Science, and transportation united states senate

last of which covers projects which were actively in progress at some

time during calendar year 1975. 35 (A summary report incorporating

similar activities for calendar years 1976 and 1977 is in preparation by

NOAA.) For convenience, the NOAA summary reports include data

on Federal research projects as well as all U.S. non-Federal projects

although the law requires only reporting of the latter category of

activities.

Analysis of calendar year 1975 projects

The total listing of both non-Federal and Federal U.S. weather

modification projects conducted during 1975 and appearing in the

latest XOAA summary report 36 appeal's in appendix G. Of the 85

projects reported in 1975, 12 were completed early in the year, but 12

similar projects were reinstated later the same year at the same loca-

tions. Furthermore, two U.S. Air Force operational projects in Alaska

were replaced during the same year by a single project. Of the 72 non-

duplicative projects in as many separate locations, 58 were nonfed-

erally sponsored and the Federal Government sponsored 14. This

division and the breakdown of the 72 projects by numbers in various

categories of initiation, completion, and continuation during 1975 are

shown in table 4. Tables 5 and 6 give numbers of projects carried out

according to various types of operators and according to kinds of

sponsors, respectively. Some activities, such as fog dispersal projects

at airports, have multiple sponsors, as several airlines, for example,

may enter into joint funding arrangements. Of the 80 distinct sponsors

in table 6, at least 13 are public at the State and local level if the four

categories — municipal districts. States, cities, and counties — are com-

bined. At least 23 non-Federal public projects during 1975 can be

counted, however, from the listing in appendix G, since some of the

sponsors enumerated in table 6 funded more than one project ; some of

the sponsors counted in the category of "airlines/airports" were also

public agencies.

The purposes for the reported activities are identified, with the cor-

responding numbers of each, in table 7. The total in this table (88) is

larger than the number of nonduplicative projects (72) because some

projects were conducted for two purposes. 37

Table 4. — Active, nonduplicative weather modification projects in the United States

in calendar year 1975 {from Charak, 1976)

Non-Federal projects 58

Federally sponsored projects 14

Projects active on Jan. 1, 1975 35

Projects active on Dec. 31, 1975 2fi

Projects active on Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 1975 10

Projects initiated in calendar year 1975 37

Projects completed in calendar year 1975 46

35 Charak. Mason T.. "Wenther Modification Activity Reports: Calendar Year 197.V Na-

tional Oceanic and Atmosnheric Administration, Office of Environmental Monitoring and

Prediction. Rockville, Md.. June 197G. 64 pp.

Mlhid.. pp. 19-35.

37 Ibid., pp. 3-7.

345

TABLE 5.— OPERATORS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES (FROM CHARAK, 1976)

Commercial weather modifiers 15

Universities 5

Federal 5

Municipal districts 5

Community associations 2

Power companies 1

Individuals 2

Total 35

Activities

72

TABLE 6.— SPONSORS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES (FROM CHARAK, 1976)

Community associations.

Federal

Airlines/airports

Municipal districts

States

Private sector

Cities

Counties

Sponsors

Activities

TABLE 7.— PURPOSE AND SPONSORSHIP OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES (FROM CHARAK, 1976)

Sponsors

Snow

tion

Cold

Decrease

hail

Research

Airlines/airports

Federal agencies

Municipal districts 4 3

States 6

Power companies 2

Private sector .... 1

Cities

Total 17 5

16 6

9 1

2 1

2

1 2

1

22 13 2 14 1 5

total target area covered for 1975. Seventy-five activities in 25 States

are shown, duplications appearing over the 72 basic project locations

because three projects extended into adjoining States — from Michigan

into Indiana, from Delaware into Maryland, and from California into

Nevada. The geographical distribution of all reported projects is shown

in figure 2. Numbers on the map indicate the order in which initial

project reports were received by XOAA. missing numbers correspond-

ing to projects reported in earlier years but now terminated. An ; 'F r

adjacent to a number indicates a federally sponsored project. 3S

Eighty percent of U.S. weather modification projects were carried

out west of Kansas City during 1975, with the largest projects in Cali-

fornia, Oklahoma. South Dakota, and Colorado, in that order of size.

South Dakota, Utah. North Dakota. Kansas, and California, in order,

had the largest area coverage from these projects. In the East. Michi-

38 Ibid., pp. 8-10.

346

gan led in the number of projects, while Florida had the most area cov-

of the United States, Federal activities accounting for about 7 percent

and commercial operators for 93 percent of this area. Sixty-five percent

of the area of South Dakota was specified as target area, while in Utah.

Delaware, and North Dakota corresponding percentages were 49, 36,

and 26, respectively. 39

TABLE 8.— LOCATION AND SIZE OF TARGET AREAS (FROM CHARAK, 1976)

Target area

Location Activities (square miles)

Alaska 2 51

California 11 5,183

Colorado 6 3,315

Delaware.... 1 750

Florida 2 4,878

Idaho 1 198

Illinois 1 2

Indiana 1 204

Iowa 2 4

Kansas 1 9,000

Maryland 1 750

Michigan 6 3,507

Montana 1 5

Nebraska 1 2

Nevada 2 755

New Hampshire 1 4

North Dakota 5 18,629

Oklahoma. 9 7,885

Oregon 3 7,841

Pennsylvania 1 200

South Dakota .... 7 50,085

Texas 3 7,200

Utah.. 3 41,510

Washington 3 56

Wyoming.. 1 180

Total 75 163,194

: i«_

181

126 / 183F 75F

IT? 175

Tll8 \

^21? 177f\

_ Nuabera Indicate

approximate project location.

An " 7" ahova Federally

aponeorad activity. Appendix

A con talc a a 11a t of theae

numbered projecta.

FlOUEE 2. Federal and non-Federal weather modification activities in the United

Slates, calendar year 1975. (From Charak, 1J)7(>. )

•» Ibid., p. 10.

347

Prior to publication of the next XOAA summary of U.S. weather

modification projects, to be completed during 1978, Charak has com-

pleted a preliminary analysis of reported projects for the calendar

years 1976-77. 40 Table 9 provides information on numbers of projects,

operators, and sponsors for the 2 years. An increase of 44 percent in

total activities is seen from 1976 to 1977, although Federal projects de-

creased 33 percent while non-Federal ones increased 60 percent. The

number of non-Federal weather modifiers remained constant for the 2

years ; however, there was an approximate 40-percent increase in the

number of community sponsoring groups from 1976 to 1977. Further

analysis of the operators in 1977 shows that six commercial firms con-

ducted 60 percent of the activities, and three of these companies op-

erated 50 percent of the projects. The increase in projects in 1977 re-

flects the efforts to combat or forestall drought conditions in the

United States on the part of various States, local farm groups, and

municipal water districts. Charak feels that this increase may also

indicate that the belief in the potential of cloud seeding for precipita-

tion enhancement is shared by more and more governmental officials

and other people affected by water shortages. 41

TABLE 9.— OPERATORS AND SPONSORS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

(FROM CHARAK, 1978)

Calendar year—

1976 1977

Total activities/locations 61 88

Non-Federal.. 52 82

Federal 9 6

Operators 31 29

Federal . 4 2

Non-Federal 27 27

Commercial '. 16 16

Water districts... 7 7

Universities 2 2

Community associations . 1 1

Utilities... 1 1

Sponsors 59 68

Community associations... 18 25

Airlines 10 10

Municipal districts 10 12

Federal organizations . 6 3

States 5 6

Utilities 4 3

Private 5 6

Cities 1 3

Table 10 shows the distribution of reported activities by State and

by total target area size within the States for the 2 years. California

led in the number of activities for both years and also had the largest

target area increase from 1976 to 1977. However, the total target area

in Utah in 1977 was the largest for any State for the 2 years. Because

some projects crossed State boundaries, the total numbers in table 10

exceed the numbers in table 9. The purposes and the seeding agents for

40 Charak. Mason T.. "Preliminary Analysis of Reported Weather Modification Activities

in the United States for Calendar Year 1976-77." Submitted for publication in The Journal

of Weather Modification, 197S.

11 Ibid.

348

crease of precipitation continues to be the major purpose of the proj-

ects. The number of projects directed to hail suppression was reduced

by 50 percent over the previous year in 1977, and in all hail projects

there was the additional intended goal of increasing precipitation.

The most used seeding agent continues to be silver iodide, although

there is increased use of dry ice for precipitation enhancement as well

as for cold fog dispersal. 42

TABLE 10.— ACTIVITIES AND SIZE OF TARGET AREAS, BY STATE (FROM CHARAK, 1978)

Calendar year 1976

Area

(square

Calendar year 1977

Area

(square

Alaska 2 3 3 7

California 11 11,993 20 59,403

Colorado 3 2,915 6 31,300

Delaware ■. 1 1,000

Florida 1 4,800

Georgia 3 9,000

Idaho 1 8,600 1 600

Illinois 2 2,502 3 3,700

Iowa 2 4 1 3,600

Kansas.... . 1 9,000 1 10,400

Louisiana 2 1,350

Maryland 1 1,100

Michigan 1 530 3 7,524

Minnesota 2 15,381 1 240

Montana 2 20,005 2 20,005

Nebraska 12

Nevada 1 5 7 16,326

New Hampshire 14 1 4

North Dakota. 4 23,068 3 16,288

Oklahoma 7 6,948 2 719

Oregon _____ 2 7,821 3 836

South D'akota 3 11,821 1 2,500

Texas 5 11,226 5 11,826

Utah 4 59,410 9 92,135

Washington 3 56 10 25,379

Wisconsin 1 1,100

Wyoming 2 196 4 1,446

63 198,390 92 315,689

TABLE 11.— WEATHER MODIFICATION PURPOSE AND AGENT (FROM CHARAK, 1978)

Calendar year—

1976 1977

Purpose:

To increase precipitation.

To decrease hail

To disperse fog...

For research

Agent:

Dry ice

Polyelectrolyte.

Water spray

41

12

11

5

4

74

17

4

2

2

General Discussion of Local Weather Modification Policy

In most instances, the principal beneficiaries of weather modifica-

tion are the local or regional users who include agricultural invests,

v Ibid.

weather-relsrted industries, municipalities, airports, utilities, and ordi-

nary citizens — those individuals and groups whose economic well-being

and whose lives and property are subject directly to adverse conse-

quences of insufficient water supplies or the extreme effects of severe

weather. It is at the local level where the need to engage in weather

modification is most keenly perceived. Most evident at this same level

are the interests of those who may be affected negatively by the real or

perceived results of weather modification. It follows that both the

greatest support and the strongest opposition to weather modification

projects are focused at the local level, where expressions of differing

positions are most vocal.

The popularity of a particular weather modification project and

the degree of controversy surrounding a project are frequently deter-

mined in large measure by the extent to which local citizens and

organizations have a voice in whether a project shall be conducted,

how it can be controlled aaid curtailed if necessary, and how it shall

be funded. When, as in some States, counties or municipalities are

authorized to raise and expend tax moneys to support weather modifi-

cation, the importance of this voice becomes even more evident. At

the local level, the decision to implement or withdraw from a project

can be most often made with minimum social stress. Table 12 sum-

marizes the results of a study by Haas, in which citizens in Colorado

and South Dakota were polled on their sentiments on the level of gov-

ernment or other groups by which decisions ought to be and likely will

be made on local cloud-seeding projects. 43 More than half of the re-

spondents in the survey who expressed an opinion felt that local resi-

dents or local government officials should make such decisions, and

the greatest plurality held that the decision should be solely that of

local residents.

TABLE 12.— CITIZEN VIEWS OF WHO SHOULD AND WHO WILL MAKE THE DECISION REGARDING A LOCAL CLOUD-

SEEDING PROJECT (PRIOR TO START OF LOCAL PROGRAM) (FROM HAAS, 1974)

[In percent)

Colorado

(N = 168)

South Dakota

(N = 182)

Response

Should

Will

Will

58

36

Local government

4

2

7

County and State government

0)

0)

15

8

14

21

7

15

8

Federal Government

18

8

Scientists

13

1

Other, including combinations 2

8

24

Don't know

4

14

20

2 Includes 6 percent who said, "farmers and ranchers" without specifying area of residence.

Counties and other local governmental jurisdictions exercise the

greatest control over weather modification through their willingness

or reluctance to support with tax dollars either the projects initiated

by States or by districts within the States. In their appraisal of the

43 Hass. J. Eugene, "Sociological Aspects of Weather Modification," in Wilmot N. Hess

(editor). "Weather and Climate Modification," New York. Wiley, 1974, p. 805.

34-857 O - 79 - 25

350

weather modification, Lambright and Dorsey conclude that:

The jurisdictional powers of local government bear no direct, and little indi-

rect, relationship to weather modifications activities. Only in an area where tax

levies are authorized for the support of weather modification (e.g., a county) can

the local government exercise "control" (positive or negative) over weather

modification by its willingness, or reluctance, to sponsor the activity. Where

multicounty. cooperative areas are involved, the actions of several counties can

provide a substantial substate base of support for weather modification within

a State. Acting under State law. these substate regions can become the principal

structure for day-to-day decisions governing the technology. 44 45

In both North and South Dakota, counties have been given author-

ity by the State legislatures to levy taxes for the specific purpose of

supporting local weather modification projects. In North Dakota,

county weather modification authorities are created to provide user

control over projects and to stabilize local social problems arising from

controversies over the projects. A Xorth Dakota statute provision al-

lows county residents to withdraw from a joint State-county project

and to abolish a county authority through circulation of petitions or

countywide elections.

A California statute, enacted in 1955 and providing authority to

various local governmental units to support and conduct weather mod-

ification operations, states that :

Any county, city, city and county, district, authority or other public corporation

or agency which has the power to produce, conserve, control or supply water for

beneficial purposes shall have the power to engage in practices designed to pro-

duce, induce, increase or control rainfall or other precipitation for the general

benefit of the territory within it. 46

Regulation of weather modification in California is essentially a

function of the State and not local governments. This division of

authority follows from the fundamental role of the State to allocate

water, even though the California constitution gives authority to

counties and cities to enact regulatory measures so long as they do not

conflict with the general laws. On the other hand, special districts are

not given this authority nor can the legislature delegate such authority

to these districts. Since the State has already enacted minimal weather

modification regulations, local regulatory power is somewhat limited

as it may not conflict with the State provisions. 47

In other States local regulation of weather modification is more in

evidence, both through formal and informal arrangements. For ex-

ample, in Pennsylvania, where the State law does permit weather

modification projects under very strict regulations, some townships in

the south-central part of the State have passed ordinances prohibiting

all such activities. 48

" Lambright, W. Henry and Thomas A. Dorsey, "An Issue Paper: Some Notes on Inter-

governmental Relations in a National Weather Modification Policy," background paper pre-

pared for the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Modification Advisory Board. Febru-

ary 1977, pp. 9-10.

45 In the context of this quotation, "local" refers to governments at the subcounty level :

whereas the term "local" means any jurisdiction. Including counties, at the substate level

elsewhere throughout tins chapter.

" l California Government Code. sec. 53063. (The entire body of California State law per-

taining to weather modifications is reproduced in app. I), p. old).

17 Sato. Sbo, - The Role of Local Governmental Units in Weather Modification: Califor-

nia." in Howard .1. Taubenfeld (editor). "Controlling the Weather: a Study of Law and

Regulatory Processes, ' New York, Dune lien, 1970, pp. 229-2:u and pp. 242-24S.

8 In Pennsylvania, townships are local administrative units within counties, mosth rural

in complexion, which, along with cities and boroughs, make up the total area of each

county.

351

ity to grant or revoke a permit. Nevertheless, strongly negative senti-

ments expressed in a preference vote in five counties of the San Luis

Valley were instrumental in the decision of the department to deny a

summer cloud-seeding permit in 1973. Winter cloud seeding has been

initiated in the region subsequently and continues only with the un-

official yet very effective approval and local control of a citizens group.

This group was formed as the result of an agreement by, and includes

members from, both local proponents and opponents of cloud seeding,

and the group holds veto power to suspend operations by majority

vote.

Local projects have typically been sponsored by groups of farmers

districts, and municipalities. Often they have been sponsored and/or

controlled at the county, city or special district level and have been

funded at least in part through local tax levies, depending on the

authorities granted these jurisdictions in particular States. In some

States, counties and States have jointly funded local projects in ac-

cordance with some cost-sharing formula established by statute or

agreed upon between the State and local jurisdictions.

Tables 6 and 9 in an earlier section of this chapter 49 summarize

information on sponsors of U.S. weather modification projects for

1975 through 1977. From these data the numbers of local public spon-

sors are seen to be 33, 29, and 38, respectfully, for calendar years 1975,

1976, and 1977, when the sponsor categories of community associations,

municipal districts, cities, and counties are combined. "State" projects

usually include joint efforts with counties or groups of counties within

the States, so that the sponsors so identified as States in the tables

could be further broken down in some cases into additional local

sponsors, increasing the previous totals. The category "community

associations" consists of groups of local citizens within a county or