Science, and transportation united states senate

ni«»>,p O

X xxxxxx

xxxxxx

xxx

S 5

! °-S = g g-

: o co • °. tt 05

= *5-S»

co := a> c

= c - 2 «

5 = »15 £?

a>-o to = — -

eo ®

o w — 3

iri CO P>." 00 CD* O *-i CNJ co' 'S-' IT) CD r-I oo* a>" o <-I

xxx

SOW.

|-= = s

= « " ^

2 o £ £.2

' Xn -*= *^ "° co co >

[•■5 >>><2 ^>->>

! M = 5o = = =

i u_ oo to o oo oo oo

■0OCT>CZ>*

o.5E-

oca

■O Q.'

■D CD CO

E !2 o co

E 2"."2

o< 8 c

328

a lead agency to provide overall coordination of a Federal weather

modification program. Other than the advisory committee report, of

1957, which recommended NSF for this role, the lead agency recom-

mended was NOAA or its predecessor ESSA. In the case of the Do-

mestic Council's report, a lead agency role was presented as one of two

options, the other being continued coordination through ICAS, but an

appendix supported by four agencies recommended that NOAA be

designated the lead agency. The recommendation for a lead agency was

frequently coupled with the recommendation that mission oriented

agencies support more fully the national weather modification efforts

as they relate to their particul ar mission.

In some cases recommendations of an administrative nature have

been acted upon or lead to a solution to the problem along other lines.

For example, the report of the Special Commission on Weather Modi-

fication in 1966 recommended that a standing committee on weather

modification be established in the National Academy of Sciences. While

a standing committee has not been established in NAS, panels on

weather and climate modification have been assembled as needed by

the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. Additionally, in 1972

NACOA was established which, although not within the National

Academy, serves in the role of a standing advisory committee. Another

recommendation of the special commission was that the Office of

Science and Technology should establish a mechanism for the coordina-

tion of weather modification policies and programs. To some extent,

ICAS has responsibility in this area, but it lacks authority to initiate

action within any agency.

With regard to specific research recommendations or program ele-

ments, some reports are more general than others. For example, the

special commission report recommended that the Federal Government

conduct large field experiments without discussing these in detail.

Subsequent reports often detailed specific field projects.

Some perspective can be gained by comparing early reports to more

recent ones. Early reports identified the limitations on numerical

modeling imposed by the existing state-of-the-art in computer tech-

nology. While these limitations still exist to some extent, the significant

progress that has occurred in this field has served to reduce the ap-

parent magnitude of the problem. Early reports also identified re-

search and numerical modeling on isolated cumulus clouds as a primary

focus (the wisdom of dealing with simpler problems before attacking

more complex ones) , but later reports noted progress in this area and

pointed to the need for research and numerical modeling on a variety of

cloud systems. Early reports were also somewhat caught up in the gen-

eral enthusiasm for, and expectation of, being able to modify the

weather on an operational basis in the near future. Consequently, a

general feeling was that problems may arise in the absence of regula-

tory direction at the Federal level. However, as progress in weather

modification was not as rapid as expected (perhaps as a result of lower

levels of funding than expected or perhaps because of unanticipated

complexities with weather modification projects), it lias since become

apparent to many authorities that new regulatory measures are not

needed at this time, In this regard, the Domestic Council's report rec-

ommended periodic review to assess regulatory needs.

329

progress could be made if funding were increased. Although funding

for weather modification activities has increased over the years, most

recommendations for funding have been for considerably higher levels

than have actually been provided. 2

2 See ch. 5 for funding data on Federal weather modification research programs. In par-

ticular, fig. 2 shows the course of Federal funding (planning budgets and actual expendi-

tures) from fiscal year 1966 to fiscal year 1978.

CHAPTER 7

STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN WEATHER

MODIFICATION

( By Robert E. Morrison, Specialist in Earth Sciences, Science Policy Research

Division, Congressional Research Service)

Overview of State Weather Modification Activities

INTRODUCTION

A majority of the States in the United States have some official

interest in weather modification. Twenty-nine States have some form

of law which relates to such activities, usually concerned with the vari-

ous facets of regulation or control of operations within the State and

sometimes pertaining to authorization for funding research and/or

operations at the State or local level. The statutes dealing with

weather modification for these 29 States are reproduced in appendix

D. Two other States, Maryland and Massachusetts, had also enacted

legislation on the subject ; however, the laws in these two States have

since been repealed. The general policy toward weather modification

in each State is usually reflected in the weather modification law of

that State ; the laws of some States tend to encourage development and

use of the technology, while others discourage such activities.

The current legal regime regulating weather modification has been

developed by the States rather than the Federal Government, except

in the areas of research support, commissioning studies, and requiring

reporting of activities. The various regulatory management functions

which the States perform are embodied in the collection of State laws

on weather modification. These functions include such activities as (1)

issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of licenses and permits;

(2) monitoring and collection of information on activities through re-

quirements to maintain records, the submission of periodic activity re-

ports, and the inspection of premises and equipment ; (3) funding and

managing of State or locally organized operational and/or research

programs; (4) evaluation and advisory services to locally organized

public and private operational programs within the State; and (5)

other miscellaneous administrative activities, including the organiza-

tion and operation of State agencies and boards which are charged

with carrying out the statutory responsibilities.

Both the kinds of weather modification functions performed and

the diversity of the functions performed by the several States can be

gleaned from table 1. in which are identified the chief elements of the

weather modification laws for the respective States having such laws.

(The information in the table was provided by Davis and reflects the

(331)

content of State laws in force at the end of 1975. ) 1 Hawaii's law merely

mentions atmospheric waters and is not included in the table.

In order to administer the various regulatory and managerial respon-

sibilities pertaining to weather modification within the States, an as-

sortment of institutional structures has been established. These include

State departments of water or natural resources, commissions, and

special governing or advisory boards. Often there is a combination of

two or more of these types of agencies or groups, separating the respon-

sibility functions of pure administration from those of appeals, permit-

ting, or advisory services. In the cases of particular State activities con-

tained in the latter part of this chapter, some examples of State institu-

tional structure for weather modification are discussed. 2

TABLE 1.— ELEMENTS OF STATE WEATHER MODIFICATION LAWS IN FORCE AS OF THE END OF 1975'

Administra- Records Water

State tive Funding Licensing Permit and report rights Liability

Arizona X

California X X

Colorado X X

Connecticut X X

Florida X X

Idaho. X X

Illinois X

Iowa,.. X

Kansas X X

Louisiana X

Minnesota. X

Montana X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X

New Mexico X

New York X - X

North Dakota X X X X X X

Oklahoma... X X X X X

Licensing

Permit

and report rights

X

- X

X

X

. X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X -- -

X

X

X

X

X

Oregon X X X X

South Dakota X X X X X

Texas X X X X X X X

Utah X X X X X X X

Washington X X X X X

We t Virg nia X - X X - X

Wisconsin X X X

Wyoming X X X X

1 From Davis. Testimony in hearings. House Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on the Environment

and the Atmosphere. June 1976.

It is clear that the State weather modification laws and their at-

tendant administration are concerned especially in a variety of ways

with the regulation or control of activities within the State. This reg-

ulation often includes licensing and/or the granting of permits, and

it may also include monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of opera-

tions/The various means by which weather modification is controlled

are discussed in some detail in a section of the chapter of this report

on legal aspects. 3 Specific laws of the States, found in full in appen-

dix D are also summarized in table 1 of that appendix, where they are

compared in terms of their being reasonably comprehensive, their pro-

viding for licensing only, or their containing some other miscellane-

ous provision. 4

1 Davis. Ray J., testimony in : U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on

Soienrp and Technology, Snbcommittpe on the Environment and the Atmosphere. "Weather

Modification," hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., on H.R. 10039 and S. 3383, June 15-18, 1976.

Washington. D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. 1976, pp. 250-252.

2 See p. 351 ff.

3 See ch. 11. p. 44!) ff.

* See p. 514 ff.

333

about ongoing activities, most States which do regulate weather modi-

fication provide authority which enables officials to inspect the prem-

ises of operators and to require them to maintain daily logs and report

on their activities regularly. Daily reporting is not required, however,

by any State, and copies of reports filed with the Department of Com-

merce are also accepted in some cases as satisfactory compliance with

reporting requirements. If properly analyzed by responsible State

agencies, the information contained in these reports should indicate

apppropriate changes or cessations to cloud-seeding operations, if any,

that should be made in the public interest. 5

The extent of involvement in research and operations varies consid-

erably from State to State. Some States support research only, while

others fund and operate both operational and research programs. In

some cases funding only is provided to those localities, usually at the

county level, which have established operational programs. In other

States, counties and/or groups of individuals within local regions op-

erate programs funded entirely by local citizens, but with approval

and/or advisory services from State agencies. The recent 1976-77

drought conditions led some Western States to initiate emergency

cloud-seeding programs as one means of augmenting dwindling water

supplies. Among such measures taken on a short time basis are the

emergency operations in California, Kansas, and Washington; pro-

grams in these States are discussed briefly in the sections at the end of

this chapter dealing with the cases of individual States.

Within many of the States, particularly in the West, there is a broad

range of weather modification research activity. Usually this research

is performed by atmospheric and other scientists at the State univer-

sities or other State research agencies. Such research is frequently

funded through one of the Federal agencies with major weather modi-

fication research programs, such as the National Science Foundation

or the Bureau of Reclamation, or it may be supported at least in part

with State funds. A few States contribute funds to a Federal research

project which is conducted jointly with those States partly within

their boundaries. 6

XORTH AMERICAN INTERSTATE WEATHER MODIFICATION COUNCIL

On J anuary 17, 1975, the Xorth American Interstate Weather Modi-

fication Council (XAIWMC) was organized to coordinate intrastate,

interstate, and possible international weather modification activities.

Its main purpose was to achieve and maintain local and State control of

such activities while attempting to attain a high degree on uniformity

in legislation and an effective mechanism for information exchange* 7

The origin of the XAIWMC had its roots in a conference in June 1974,

in Sioux Falls, S. Dak., to which Gov. Richard K. Kneip of South Da-

kota invited the Governors of the United States. 8 The program for this

Interstate Conference on Weather Modification was developed at Gov-

5 Davis, testimony before House Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on

the Environment and the Atmosnhere. June 1976 hearings. 94th Cong.. 2d spss.. p 245

6 See discussion of the High Plains project (HIPLEX), under "Project Skywater," spon-

sored by the Bureau of Reclamation. c*i. 5. p. 258 ff.

7 Xorth American Interstate Weather Modification Council : Its Purposes and Activities

Las Cruces. N. Mex.. office of the XAIWMC. September 1976. Pub. Xo. 76-2. p. 1.

8 Conference on Weather Modification in the United States: Potential and Problems for

Interstate Action, State of South Dakota, Sioux Falls. S. Dak., June 10-12, 1974 248 pp

34-857 O - 79 - 24

334

Commission, which was then responsible for the operation of the state-

wide South Dakota weather modification program. 9 Representatives

of 23 States and the Canadian Province of Alberta attended the con-

ference and reported on weather modification activities within their

States.

of all weather modification efforts. Governor Kneip stressed the fact

that interstate cooperation was "particularly needed in view of the

growing importance of agricultural production to the economy and

well-being of the people of all States and the tendency to develop indi-

vidual State weather modification programs." 10 At the end of the

conference representatives were selected from California, Xew Mexico,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and the Province

of Alberta to serve on an ad hoc committee which was to :

1. Investigate possible organizational needs ;

2. Plan a second conference on interstate weather modification

cooperation and coordination within 1 year; and

3. Study the Sioux Falls conference working committee reports

and develop suggestions into recommendations. 11

The conference in June 1974 showed an expanding aAvareness of the

role of the States in weather modification activities, so that the main

mission of the ad hoc committee was to establish a forum for inter-

change and coordination of information of primary interest to State

officials in the operational or regulatory aspects of weather modifica-

tion. 12 Meeting in October 1974, the ad hoc committee summarized the

following bases of concern :

(1) Substantial but fragmental local. State, and Federal activity

in deliberate and inadvertent weather modification.

(2) Weather modification effects do not respect internal or national

boundaries and no compacts or agreements exist regarding the effects.

(3) States require a measure of control over weather modification.

(4) No effective mechanism existed for interstate cooperation in

weather modification and the States did not have a coordinated ap-

proach for atmospheric resources decisionmaking.

(5) Minimal public involvement in whether modification decision-

making had been solicited in the past.

(6) Lack of uniformity existed in most State statutes.

(7) Little exchange of information among States had taken place.

(8) Weather modification decisionmaking must be responsive to

local. State, and interstate concerns.

(9) Weather modification activities in response to emergency

drought conditions would be most effective through an interstate

organization of State representatives. 13

The ad hoc committee suggested that the overall object ives of the

proposed Interstate Council must be to serve as the focal point and

9 The South Dakota program lias since heen curtailed, owing to action of the State Legis-

lature. See discussion of the weather modification activities in South Dakota, p. 3.76.

10 Kneip. Richard P., letter of invitation to Governors of the United States to the Inter-

state Conference on Weather Modification. June 10-12. 1974. Sioux City. S. Dak.. Pierre,

S. Dak.. February 19. 1974.

11 Keyes, Conrad G.. Jr.. "North American Interstate Weather Modification Council : Need,

finals. I'urpose, and Activities," Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 13, No. 5, Octoher 1977,

p. 91 K.

™ Ibid.

13 Ibid.

335

clearinghouse for interstate weather modification activities and out-

(1) Serve as the official spokesman for States' needs and views.

(2) Provide the organization through which funding of multi-State

assistance programs can be accomplished.

(3) Provide a forum for developing interstate agreements.

(■4) Develop and promote the adoption of compatible State regula-

tory activities.

(5) Develop and provide information for public use.

(6) Exchange information and provide assistance in environmental

and societal relations. 14

The NAIWMC called its first business meeting in Denver, Colo.,

on January 17, 1975, following the second interstate conference on

weather modification. 15 During this first meeting the Council adopted

bylaws, elected an executive committee and a board of directors, and

adopted several resolutions. 16 Membership was made available to all

of the States of the United States, to the Government of Mexico, and

to all the Provinces of Canada. Each of these jurisdictions electing

to become a member was to affirm its decision through informing the

-Council of its support, appointment of a Council delegate and alter-

nate, and payment of dues. Affiliate membership was also made avail-

able to national agencies, political subdivisions within States or

Provinces, and professional organizations. Ten geographical areas

were formed as shown in table 2; areas 2 and 4 were Canada and

Mexico, respectively, while the other 8 areas were comprised of

regional groupings of the 50 U.S. States. Figure 1 shows the mem-

bership within these 10 areas as of October 1977, according the the

several membership categories. (At its November 1977 meeting, the

NAIWMC was reorganized into six districts — four in the United

States : one each in Canada and Mexico.)

Table 2. — Areas of the North American Interstate Weather Modification Council.

through October 1977 1

Area 1 Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana. Wyoming. Alaska.

Area 2 Canada.

Area 3 California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,

Hawaii.

Area 4 Mexico.

Area 5 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota. Iowa,

Wisconsin.

Area 6 Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas.

Area 7 Michigan. Illinois. Indiana. Ohio, Kentucky.

Area 8 Tennessee. North Carolina. South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia,

Florida. Mississippi.

Area 9 West Virginia. Virginia. Maryland. Delaware. New Jersey.

Pennsylvania.

Area 10 New York, Connecticut. Rhode Island, Massachusetts. Vermont.

New Hampshire, Maine.

x At its annual meeting. November 3-4. 1977, the NAIWMC reorganized into six areas,

consisting of four in the United States (Western, Midwestern, Eastern, and Southeastern),

one in Canada (northern), and one in Mexico (southern).

14 Hud., p. 919.

15 North American Interstate Weather Modification Council, "Conference on Weather

Modification — a Usable Technology ; Its Potential Impact on the World Food Crisis," Den-

ver. Col.. Jan. 16-17. 1975. 150 pp.

16 Keyes. Conrad G.. Jr.. "NAIWMC — Formation and Its Activities Through 1975," the

Journal of Weather Modification, vol. 8, No. 1, April 1976, pp. 158-159.

336

bution of board of directors of the North American Interstate Weather Modi-

fication Council (from Keyes, 1977). (At its November 1977 annual meeting,

the NAIWMG reorganized into six areas — see footnote X, table 2, p. 835.)