant is
an organization rather than an individual, demonstrates that the
individual in control of the project holds a valid professional weather
modi fication license issued under Section 12 of this Act;
(4) Furnish proof of financial responsibility in acco�dance
with Section 20 of this Act; and
(5) Set forth a complete operational plan for the project
which inc ludes a specific statement of its nature and ob ject, a map of
the proposed operating area which specifies the primary target area and
shows the area reasonably expected to be af fected, a statement of the
approximate time during which the operation is to be conducted, a list of
B-6
the material s and methods to be used in conducting the operation, an
emergency shut down procedure which states con ditions under which
operations must be suspended because of possible danger to the public
health, safety and wel fare or to the environment, and such other detailed
information as may be required to describe the operation.
(c) The Department may give public notice by newspaper, radio or
television announcement in the area of the State reasonably expected to
be affected by operations conducted under a permit that it is considering
an application for a permit, and may hold a public hearing for the
purpose of obtaining information from the public concerning the ef fects
of issuing or refusing to issue the permit.
(d) The Department may issue the operational permit if it
determines that:
(1) The applicant holds, or if the ap plicant is an
organization rather than an individual, demonstrates that the individual
in control of the project holds a valid professional weather modi fication
license issued under Section 12 of this Act;
(2) The applicant has furnished proof of financial
ponsibility in accordance with Section 20 of this Act;
(3) The project is reasonably conceived to improve water
quality or quantity, reduce losses from weather hazards, provide economic
benefits for the people of the State, advance or enhance scientific
knowledge or otherwise carry out the ob jectives and purposes of this Act;
(4) The project is designed to include adequate safeguards to
minimize possible damage to the public health, safety or welfare or to
the environment;
(5) The project will not adversel y af fect another operationfor which a permit has been issued;
(6) The applicant has complied with the permit fee requirement
established by Section 18 of this Act; and
(7) The applicant has complied with the project conforms to
such other criteria for issuance of permits as have been established by
rules and regulations of the Department made under this Act.
(e) In order to carry out the ob jectives and pur poses of this Act,
the Department may condition and limit permits as to primary target area,
time of the operation, materials and methods to be used in conducting the
operation, emergency shut down procedure and such other operational
requirements as may be established by the Department.
(f) A separate permit shall be required for each operation.
(g) The Department shall issue only one permit at a time for
operations in any geographic area if 2 or more operations conducted
within the conditions and limits of the permits might adversely interfere
with each other.
Section 18. (Permit Fee.)
(a) The fee for each permit or renewal thereof shall be a minimum
of $100.
B-7
(b) If the operation will be conducted under contract and the value
of the contract is more than $10,000, the fee for the permit or renewal
thereof shall be equivalent to one per cent of the value of the contract. (c) If the operation will not be cond ucted under contract and the
estimated costs of the operation are more than $10,000, the fee for the
permit or renewal thereof shall be equivalent to one percent of the
estimated costs of the operation. The costs of the operation shall be
estimated by the Department from information given to it by the applicant
for the permit or renewal thereof and such other information as may be available to the Depart ment.
(d) The permit fee is due and payable to the Department prior to
issuance of the permit or renewal thereof.
Section 19. (Scope of Permit.)
(a) A separate permit is required for each operation. When an
operation is conducted under contract, a permit is required for each
separate contract.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of thi s Section, each
permit or renewal permit shall expire one year from the date of its
issuance.
(c) The Department may conditional ly approve a project for a
continuous time period in excess of one year's duration. Permits for
such operations must be renewed annual ly. In ap proving the renewal of a
permit for a continuous program the Depart ment shall review and approve
the permittee's operational record, and then may issue a renewal of the
permit for the operation to continue.
(d) The permittee shall confine his activities within the limits
speci fied in the permit, except to the extent that the limits are
modi fied by the Department. The permittee shall comply with any
conditions of the permit as originally issued or as subsequently modified
by the Department.
Section 20. (Proof of Financial Responsibility.) Proof of financial
responsibility is made by showing to the satisfaction of the Department
that the permittee has the ability to respond in damages to liability
which might reasonably result from the operation for which the permit is
sought. Such proof of financial responsibility may, but shall not be
required to, be shown by:
(a) Presenta tion to the Department of proof of a prepaid
noncancellable insurance policy against such liabilities in an amount set
by the Department; or
(b) Filing with the Department a corporate surety bond, cash or
negotiable securities in an amount ap proved by the Department.
Section 21. (Modi fication of Permits.)
(a) The Department may revise the conditions and limits of a permit
if:
B-8
(1) The permittee is given notice and a reason able opportunity
for a hearing on the need for a revision in accor nee with Section 8 of
this Act; and
(2) It appears to the Department that a modi fication of the
conditions and limits of a permit is necessary to protect the public � health, safety and welfare or the environ. ment. (b) If it appears to the Department that an emergency situation
exists or is impending which could endanger the public health, safety or
welfare or the environment, the Department may, without prior notice or a
hearing, immediately modi fy the condi tions and limits, of a permit, or
order temporary suspension of the permit. The issuance of such an order
shall include notice of a hearing to be held within 10 days thereafter on
the question of permanently modifying the conditions and limits or
continuing the suspension of the permit. Failure to comply with an order
temporarily suspending an operation or modifying the conditions and
limits of a permit shall be grounds for im mediate revocation of the
permit and of the license of the person controlling the operation.
(c) It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the
Department of any emergency which can reasonably be foreseen, or of any
existing emergency situations which might be caused or affected by the
operation. Failure by the permittee to so notify the Department of any
such existing emergency, or any impending emergency which should ha ve
been foreseen, may be grounds, at the discretion of the Department, for
revocation of the permit and of the license of the person controlling the
operation.
Section 22. (Renewal of permit.) At the expir ation of the permit
period, the Depart ment shall issue a renewal permit to each applicant who
pays the permit fee and whos e operational record indicates that an
original permit would be issuable for the operation.
Section 23. (Suspension, Revocation, Refusal to Renew Permit.)
(a) The Department may suspend or revoke a permit if it appears
that the permittee no longer has the quali fications necessary for the
issuance of an original permit or has violated any provision of this Act
or of any of the rules and regulations issued under this Act.
(b) The Department may refuse to renew a permit if it appears from
the operational records and reports of the permittee that an original
permit would not be issuable for the operation, or if the permittee has
violated any provision of this Act or of any of the rules and regulations
issued under this Act.
Section 24. (Restoration of License or Permit.)
(a) At any time after the suspension or revocation of a license or
permit the Department may restore it to the licensee or permittee upon a
finding that the requirements for issuance of an original license or
permit have been met by the licensee or permitt ee.
B-9
(b) At any time after the refusal to renew a license or perm it the
Department may renew it upon a finding that the requirements for issuance
of an original licensee or permit have been met by the licensee or
permit tee.
Section 25. (Judicial Review.)
(a) All final administrative decisions of the Department are
subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the
"Adm inistrative Review Act", approved May 8, 1945, and all amendments and
modifications thereof, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. The term
"administrative decision" is defined as in Section 1 of the
"Administrative Review Act".
(b) Such proceedings for judicial review shall be commenced in the
circuit court of the county in which the party applying for review
resides, but if such party is not a resident of this State, the venue
shall be in Sangamon County.
(c) The Department shall not be required to certify any record to
the circuit court or file any answer in the circuit Court or otherwise
appear in any court in a judicial review proceeding, unless there is
filed in the court with the com plaint a receipt from the Department
ac knowledging payment of the costs of furnishing and certifying the
record. The costs shall be computed at the rate of fifty cents per
page. Failure on the part of the plaintiff to file such receipt in court
shall be grounds for dismissal of the action.
Section 26. (Records and Reports.)
(a) In order to aid in research and development of weather
modi fication and to aid in the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare and the environment, any person conducting any weather
modificatio in Illinois or eleswhere by undertaking operations within f. Illinois, shall keep such records and file such reports at such time or
times and in the manner and form as may be required by the rules and
re gulations made under this Act.
(b) Record and report forms may be developed by the Department
showing the method of weather modification employed in the operation, the
type of equipment used, the kind and amount of each material used, the
times and places the equipment was operated, the times when there was
modifiable weather but the permittee did not operate and the reasons
therefor, the name and address of each individual, other than the
licensee, who participates or assists in the operation, the manner in
which operations do not conform to the conditions and limits of the
permit as established according to Section (17) (e) or as modified under
Section 21, weather observations and records specified by the Department
and any other necessary data the Department may require under its ru les
and regulations.
(c) The records and reports which are in the custody of the
Department and which have been filed with it under this Act or under the
rules and regulations made under this Act shall be kept open for public
examination as public documents.
B-10
Section 27. (State Immunity.) Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to impose or accept any liability or responsibility by the
State, its agencies and the of ficers and employees thereof for any injury
caused by any persons who conduct weather modification operations.
Section 28. (Liabili ty.)
(a) An operation conducted under the license and permit
requirements of this Act is not an ultrahazardous or an abnormally
dangerous activity �-;hich makes the licensee or permittee subject to
liability without fault.
(b) Dissemination of materials and substances into the atmosphere
by a permittee acting within the conditions and limits of his permit
shall not give rise to the contention that such use of the atmosphere
constitutes trespass.
(c) Except as provided in subsect ions (a) and (b) of this Section
and in Section 27 or this Act, nothing in this Act shall prevent any
person adversely af fected by a weather modi fication operation from
recovering damages resulting from intentional harm ful actions or
negligent conduct by a permittee.
(d) Failure to obtain a license and permit before conducting an
operation, or operational activities which knowingly constitute a
violation of the conditions or li mits of a permit, shall constitute
neg ligence per se.
(e) The fact that a person holds a license or was issued a permit
under this Act, or that he has complied with the rules and regulations
made by the Department pursuant to this Act, is not admissible as a
de fense in any legal action which may be brought against him.
Section 29. (Penalty for Violations.) Any person violating any of
the provisions of this Act or of any valid rule or reg ulation issued
under this Act is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, and each day such
violation continues constitutes a separate offense.
Section 30. (Suits to Recover Fines, Penalties or Fees.) All suits
for the recovery of any of the fines, penalties or fees prescribed in
this Act shall be prosecuted in the name of the "People of the State of
Illinois", in any court having jurisdiction, and it shall be the duty of
the State's Attorney of the county where such of fense if committed to
prosecute all persons violating the provisions of this Act upon proper
complaint being made. All fines, penalties and fees collected under the
provisions of this Act shall inure to the Department.
Section 31. (Injunction to Restrain Violations.) The Department
may, in its discretion, in addition to the remedy set forth in the
preceding Section, apply to a court having competent jurisdiction over
the parties and subject matter, for a writ of injunction to restrain
repetitious violations of the provisions of this Act.
B-11
B-12
Section 32. (Partial Invalidity.) If any portion of this Act is
held invalid, such invalidity shall not af fect any other part of this Act
which can be given ef fect without the invalid portion.
APPE NDIX C
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPA RTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION
RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ILLINOIS
WEATHER MODIFICATION CONTROL ACT
(As amended June 21, 1978)
FOREWORD:
These Rules are issued under the authority of Sections 6, 11, 12, 17, 20
and 26, Chapter 146 3/4, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1973, The Weather
Modification Control Act.
RULE 1 -CONCEPT OF RULES 1. Purpose of Rules:
These Rules are adopted to promote properly conducted weather
modi fication operations and research and development, to minimize
possible adverse effects from weather modification activities and to
facilitate the administration and enforecment of the Weather
Modification Control Act. These Rules shall be liberally construed
to carry out these objectives and purposes.
2. Use and Ef fect of Rules:
These Rules are presc ribed for the performance of the statutory
powers and functions vested in the Department of Registration and
Education. In no event shall any Rule or Rules be construed as a
limitation or restriction upon the exercise of any statutory power
of the Department.
3. Suspension or Modification of Rules:
These Rules may be suspended or modi fied by the Director of the
Department of Registration and Education, in whole or in part, in
the interest of Justice. The Department of Registration and
Education by and through the Director reserves the right to waive
compliance with any of these Rules whenever in the Director's
judgement, no party will be injured thereby.
4. Construction of Rules:
These Rules should not be construed to abrogate, modi fy or limit any
rights, privileges, or immunities granted or protected by the
C-1
Constitution or laws of the United States or the Constitution or
laws of the State of Il linois nor to deny any person life, liberty,
or property without due process of law.
RULE 2 -DEFINITIONS
As used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms
specified herein have the meanings ascribed to them herein or by the
Weather Modification Control Act, which ever shall be applicable, as same
may be, at any time or from time to time, amended.
1. Act or Weather Modi fication Control Act:
"Act" or "Weather Modification Control Act" means "An Act to
regulate weather modification in this State and amending certain
Acts therein named in connection therewith" (P.A. 78-674, effective
October 1, 1973), as same may at any time or from time to time, be
amended.
2. Weather Modification Apparatus:
"Weather Modification Apparatus" means any apparatus used with the
intention of producing artificial changes in the composition,
motions and resulting behavior of the atmosphere.
3. Sponsor:
"Sponsor" means any person who enters into an agreement with a
permittee to perform an operation.
4. Target Area:
"Target Area" means the surface area within which the effect s of an
operation are expected to be found.
5. Operations Area:
"Operations Area" means the area in which an op eration is conducted
to produce or attempt to produce the desired effect within the
target area.
6. Control Area:
"Control Area" means a preselected , untreated surface area in which
no effects are expected and which is used for comparison with a
target area.
C-2
7. Professional Level:
"Professional Level" means a level of responsibility for direct
supervision and co nduct of operations or substantial parts thereof.
8. Department's A dress:
628 East Adams Street, Springfield, Illinois 62786, or such other
address as shall at any time or from time to time, be designated by
the Director or his duly designated Representative.
RULE 3 -ADMINISTRATION
1. Di rec tor:
The powers and duties of the Department enumerated in the Illinois
Civil Administrative Code, where applicable, the Act and these Rules
shall be exercised by the Director.
2. Board:
Reports from the Board, except in emerge ncies, shall be in
writing. The Chairman of the Board shall be responsible for
forwarding to the Director reports from the Board promptly and for
keeping other members of the Board advised of pending business of
the Board. The Director shall act promptly upon receipt of reports
from the Board.
RULE 4 -HEARINGS 1. Hearings Required:
Except for emergency modifications of operational permits as
provided for in Section 21 (b) of the Act, before suspending,
revoking, refusing to renew or modifying a license or a permit, the
Department shall conduct a hearing in conformity with Section 8 of
the Act.
2. Stenographic Record:
The stenographic record of a hearing shall be retained for at least
five years. It need not be transcribed unless there is judicial
review of the final administrative decision under Section 25 of the
Act.
C-3
RULE 5 -LICENSE AND PERMIT REQUIRED 1. Requirement:
Except as provided in Subsection 2 of this Rule, no person may
engage in weather modification activities;
(a) Without both a professional weather modification license issued under Rule 6 and a weather modification operational permit issued under Rule 7; or
(b) In violation of any term, condi tion or limitation of such license or permit.
2. Exemptions:
The following activities are exempted from the license and permitrequirements of the Act:
(a) Research and development conducted by the State, its subdivisions and agencies of the State and of its sub divisions,
institutions of higher learning and bona fide research organizations;
(b) Activities for protection against fire, frost or fog; and (c) Activities normally conducted for purposes other than inducing ,
increasing, dec reasing or preventing hail, precipitation, clouds or tornadoes.
3. Conduct of Exempt Activities:
Exemp ted activities shall be so conducted as not to interfere with weather modification operations conducted under a permit issued in accordance with the Act and these Rules.
4. Notice of Exempt Activities:
Persons conducting exempted operations and research and development
shall file with the Department the original of a notice form
available from the Department and with the chairman of the Board at the Department's address a copy of the form indicating their intent
to eng age in such activities. Information from notice forms will be used in ascertaining the extent to which records should be kept for
exempted activities under Rule 8 (6) and reports should be filed on
such activities under Rule 9 (5). Notice forms will require the
following data:
(a) Name and address of the person giving notice;
(b) Name and address of the sponsor (if any) of the operation or
research and development;(c) Whether the activity is operational or research and
development;
(d) Nature and object of the activity;
C-4
C-5
(e) The legal description of and a map showing the operations area,
target area and control area, if the activity involves any such
areas;
(f) The approximate starting date of the activity and its
anticipated duration;
(g) The kind of weather modi fication agent(s) intended for use; and
(h) The kinds of weather modi fication apparatus which will be used.
iRULE 6 -LICENSES
1. Criteria for Issuance:
Issuance of licens es shall be based on the applicant's character,
knowledge of weather modi fication principles and techniques and
experience in their application. The following shall be the minimum
educational and experience criteria;
(a) A minimum of two years' field experience at the professional
level in weather modi fication field operations or research; and
(b) One of the following three requirements:
(1) Six additional years' experience in weather
modification field operations or research; or
(2) A degree in engineering, mathematics, or the physical
sciences plus two additional years' experience in weather
modification field operations or research; or
(3) A degree in meteorology, or a degree in engineering,
mathematics, or the physical sciences which include or is
in addition to at least twenty-five semester hours of
meteorological course work.
2. Application for License:
An applicant for a license shall fill out and file with the
Department the original of an ap plication form available from the
Department and a copy thereof with the Chairman of the Board at the
Department's address no later than thirty days before the ap plicant
plans to use the license. The form shall require relevant
information about the applicant's character, knowledge of weather
modification princi ples and experience in their application. Among
the data required is information about the applicant's:
(a) Educational background at the college and graduate level. This
includes the dates of attendance and of graduation, the major and
minor subjects (including the number of semester hours of
meteorological course work), the degrees received, and the titles of
any thesis and/or dissertation.
(b) Experience in weather modification or related activities.
Attention should be given to experience with reference to
meteorological conditions typical of Illinois. The applicant should
list the dates of each position held, the title of the position
(indicate whether it was of sub-p rofessional or professional level),
the name and add ress of the employer, a description of the work done
(indicate both the magnitude and com plexity of the work and the duties and degree of responsibility for the work), and the name and
add ress of the supervisor.
(c) Scienti fic or engineering society af filiations and the grade of
membership in and certi fication by each.
(d) Publications, patents and reports.(e) Th ree re ferences who will attest to the applicant's character,
knowledge of weather modi fication pr inciples and experience in their application.
(f) A list of al l jurisdictions in which the ap plicant has
previously filed ap plication for a professional weather modi fication
license. The outcome of such ap plications should be indicated. (g) A list of all law suits relating to weather modi fication from any jurisdiction in which the ap plicant was a party or where the
applicant was empl oyed by a party thereto at the time involved therein.
(h) Indication whether a professional weather modi fication license
issued to the ap plicant in any juri sdiction has ever been suspended,
revoked, placed on probationary status or subjected to any other disciplinary actions or whether there has been refusal to renew such
a license by any jurisdiction. If there has been any such
suspension, revocation, placement on pr obationary status or ot her
disciplinary action or ref usal to renew , the circumstances must be explained in full .
3. Procedure for Issuance:
The Department shall evaluate the ap plications, including the
responses from re ferences, and such other relevant data about
applicants as it possesses or discovers. The Department in its disc retion shall also have the right to inter view any ap plicant. On the basis of that inf ormation the Department shal l, within sixtydays of receipt of an ap plication, deter mine whether the applicant
meet s the educational and experience criteria established by
Subsection 1 of this Rule and whether the ap plicant possesses the
character, knowledge and experience necessary to engage in weather
modi fication operations. The Director shall issue a license to each applicant who pays the license fee established by Section 13 of the
Act and who demonst rates to the satis faction of the Depart ment the
com petence, by virtue of character, knowledge and experience,
necessary to engage in weather modi fication operations. If an applicant for a license does not pay the license fee established by
section 13 of the Act or does not demonstrate to the satis faction of
the Department the com petence, by virtue of character, knowledge and experience, neces sary to engage in weather modi fication operations,
the Department shall deny the application for the license.
C-6
4. Renewal of License:
Forty-five days before expiration of licenses the Department shall
mail license app lication forms to all licensees and request each
licensee to complete the form and file the original with the
Department and a copy with the Chairman of the Board at the
Department's address. The Department shall evaluate the available
data about the licensee and shall issue a renewal license within
thirty days of receipt of the application to each applicant who paysthe renewal fee established by Section 13 of the Act and who has the
qualifications necessary for issuance of an original license. The
Department shall deny a renewal license within thirty days of
receipt of the application of each applicant who does not pay the
renewal fee or who does not possess the qualifications necessary for
issuance of an original license.
RULE 7 -PERMITS
Criteria for Issuance:
A. Issuance of permits to conduct weather modification operations shall
be based on the following factors:
(a) The applicant holds, or if the applicant is an organization
rather than an individual, the individual who will be physically
present in Illinois in control of the operation and under whose
direction on a day-by-day basis it will be carried out holds, a
valid professional weather modification license issued under Section
12 of the Act and Rule 6;
(b) The applicant has furnished proof of financial responsibility
in accordance with Section 20 of the Act and under Rule 7 (6);
(c) The operation has technical and scientific feasibility and is
reasonably conceived to do all or any of the following: improve
water quality or quantity, reduce losses from weather hazards,
provide economic benefits for the people of the State, advance or
enchance scientific knowledge or otherwise carry out the objectives
and purposes of the Act and these Rules;
(d) The operation does not involve a high degree of substantial
risk to persons or property, is designed to include adequate
safeguards to minimize possible damage to the public health, safety
or welfare or to the environment and includes an emergency shutdown
procedure which states conditions under which operations must be
suspended because of possible danger to the public health, safety
and wel fare or to the environment;
(e) The operation will not adversely af fect another operation for
which a permit has been issued;
(f) The operation will not adversely affect any existing research
and development project exempted from the licensing and permit
requirements by Rule 5 (2) (a);
C-7
(g) The applicant has complied with the permit fee requirementestablished by Section 18 of the Act;
(h) The applicant has an acceptable plan for evaluation of the operation by using available surface data fran sources such as the United States Department of Agriculture county crop yield reports,
the United State Geological Survey stream flow gauges, the National Weather Service temperature and precipitation gauges and reports and the hail loss insurance records for the region; and
(i) The project conforms to such other criteria as are set forth in the objects and purposes of the Act and of these Rules.
B. Projects must meet the following requirements before permits will be issued:
(a) Facilities and Equipment -General
(1) Aircraft, .forecast facility, radar system, or any other
equipment must be capable of replacement or repair within 72 hours in case of failure.
(2) The permittee shall provide an "operational center," with space adequate for all personnel and equipment. He shall
record all aircraft-to-center-to-aircraft communications duringseeding operations. These tapes shall be retained for the
Department.
(b) Facilities and Equipment --Aircraft (1) Recognizing that the number of seeding aircraft is
critical, the permittee shall provide for warm season (March to October) projects one aircraft per 500 square miles for the
initial 1000 square miles and one aircraft for each 1000 squaremiles over the initial 1000 square miles if the intent of the
project is to attempt to modify all potential precipitation
elements in an area.
(2) Aircraft must be capable of both cloud-base seeding and mid-cloud seeding, with operational ceilings of up to 20,000
feet MSL. (3) Each aircraft shall be complete with modern safetyequipment and radio systems for communication with other
project aircraft and the radar center of the project in
conformance with the regulations of the Federal Aviation
Adm inistration. (4) Project aircraft positions during seeding shall be indicated on the radar scope and photographed at least once
every 5 minutes. Separate detailed records of aircraft
position shall also be kept by pilots.
(5) Seeding devices, whether pyrotechnics or other commercial
products, must document rated nuclei production output rates (tested within the past 2 years at Colorado State Universitylaboratory). Proof of safe usage and performance must be
offered. Equipment for carrying pyrotechnic flares shall be
comparable to those commonly used and proven in past
operations.
C-8
C -9
(c) Facilities and Equipment --Forecast System
(1) There shall be a weather forecast facility at the project
operational center containing a weather circuit teletype or
weather map facsimile machine or the data and in formation from
such equipment collected elsewhere and posted at least once
during each hour.
(2) Criteria invo lving specific atmos pheric conditions that
must be achieved in 1) declaring a potential seeded period
(alert), and 2) in deciding to launch a seeding mission will be
listed and described in detail.
3) Records shall be kept indicating how and what forecast and
radar data were used to choose an operational period and the
seeding method.
(4) Emergency shutd owns of operations must occur when severe
storm watches (for flash floods or tornadoes) are issued by the
National Weather Service for any or all parts of the operations
area; when the tops of any radar echoes in or within 20 miles
of the project area exceed 50,000 ft MSL; and/or when the
Project Director decides that damaging severe weather will
occur.
(d) Facilities and Equipment --Radar System
(1) There must be a 5-cm or 10-cm wavelength radar system for
directing operations and for recording all echoes in and around
the target area. Detailed operational logs are to be kept
showing times of all events, calibrations, problems, etc.
These logs are to be given to the Department. A calibration of
the radar must be performed at least once each month and
recorded on radar film.
(2) Radar operations and data collection must be conducted
until all echoes that existed in the target have dissipated or
disap peared from the scope, and ragardless for at least 60
minutes after seeding ends. Radar operations and data
collection shall precede all seeding operations by at least 60
minutes; however, this requirement shall not restrict or limit
the start of seeding operations when precipitation elements
develop unexpectedly in the project area.
(3) Radar scope photography at 1 ° or less antenna tilt, at 3 °
antenna tilt, and of the maximum echo top are to be taken not
less than every 10 minutes, using 16 mm or larger film. A copy
of this film shall be given to the Department. Signal
intensity differences (step gain or quantitative reflectivity
contours) are to be photographed every 10 minutes at the
specified elevations. Antenna tilt, time, date, range,
azimuth, gain setting (signal intensity), and any other
relevant data (such as any relectivity contours in use) are to
be indicated and clearly de picted on each scope photograph.
The scope for this photography shall be separate from the
operational scope. Scope tracings by the operator shall be
made at least every 20 minutes.
(4) All film shall be removed, developed, and reviewed weekly
to ensure the quality of photography.
(5) If there are 2 or more widely separate target areas, an
additional radar scope and an ad ditional operator shall be
provided.
(6) If a standard radar set is in use, coverage must extend
out 20 miles to the SW, W, NW, of any target area. All such
pre-target and target areas must be within 80 miles.
Otherwise, another radar must be provided.
(7) The radar for data collection shall not be located within
the target area unless suitable facilities do not exist within
25 miles of the target area.
(e) Personnel
(1) Project staff, including all meteorologists and personnel
who direct seeding operations, shall have the skill and
facilities needed to determine which of the possible seeding
methods should be invoked on any given weather situation.
(2) Project pilot s must have the experience and capability to
recognize aloft both cloud-base and cloud-top seeding
opportunities and to do both types of seeding, have evidence of
knowledge and experience in use of both techniques.
(3) Two people are to be working at the forca st-radar center
during all seeding operations. All must be trained and capable
of radar operations and in weather forecasting with training
equiva lent to an associate degree in atmos pheric sciences.
2. Application for Permit:
An applicant for a permit shall fill out and file with the
Department the original of an ap plication form available from the
Department and a copy thereof with the Chairman of the Board at the
Department's address no later than thirty days be fore the applicant
plans to use the permit. The form shall require relevant
in formation about the ap plicant and the proposed operation from
which the Department can make an informed judgement whether or not
to issue the permit and, in case of issuance of the permit, what
conditions and limitations should be placed upon it. Among the data
required is the following information about the applicant and the
project:
(a) Name and address of the ap plicant;
(b) Whether a weather modification operational permit issued to the
applicant in any jurisdiction has ever been suspended, revoked,
placed on probationary status or sub jected to any other disciplinary
action or whether there has been refusal to renew such a permit by
any jurisdiction. If there has been any such sus pension,
revocation, placement on probationary status or other disciplinary
action or refusal to renew, the circumstances must be explained in
full;
C-10
(c) If the applicant is a corporation, whether it is licensed to do
business in Illinois;
(d) Names, addresses and numbers of all professional licenses
issued under Section 12 of the Act and Rule 6 of the individuals in
control of the operation and under whose direction on a day-by-day
basis it will be carried out;
(e) Whether professional weather modi fic ation licenses issued to
such licensees in any jurisdiction have ever been suspended or
revoked or placed on probationary status or subjected to any other
disciplinary action or whether there has been refusal to renew such
licenses by any jurisdiction. If there has been any such
suspension, revocation, placement on probationary status or other
disciplinary action, or ref usal to renew, the circumstances must be explained in full;
(f) Whether proof of financial responsibility has been furnished in
ac(cordance with Section 20 of the Act and Rule 7 (6);
(g) If the operation will be conducted under a contract, the value
of the contract;
(h) If the operation will not be conducted under a contract, an
estimate of the costs of the operation and in formation as to how the
estimate was made;
(i) A copy of any promotional and advertising material used in
connection with negotiations for the contract with the sponsor (if
any);
(j) A complete and detailed operational plan for the operation
which includes:
(1) The nature and objects of the operation;
(2) The legal descri ption of and a map showing the operations
area, the target area and the control area (i f any);
(3) The approximate starting date of the operation and its
antici pated duration;
(4) The kind of seeding agent(s) intended for use and the
antici pated rate of their use;
(5) The kinds of weather modi fic ation apparatus which will be
used and the method(s) of seeding for which they will be used;
(6) An emergency shutdown procedure which st ates conditions
under which operations must be suspended bec ause of possible
danger to the public health, safety and welfare or to the
environment;
(7) The means by which the operation plans will be implemented
and carried out, such as the location of the main operational
office and any other of fices used in connection with the
operation, the location of such ground equipment as seeding
generators, radar and evaluation instrumentation, the number
and kinds of aircraft which will be used and the extent to
which weather data will be made available to the licensees and
other personnel carrying out the project; and
(8) How conduct of the operation will interact with other
projects;
C-1 1
(k) An acceptable plan for evaluation of the operation prepared in compliance with Rule 7 (1) (h); and
(1) Such additional infonnation as will assist the Department in
deciding whether or not to issue the pennit.
3. Procedure for Issuance:
The Department shall evaluate all fully executed applications, using
not only infonnation derived from the completed application fonns
and accompanying them but also such other relevant data about the
applicants and the proposed operations as it possesses or
discovers. The Department may give public notice by newspaper,
radio or television announcement in the area of the State reasonably
expected to be affected by operations conducted under a pennit that
it is considering an application or more than one application for a
pennit, and may hold a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining
infonnation from the public concerning the effects of issuing or
refusing to issue the pennit. The Department may issue a pennit in
response to an application for an operation if it detennines that
there has been substantial compliance with Section 17 of the Act and
Rule 7 (1). Otherwise it shall deny the application for the
pennit. The Department shall complete its action upon applications
within thirty days of receiving them.
4. Conditions and Limits of Pennit:
The pennittee shall confine weather modification activities within
the conditions and limits specified in the pennit and those imposed
by the Act and these Rules, except to the extent the conditions and
limits are modified by the Department. The Department may condition
and limit permits as to target area, time of the operation,
materials and methods to be used in conducting the operation,
emergency shutdown procedure and such other operational requirements
as may be established by the Department. The Department shall
condition and limit all pennits in the following respects:
(a) A pennit may cover only one operation;
(b) When an operation is conducted under contract, a separate
permit is required for each contract; and
(c) Only one permit will be issued at a time for operations in any
geographical area if two or more operations conducted within the
conditions and limits of the pennits might adversely interfere with
each other.
5. Duration of Permits:
Within thirty days of the end of each yearly pennit period the
permittee shall file a permit ap plication form available from the
Department, an original for the Depa rtment and a copy thereof for
C-12
the Chairman of the Board, at the address of the Department. The
Department shall complete its action upon ap plications within thirty
days of receiving them.
6. Proof of Financial Responsibility:
Proof of financial responsibility is made by showing to the
satisfaction of the Department that the permittee has the ability to
respond in damages to liability which might reasonably result from
the operation for which the permit is sought. Such proof of
financial responsibility may, but shall not be required to be, shown
by:
(a) Presentation to the Department of proof of purchase of a
prepaid noncancellable insurance policy or a corporate surety bond
issued by a company approved by the Department against whom service
of legal process may be made in Illinois against such liabilities in
an amount ten times the value of an operation conducted under
contract or in an amount ten times the estimated costs of an
operation not conducted under contract; or
(b) Depositing with the Department cash or negotiable securities in
an amount ten times the value of an operation conducted under
contract or in an amount five times the estimated costs of an
operation not conducted under contract.
7. Renewal of Permit:
At the expiration of the permit period, the Department shall issue a
renewal permit to each applicant who:
(a) At least thirty days before expiration of the permit period
files the original of a permit application form available from the
Department with the Department and a copy with the Chairman of the
Board at the Department's address;
(b) Meets the criteria for issuance of a permit under Section 17 of
the Act and Rule 7 (1), including payment of the permit fee; and
(c) Has an operational record which indicates that an original
permit would be issuable for the operation.
RULE 8 -RECORDS
1. Daily Log:
Each permittee must fill in and retain a daily log of weather
modification activities for each unit of weather modification
apparatus used during an operation. The log form which will be
available from the Department requires:
(a) Date of the weather modification activit,Y;
(b) Each aircraft flight track and location of each item of weather
modification apparatus during each modification mission. Maps may
be used;
C-13
(c) Local time when modification activity began and ended. For
intermittent operations, the start and end of the total sequence are
acceptable;
(d) Duration of operation of each unit of weather modification
apparatus, in hours and minutes;
(e) Descri ption of type of modi fication agent used;
(f) Rate of dis persal of agent during the period of actual
operation of weather modification ap paratus, by hour or other
appropriate time period;
(g) Total amount of modification agent used. If more than one
agent was used, report total for each type separately;
(h) Local time when any radar monitoring operation was turned on
and turned off;
(i) Type of clouds modified, that is whether they were strati form,
isolated cumuli form, organized cumuli form or other types of clouds;
(j) Remarks indicating such operational problems as equipment
failure, weather conditions not conducive to successful performance
of the operation, personnel problems and the like; and
(k) Monthly totals from daily logs listing the total:
(1) Days during month in which operation conducted;
(2) Time of operation;
(3) Amount of each kind of agent used;
(4) Average rate of dispersal of each kind of agent used;
(5) Time of operation of radar; and
(6) Days of each type of cloud treated.
2. Weather Records:
Each permittee must obtain and retain copies of all daily
precipitation total records available from the National Weather
Service stations in the target area and other sources.
3. Summary Records:
Each perm ittee must prepare a monthly summary of the monthly totals
from the daily logs of all units of weather modification apparatus
used during an operation.
4. Addresses of Participants:
Each permittee must keep a roster of the names and Illinois
addresses of all employees participating in the State on an
operation for which a permit has been issued.
5. Inspection:
Duly authorized agents of the Department shall have the power to
enter and inspect the records required by this Rule and to make
copies of them.
C-1 4
6. Exem pted Weather Modi fication Activities:
The Department may in its discretion require persons operating
weather modi fication activities exempted under Rule 5 (2) to keep
all or part of the records required of permittees by this Rule.
These records shall be kept in such manner as the Department may
indicate.
RULE 9 -REPORTS 1. Monthly:
Within ten days after the conclusion of each calendar month the
permittee shall submit a re port to the Department which shall
consist of:
(a) A copy of the summary record prepared under Rule 8 (3);
(b) A copy of the roster of the names and Illinois add resses of all
employees participating in the State on an operation which was
prepared under Rule 8 (4);
(c) A copy of the federal interim activity report form filed for
that month with the National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administ ration
in accordance with the rules adop ted under the authority of Public
Law 92-205; and
(d) A narrative account of the manner in which operations during
the month did not conform to the operational plan filed in
accordance with Rule 7 (2) (j).
2. Final:
Within thirty days after com pletion of the operation the permittee
shall file with the Department a final report on the operation which
shall consist of:
(a) Copies of the logs prepared in accordance with Rule 8 (1), of
the weather records obtained in accordance with Rule 8 (2) and of
the totals for the entire operational period from the monthly
summary records prepared under Rule 8 (3);
(b) A copy of the federal final activity report form filed with the
National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Ad ministration in accordance with
the rules adopted under the authority of Public Law 92-205; and
(c) A narrative account of the manner in which the operation did
not conform to the operational plan filed in accordance with Rule 7
(2) (j).
3. Evaluation:
Within sixty days after completion of the operation the permittee
shall file with the Department a narrative evaluation of the
C-15
operation. The data for this report should be assembled and
evaluated in accordance with the evaluation plan prepared in
compliance with Rule 7 (1) (h).
4. Reports to Sponsors:
The permittee shall. file with the Department a copy of all reports
made by the permittee to sponsors of the operation.
5. Exempted Weather Modi fication Activities:
The Department may in its discretion require persons operating
weather modification activities exempted under Rule 5 (2) but who
have been required under Rule 8 (6) to keep certain records to file
all or part of the reports required of permittees by this Rule.
These records shall be kept in such manner as the Department may
indicate.
6. Public Records:
All reports which are in the custody of the Department and which
have been filed with it under the Act or Rule 9 shall be kept open
for public examination as public documents during regular business
hours of the Department's office located at the Department's
address.
RULE 10 -PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any portion of these Rules is held invalid, such invalidity shall not
af fect any other part of these Rules which can be given effect without
the invalid portion.
C-16
APPENDIX D
The Council of State Governments'
Weather Modi fication Control Act
Weather modification technology has been applied during the past 25 years to enhance precipitation, suppress hail and fog, and otherwise
minimize adverse weather conditions. Al most two thirds of the states
have enacted some legislation relating to weather modi fication activities. These statutes vary widely in completeness and approach.
Most of them do not adequately address the issues created by use of weather modi fication technology.
The purpose of this suggested act is to provide a source which can
be drawn upon by states wishing to enact legislation or fill the gaps in weather control laws. Adoptions of portions of it will result in greateruniformity of weather modi fication control in the country. The act
establishes an administrative struct ure composed of a weather modi fication board as a division within an existing umbrella agency.
Power is delegated to administrators to regulate weather modification
through use of professional licenses for weather modifiers, operationalpermits for projects, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements to give the regulators and the public information. State and local agencies
are allowed to engage in weather modi fication operations , if funds are appropriated and they meet the lice nse and permit requirements.
Provisions are made for establishing the legal right to use runoff
resulting from precipitation enhancement and the legal liability of
weather modi fiers whose fault results in harm. This suggested act expands considerably upon the provisions of the
Weather Modification Act published in the 1953 volume of Suggested State Legislation. It has been taken from a draft weather control act preparedby Ray Jay Davis, Professor of Law, University of Arizona, with financial
support from an allotment grant to Arizona by the Of fice of Water
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of the Interior, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. A full report containing
the original draft legislation and a sect ion-by-section commentary on it may be obtained from the College of Law, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona 85721.
D-1
Sug gested Legislation
(Title, enacting clause, etc.)
Article 1
[General Provisions]
Section 101. [Short Title.] This act may be cited as the [state]
Weather Modification Control Act.
Section 102. [Definitions.] As used in this act:
(1) "Commis sion" means the [state] Water Commission.
(2) "Director" means the executive director of the [state]Water Commis sion.
(3) "Board" means the Weather Modific ation Advi sory Board
appointed pursuant to this act.
(4) "Weather modi fic ation" means any activity performed with
the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition,
motions, and resulting behavior of the atmosphere or clouds within the
atmosphere, including fog, by placing or attempting to place any
substance in the atmos phere or clouds within the atmosphere, including
fog, or inducing changes in the atmosphere by use of electrical devices
to charge the atmos phere, by lasers, or by alterations of the earth's
surface. "Weather modification" does not mean any activity performed in
connection with American Indian ceremonies.
(5) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, any state
or local government or any agency thereof, or any other organization,
whether commercial or nonp rofit, performing weather modification
operations or research and development, exc ept where acting solely as an
employee, agent, or independent contractor of the federal government or
any agency thereof. "Person" does not include the federal government or
any agency thereof .
(6) "Operation" means the performance of any weather
modi fication activity undertaken for the purpose of producing or
attempting to produce any form of modi fying ef fect upon the weather
within a specif ied geographical area over a specified time interval.
(7) "Research and development" means exploration, field
experimentation, and extension of investi gative findings and theories of
a scientific or technical nature for purposes that may lead to practical
application for experimental or demonstration purposes, including the
experimental production and testing of models, agents, apparatus, and
proces ses.
(8) "License" means a professional license issued by the
commission indicating that a specified person has met the criteria for
certi fication as a weather modifier and is approved to conduct weather
modi fication operations for which pemits may be issued under this act.
D-2
(9) "Licensee" means a person who holds a professional weather
modification license issued under this act.
(10) "Permit" means an operational permit issued by the commission indicating that approval has been given for conducting a
specified weather modification operation during a specified period of
time within the state, subject to the conditions and within the
limitations established under this act.
(11) "Permittee'' means a person who holds an operational
permit issued under this act.
(12) "Sponsor" means any person who enters into an agreement
with a permitee to have weather modification activities performed.
(13) "Target area" means the sur face area within which the
effects of weather modification activities are intended to be found.
(14) "Operations area" means the area in which weather
modi fication activities are conducted to produce or attempt to produce
the desired effects within the target area.
(15) "Control area" means a selected, untreated surface area
in which no effects of weather modification activities are expected and
which is used for comparison with a target area.
(16) "Professional level" means a level of responsibility for
direct supervision and conduct of operations or substantial parts
thereof.
Article 2
[Administrative Provisions]
Section 201. [Administration.]
(a) The powers and duties enumerated in this act shall be exercised
in the name of the commission.
(b) The director shall exercise the powers and duties enumerated in
this act, except those enumerated in Section 202.
(c) The board shall assist the director by making recommendations
concerning:
(1) Administration of and amendments to this act.
(2) Research and development
(3) Governmental operations
(4) Rules and regulations developed pursuant to this act.
(5) Notice, application, record, and report forms.
(6) Issuance, renewal, suspension, revocation, refusal to
renew, and restoration of licenses.
(7) Issuance, renewal, duration, scope, modi fication,
suspension, revocation, refusal to renew, and restoration of permits.
(8) Investigation and evaluation of operations.
(9) Other matters as may be requested by the director.
Section 202. [Weather Modification Ad visory Board .]
(a) The Weather Modification Ad visory Board is estab lished,
composed of five residents of the state appointed by the governor.
D-3
Members of the board as a group shal l have quali fications and practical
experience in agriculture, law, meteorology, and water resources. (b) The governor shall appoint one member of the board to a term of two years, two members to terms of four years, and two members to terms of six years, commencing on the date this act takes ef fect. After
expiration of the terms of the members first appointed pursuant to this
act, each of their respective successors shal l hold of fice for a term of six ye ars and until their successors are appoin ted and qualified.
Members of the board shal l be eligible for reap pointment. (c) The chairman of the board shall be designated by the director
from among the members.
(d) Each member of the board shal l be reimbursed for actual and
necessary expenses incurred in performance of the functions of the board. (e) The board shal l hold an annu al meeting at [date] and other meetings at times and places and upon notice as the board maydetermine. Three members of the board cons titute a quoru m for performance of its functions. The chairman of the board may contact
other members of the board by telephone and they may conduct their business, except for the annual meeting, by te lephone conference call.
(f) A record shal l be main tained of all proceedings of the board. The record shall indicate which members of the board participated in the
business of the board, what actions the board took, and how the members
participating voted. This record shall be avai lab le for public
ins pection as a public document.
Section 203. [Governmental Operations.]
(a) Any county, city, town, district, au thority, or other publicbody, agency, or political subdivision which has the power to produce,
conserve, control, or supply water for beneficial purposes or to operate
transportation facilities shall have the power, subject to this act, to
expend its funds for and to engage in operations for the general benefit
of the territory served by it.
(b) The commission may carry on operations and research and development activities by its own staff, by contract with permittees, or
in cooperation with other agencies or persons.
(c) The commission may receive and accept any gift, grant, funds,
or property from the federal government, or from the state or any other federal or state pub lic body or political subdivision, or from any person
and may expend the funds for the expense of administration of this act, inc luding conducting operations and research and development activi ties
under subsection (b) of this section.
Section 204. [Interstate Re lations.]
(a) The commission may represent the state in matters pertaining to plans, procedures, or neg otiations for interstate compacts re lating to
weather modi fication. (b) The commission may represent the state in organizations
concerned with weather modification, regu lation of weather modification,
or allocation of benefits and losses from weather modification.
D-4
(c) The com mission may represent the state in matters pertaining to
plans, procedures, or negotiations with agencies of the federal
government relating to weather modi fication.
(d) In exercising the powers and duties enumerated in this act, the
commission may consider the ef fect outside [state] which ap pears likely
to occur as the consequence of weather modi fication operations and
research and development activities conducted in [state].
(e) Weather modification operations and research and development
activities conducted in [state] which are intended to affect the weather
in a target area in another jurisdiction are pr ohibited, except upon full
compliance with the laws of that jurisdiction as well as the provisions
of this act.
Section 205. [Regulations and Forms.] In order to ef fectuate the
objectives and purposes of this act, the com mission shall adopt, amend or
rescind reasonable rules, regulations and forms.
Section 206. [Hearings.]
(a) Except for emergency modi fications of operational permits as
provided in Section 409 (b), be fore suspending, revoking, refusing to
renew, or modifying a license or a permit, the commission shall afford
the licensee or permittee an opportunity for hearing. The notice of
hearing shall be served on the licensee or permittee at least 10 days
prior to the date set for the hearing, either by delivery of the notice
personally to the licensee or permittee or by mailing it by registered
mail to his last known place of business.
(b) The notice shall include:
(1) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing.
(2) A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under
which the hearing is to be held.
(3) A reference to the particular sections of this act and to
the rules made under it which are involved.
(4) A statement of the reasons for the hearing.
(c) The commission and the licensee or permittee shall be af forded
ample opportunity to respond and present, in person or by counsel,
statement, testimony, evidence, and argument as may be pertinent to all
issues involved.
(d) In formal dis position may be made of any contested case by
stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or de fault.
(e) In contested cases the matter shall be heard by a hearing
of ficer who shall conduct the hearing in accordance with the procedure
establi shed by [appropriate state statute].
(f) The record in a contested case shall include:
(1) A copy of the notice of hearing and all pleadings,motions, and interlocutory rulings.
(2) Evidence received or considered.
(3) A statement of matters of ficially noticed.
(4) Objections and of fers of proof and rulings thereon.
(5) Prop osed findings and exceptions.
D-5
(6) The decision and any opinion or report by the hearing
officer presiding at the hearing.
(7) All staff memoranda, other than privileged communications,
and data submitted to the hearing officer in connection with his consideration of the case.
(g) Oral proceedings or any part thereof shall be recorded manually
or by a recording device and shall be transcribed on request of any
party. The cost of the transc ript shall be paid by the party making the
request, unless assessment of the cost is waived by the commission .
(h) Findings of fact shall be listed in a written report by the hearing of ficer. Findings shall be based exclusively on the evidence and
on matters officially noticed. The report shall also state what action
the hearing officer recommends the commission take with respect to the
license or permit in question.
(i) The final administrative action in contested cases shall be
made by the director on behalf of the commission.
Section 207. [Inves tigations.]
(a) The commission shall have the power to investigate the
operations and research and development activities of any person holding
or claiming to hold a license or a permit issued under this act.
(b) Duly authorized agents of the commission shall have the power
to enter peacefully and to make reasonable inspections of any place in
which there is reasonable belief that operations or research and
development activities are taking place, in which operations or research
and development activities are in fact taking place, and the business
premises of any person holding a permit issued under this act.
Section 208. [License and Permit Requirements.]
(a) Except as provided in subse ctions (b) and (c) of this section,
no person may engage in operations or research and development activities
unless such person acts under, and in accordance with, a license and a
permit issued under this act.
(b) The following operations and research and development
activities are exempt from the license and permit requirements of this
act:
(1) Activities for protection against frost perpetuated and
contained within the limits of the area to be protected.
(2) Operations conducted by the commission under the authority
of Section 203.
(c) The following operations and research and development
activities may be exemp ted by the com mission through rules and
regulations from the license and permit requirements of this act or
payment of fees in connection with the license and permit requirements of
this act:
(1) Research and development conducted by the state and its
subdivisions, agencies of the state and its subdivisions, institutions of
higher learning, and nonprofit research organizations.
D-6
D-7
(2) Activities normally conducted for purposes other than
inducing, increasing, decreasing, preventing, or otherwise altering hail,
precipitation, clouds, fog, cyclonic storms, or lightning.
(d) Except when aut horized by the com mission, operations and
research and development act ivities exempted from license and permit
requirements shall be conducted so as not to interfere with weather
modi fication operations conducted under a permit issued under this act.
(e) Persons conducting exempted operations and research and
development activities, other than act ivities for protection against
frost, shall give the commission notice of their intent to engage in such
activities so the com mission can determine to what extent, if any, it
will require them to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under Article 5 of this act. Notice shall be given by use
of a form which shall be developed by and made available from the
commission. The form will require the following data as a minimum:
(1) Name and address of the person giving notice.
(2) Name and address of the sponsor, if any.
(3) Whether the activity is operational or research and
development.
(4) Nature and object of the activity.
(5) A map showing the operations area, target area, and
control area, if the activity involves any such area.
(6) The ap proximate starting date of the activity and its
anticipated duration.
(7) The kind of weather modi fication agent(s) intended for
use.
(8) The kinds of weather modi fication apparatus which will be
used.
Article 3
[Licenses]
Section 301. [Licensing Criteria.]
(a) Issuance of licenses shall be based on the applicant's
character, knowledge of weather modi fication principles and techniques,
experience in their application, and related education.
(b) In order to ef fectuate the objectives and purposes of this act,
the commission shall make reasonable rules and regulations defining the
character, knowledge, experience, and educational criteria for issuance
of licenses.
Section 302. [Application for License.]
(a) The commission shall prepare a license application form which
shall be designed to obtain data concerning the applicant's conformity
with the licensing criteria estab lished by Section 301 and rules and
regulations made under it.
(b) Among the data required by the form is information about the
applicant's:
(1) Educational background at the college and graduate level. (2) Experience in weather modi fication or related activities,
including indication as to what positions were held at the professionallevel.
(3) Scientific or engineering society af filiations and the grade of membership in and certification by each.
(4) Publications, patents, and reports.(5) Re ferences who will attest to the applicant's character, knowledge, experience, and education.
Section 303. [Licensing Procedure.]
(a) The commission shall evaluate license applications, includingthe responses from re ferences, and other relevant data about applicants
it possesses or discovers in order to determine whether applicants have
the character, knowledge, experience, and education necessary to engagein operations.
(b) In order to ef fectuate the purposes of this act, the commission shall make reasonable rules and regulations establishing procedures for
evaluation of the ch aracter, knowledge, experience, and education of applicants.
(c) The commission shall issue a license to each applicant who pays
the license fee established by Section 304 and who meets the criteria
established by this article and rules and regulations made under it for
issuance of a license.
(d) The commission shall deny a license to any applicant who fails to pay the license fee established by Section 304 or who fails to meet
these criteria established by this article and rules and regula tions made
under it for issuance of a license.
Section 304. [License Fee.] The fee for an original license is
$[100]. The fee for a renewal license is $[20].
Section 305. [Duration of License.] Each original or renewal license
shall expire on [September 30] of each year.
Section 306. [Renewal of License.]
(a) Forty-five days before expiration of licenses, the commission shall mail license renewal application forms to all licensees and request
them to complete the forms and return them with the renewal fee if they
wish to have their licenses renewed. (b) In order to ef fectuate the purposes of this act, the commission
shall make reasonable rules and regulations establishing criteria and
procedures for renewal of licenses. (c) The commission shall issue a renewal license to each applicant
who pays the renewal license fee and who meets the criteria established
by this article and rules and regulations made under it for renewal of a
license.
D-8
Section 307. [Suspension, Revocation, Refusal to Renew a License.]
The commission may suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license for any
one or any combination of the following causes:
(1) Incompetency.
(2) Dishonest practice.
(3) False or fraudulent representation in obtaining a license
or permit under this act or rules and regulations made under the
authority of this act.
(4) Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this act
or of rules and regulations made under the authority of this act.
(5) Aiding other persons who fail to comply with any of the
provisions of this act or rules and regulations made under the authority
of this act.
Section 308. [Restoration of License.] At any time after the
suspension or revocation of a license or after refusal to renew a
license, the com mission may restore it to the licensee upon a finding
that the requirements for issuance of an original license have been met
by the licensee.
Article 4
[Permits]
Section 401. [Permit Criteria.]
(a) Issuance of permits to conduct weather modification operations
shall be based on the following factors:
(1) The applicant holds or, if the applicant is an
organization rather than an individual, the individual who will be
physically present in control of the operation holds a valid professional
weather modi fication license issued under Section 303(c).
(2) The applicant has furnished proof of financial
responsibility in accordance with Section 405.
(3) The operation is reasonably conceived to improve water
quality or quantity, reduce losses from weather hazards, provide economic
benefits for the people of the state, advance or enhance scientific
knowledge, or otherwise carry out the objectives and purposes of this
act.
(4) The operation does not involve a high degree of
substantial risk to persons or property, includes adequate safeguards
designed to avoid possible damage to the public health, safety, or
wel fare, or to the environment, and includes an emergency shutdown
procedure which states conditions and establishes procedures under which
operations must be suspended because of possible danger to the public
health, sa fety, or welfare or to the environment.
(5) The operation will not adversely af fect another operation
for which a permit is under consideration or has been issued or any
existing research and development project exempted from the licensing and
permit requirements by Section 208(b) or (c).
D-9
(6) The applicant has complied with the permit fee requirement established by Section 404.
(7) The applicant has knowledge of any federal rules or
regu lations applicable to weather modi fication activities.
(8) The operation conforms to criteria established by rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
(b) In order to ef fectuate the purposes of this act, the commission shall make reasonable rules and reg ulations de fining the criteria for issuance of permits.
Section 402. [Application for Permit.](a) The commission shall prepare a permit application form which shall be designed to obtain data concerning the applicant's and
operation's con formity with the criteria for issuing permits established
by Section 401 and rules and regulations made under it.
(b) Among the data required by the form is in formation about the
applicant and the operation such as:
(1) Name and address of the applicant.
(2) Name, address, and license number of the individual who will be physically present and in control of the operation.
(3) Proof of financial responsibility in accordance with Section 405.
(4) If the operation will be conducted under a contract with a sponsor, the contract price.
(5) If the operation will not be conducted under a contract, an estimate of the costs of the operation and in formation as to how the
estimate was made.
(6) A copy of any promotional and advertising material used in conn ection with negotiations or solicitation of the contract with the
sponsor.
(7) A complete and detailed operational plan for the operation.
(8) Such additional information as will assist the commission
in deciding whether or not to issue the permit.
Section 403. [Permit Issuance Procedure.]
(a) The commission shall evaluate all fully executed applications,
using not only information derived from the completed application forms
and materials accompanying them, but also other relevant data about the
applicants and operations as it possesses or discovers, in order to determine whether applicants and operations meet the criteria necessary
to engage in operations.(b) The commission may hold a public hearing to obtain further
in formation concerning the ef fects of issuing or refusing to issue a
permit. The commission shall give notice to the public of such a hearing
by newspaper, radio, or television announcement in the area of the state
reasonably expected to be af fected by operations conducted under a permit
for which an application has been made. If no hearing is held, public
notice of a proposed activity shall be given in the area of concern.
D-1 0
(c) In order to ef fectuate the purposes of this act, the commission
shall make reasonable rules and regulations establishing procedures for
evaluation of applicants for permits and of the operations for which
permits are sought.
(d) The commission may isssue a permit to each applicant who pays
the permit fee established by Section 404 and who meets the criteria
established by this artic le and ru les and regulations made under it.
(e) The com mission shall deny a permit to any applicant who fails
:to pay the permit fee established by Section 404 or who fails to meet the criteria established by this article and rules and regulations made under
it. The action of the director on behalf of the commission shall be the
final administrative action of the commission in denial of a permit.
Section 404. [Permit Fee.] The fee for each permit or renewal shall
be a mimimum of $[100]. If the operation will be conducted under
contract and the value of the annual contract is more than $[10,000], the
fee for the permit or renewal shall be the equivalent of [1] percent of
the value of the contract up to a maximum fee of $[500]. The costs of
the operation shall be estimated by the com mission from in formation
provided in the application for the permit or renewal and other
in formation as may be available to the com mission.
Section 405. [Financial Responsibility.] Proof of financial
responsibi lity is made by showing to the satisfaction of the com mission
that the permittee has the ability to respond to damages which might
reasonably be expected to result from the operation for which the permit
is sought. Proof of financial responsibility may be shown by
presentation to the com mission of proof of purchase of a prepaid,
noncancel lable insurance policy or a corporate sur ety bond by a company
against whom service of legal process may be made in [state] in an amount
established by the commission.
Section 406. [Duration of Permit.] Except as otherwise provided,
each permit or renewal permit shall expire [one] year from the date of
issue. The commission may condi tionally approve an operation for a
continuous period not to exceed [four] years. Permits for conditionally
approved operations must be renewed annu ally.
Section 407. [Renewal of Permit.] At the expiration of the one-year
permit period, the commission shall issue a renewal permit to each
applicant who:
(1) Files a permit application form with the commission.
(2) Meets the criteria for issuance of a permit under Section
401, including payment of the permit fee.
(3) Has an operational record which indicates that an original
permit would be issuable for the operation.
D-11
Section 408. [Scope of Permit.]
(a) The permittee shall confine weather modification activities
within the conditions and limits specified in the permit and those
imposed by this act and rules and regulations made pursuant to it, except
to the extent the con ditions and limits are modified by the commission.
(b) The commission may condition and limit permits to target area,
time of operation, materials and methods to be used in conducting the
operation, emergency shutdown procedures, and other operational
requirements deemed appropriate by the com mission.
(c) The commission shall condition and limit all permits in the following respects:
(1) A permit may cover only one operation.
(2) When an operation is conducted under contract, a separate
permit is required for each contract.
(3) Only one permit will be issued at a time for operations in
any geographical area if, in the judg ment of the commission, two or more
oper ations conducted within the conditions and limits of the permits
might adversely interfere with each other.
Section 409. [Modi fication of Permit.]
(a) The commission may revise the conditions and limits of a permit
if:
(1) The permittee is given notice and a hearing, in accordance
with Section 206, on whether there is a need for the revision.
(2) The commission finds that a modification of the conditions
and limits of a permit is necessary to protect the pub lic health and
safety or the environment.
(b) If it appears to the commission that an emergency situation
exists or is impending which could endanger the pub lic safety, health, or
welfare, or the environment, the commission may, without prior notice or
hearing, immediately modify the conditions and limits of a permit or
order temporary suspension of the permit. The order shall include notice
of a hearing to be held within [10] days on the question of permanently
modi fying the conditions and limits, continuing the suspension of the
permit, removing the changes, or lifting the suspen sion.
(c) Failure to comply with an order temporarily suspending an
operation or modifying the conditions and limits of a permit shall be
grounds for immediate revocation of the permit and of the license of the
person controlling the operation.
(d) The permittee shall notify the commission of any emergency
which can reasonably be foreseen, or of any existing emergency situations
which might be caused or af fected by the operation. Failure by the
permittee to notify the commission may be grounds, at the discretion of
the commission, for revocation of the permit and of the license of the
person controlling the operation.
D-12
Section 410. [Suspension, Revocation and Refusal to Renew Permit.]
(a) The commission may suspend or revoke a permit if it appears
that the permittee no longer has the qualifications necessary for the issuance of an original permit or has violated any provision of this act
or of any rules or regulations made pursuant to it.
(b) The commission may refuse to renew a permit if it appears from
the operational records and reports of the permittee that an original
permit would not be issuable for the operation, or if the permittee has
violated any provision of this act or of any rules or regulations made
pursuant to it.
Section 411. [Restoration of Permit.] At any time after the
suspension or revocation of a permit or ref usal to renew a permit, the
commission may restore it to the permittee upon a finding that the
requirements for issuance of an original permit have been met by the
permit tee.
Article 5
[Records and Reports]
Section 501. [Records.]
(a) In order to ef fect uate the purposes of this act, the commi ssion
shall make reasonable rules and regulations requiring persons conducting
weather modification operations in [state] to keep records in the manner
and form required by the commission. The commission also may, by
appropriate rule, require recordkeeping for operations and research and
development activities exempted from the license and permit requirements
of this act by Section 208(b) and (c).
(b) The commission shall develop and supply to permittees and other
persons required to keep records by rules and regulations made pursuant
to subsection (a) of this sect ion, record forms which shall be designed
to facilitate recording data about weather modification activities.
(c) Among the data required by such forms is the following
information:
(1) Date of the activity.
(2) Position and location of each item of weather modi fication
apparatus being used.
(3) Time when the the weather modi fication activity began and
ended.
(4) Type, dispersal rate, method of dispersal, and amount of
all weather modification agents used.
(5) Weather conditions.
(6) Instances when there was weather of types similar to those
which the permittee is attempting to modi fy but in which there was no
attempt to modi fy, and the reasons therefor.
(7) The na mes and addresses of all individuals participating
at the professional level in the operation or research and development.
D-13
(8) Other information which will assist the commission in the
per formance of its duties and res ponsibilities under this act.
Section 502. [Reports.]
(a) In order to ef fectuate the purposes of this act, the commission
shall make reasonable rules and regulations requiring persons conducting
weather modification operations to make reports to the commission in the
manner and form required by the commission. The Commission also may, by
approp riate rule, require reporting for operations and research and
development activities exempted from the license and permit requirements
of this act by Section 208(b) and (c).
(b) The commission shall develop and supply to permittees and other
persons required to make reports by rules and regulations made pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section, report forms which will facilitate
reporting data, including that recorded in accordance with Section 501
and rules and regulations made under it.
(c) Reports in the custody of the com mission which have been filed
under the requirements of this act or under rules and regulations made
pu rsuant to it shall be kept open for public inspection as public
documents.
Article 6
[Judicial Provisions]
Section 601. [Judicial Review.]
(a) All final administrative decisions of the commission are
subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of [appropriate
state statute]. The term "administrative decision" is de fined as in
[appropriate state statute].
(b) Proceedings for judicial rev iew shall be commenced in the
superior court of the county in which the party applying for review
resides. If the party is not a resident of [state] the venue shall be in
the Superior Court of [ ] County.
Section 602. [Immunity.] Nothing in this act shall be construed to
impose or accept any liability or res ponsibility by the state, the
comm ission, and the of ficers and empl oyees of the state and the
commission for any injury caused by persons granted permits under this
act or exempt from the permit requirement under Section 208(b) and (c).
Section 603. [Liability.]
(a) An operation or research and development activity conducted
under the license and permit requirements of this act or exempt from them
is not an ultrahazardous or an abnormally dangerous activity.
(b) Dissemination of weather modi fication agents into the
atmosphere or clouds within the atmosphere, including fog, by a licensee
D-14
or a person exempt from the license and permit requirements of this act
acting within the scope of the permit or exemption shall not in itself
give rise to a cause of action.
(c) Excep t as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and in Section 604, nothing in this act shall prevent any person
adversely af fected by a weather modi fication operation or research and
development activity from recovering damages resulting from inten tional
harm ful actions or negligent conduct by a person conducting weather
modi fication operation or research and development activity.
(d) Other than in legal actions charging failure to obtain a
license and permit, the fact that a person holds a license or was issued
a permit under this act, or that a person has complied with the rules and
regulations made by the com mission pursuant to this act, is not
admissible as a defense in any legal action which may be brought under
this section against that person.
Section 604. [Penalty for Violations.] Any person violating any of
the provisions of this act or of any valid rule or regulation issued
under this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, and each day the violation
continues constitutes a separate offense.
Section 605. [Suits to Recover Fees.] The commission shall have
power to commence suit for the recovery of any fees due under the
provisions of this act but unpaid.
Section 606. [Injunction.] The commission may , at its discretion, in
addition to the other remedies provided in this act, apply to a sup erior
court having venue and jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain
repetitious violations of the provisions of this act and of any valid
rule or regulation promulgated by the commission pursuant to this act.
D-15
APPENDIX E
Agreement Between the United States of America
and Canada Relating to the Exchange of
Information on Weather Modification Activities
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of
Canada,
Aware, because of their geographic proximity, that the effects of
weather modification activities carried out by either Party or its
national s may affect the territory of the other;
Noting the diversity of weather modification activities in both the
United States and Canada by private parties, by State and Pr ovincial
authorities, and by the Federal Governments;
Believing that the existing state of knowledge warrants the
expe ctation of further development over a period of time in the science
and technology of weather modification;
Taking into particular consideration the special traditions of prior
notification and consultation and the close cooperation that have
historically characterized their relations;
Believing that a prompt exchange of· pertinent information regarding
the nature and extent of weather modification activities of mutual
interest may facilitate the development of the technology of weather
modification for �heir mutual be nefit;
Recognizing the desirability of the development of international law
relating to weather modification activities having transboundary effects;
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I
As used in this Agreement:
(a) "Weather modification activities", means activities performed
·with the intention of producing artificial changes in the
composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere;
(b) "Weather modification activities of mutual interest" means
weather modification activities carried out in or over the
territory of a Party within 200 miles of the international
boundary; or such activit�es wherever conducted, which, in the
judgment of a Party, may significantly affect the composition,
behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere over the territory of
the other Party;
(c) "Responsible agencies" means the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration of the United States and the
Atmospheric Environment Service of Canada, or such other
agencies as the Parties may designate;
E-1
(d) "Reporting requirements" means the requirements established bythe domestic laws or regulations of the Parties for reporting
to the responsible agencies information relating to weather
modi fication activities by persons or entities engaged in weather modi fication.
ARTICLE II
(1) Information relating to weather modification activities of mutual interest acquired by a responsible agency through its reporting
requirements or otherwise, shall be transmitted as soon as
practicable to the responsible agency of the other Party.
Whenever possible, this information shall be transmitted prior to
the commencement of such activities. It is anticipated that such
information will be transmitted within five working days of its receipt by a responsible agency.
(2) Information to be provided by the responsible agencies shall
include copies of relevant reports received through the reportingprocedures after the effective date of this Agreement, and such other in formation and interpretation as the responsible agency
might consider appropriate.
(3) Nothing herein shall be construed to require transmission to the
other responsible agency of information, the disclosure of which
is prohibited by law, or of information which, in the judgment of the responsible agency, is proprietary infor mation.
ARTICLE III
The responsible agencies shall consult with a view to developing compatible reporting formats, and to improving procedures for the
exchange of information.
ARTICLE IV
In ad dition to the exchange of information pursuant to Article II of
this Agreement, each Party agrees to notify and to fully inform the other
concerning any weather modification activities of mutual interest
conducted by it prior to the commencement of such activities. Every
effort shall be made to provide such notice as far in advance of such activities as may be possible, bearing in mind the provisions of Article
V of this Agreement.
E-2
ARTICLE V
The Parties agree to consult, at the request of either Party,
regarding particular weather modifi cation activities of mutual interest.
Such consultations shall be initiated promptly on the request of a Party,
and in cases of urgency may be undertaken through telephonic or other
rapid means of communication. Consultations shall be carried out in
light of the Parties' laws, regulations, and ad ministrative practices
regarding weather modi fication.
ARTICLE VI
The Parties recognize that extreme emergencies, such as forest
fires, may require im mediate commencement by one of them of weather
modi fication activities of mutual interest notwithstanding the lack of
suf ficient time for prior notification pursuant to Article IV, or for
consultation pursuant to Article v. In such cases, the Party commencing
such activities shall notify and fully inform the other Party as soon as
practicable, and shall promptly enter into consultations at the request
of the other Party.
ARTICLE VII
Nothing herein relates to or shall be construed to affect the
question of responsibility or liability for weather modification
activities, or to imply the existence of any generally applicable rule of
international law.
ARTICLE VIII
Each Party shall conduct an annual review of this Agreement while it
remains in force, and shall inform the other of its views regarding the
Agreement's operation and ef fectiveness and the desirability of its
amendment to reflect the evolution of the science and technology of
weather modification and of international law . The Parties shall meet
periodically, by mutual agreement, or at the request of either, to review
the implementation of this Agreement or to consider other issues related
to weather modi fication.
E-3
ARTICLE IX
This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature. It may be
amended by mutual agreement of the Parties and may be terminated by
either Party upon six months written notice to the other Party.
E-4
APPENDIX F
The Management of Weather Resources
Volume I
Proposals for a National Policy and Program
This 229 page document, a Report to the Secretary of Commerce from the
Weather Modification Advisory Board, accompanies this report as a
separate volume. It was published on Jun e 30, 1978. A limited number
of copies are available from the Atmospheric Programs Office (RD2),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 6010 Executive Blvd.,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies are also for sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock Number 003-018-00090-3).
F-1
APPENDIX G
The Management of Weather Resources
Volume II
The Role of Statistics in Weather Resources Management
This 106 page document, a Report of the Statistical Task Force to the
Weather Modification Advisory Board, accom panies this report as a
separate volume. It was publis hed on June 30, 1978. A limited number
of copies are available from the Atmos pheric Programs Office (RD2),
National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, 6010 Executive Blvd.,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies are also for sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govermnent Printing Of fice,
Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock Number 003-018�00091-l).
G-1
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0 -307-535