Science, and transportation united states senate

ommendations for further activities, noting that changes which had

28 Constitution and bylaws of the American Meteorological Society, art. II. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society, vol. 58. No. 8. August 1977. p. 721.

29 "Organization of the American Meteorological Society," Bulletin of the American Mete-

orological Society, vol. 57, No. 8, August 1976, pp. 900-907.

30 See the history of weather modification, discussed in ch. 2, for the background of this

controversy.

31 Elliott, "Experience of the Private Sector." 1974, pp. 84-85.

396

occurred since the previous 1967 statement had dictated such an up-

statements are valid only for 3 years after issue, there is technically no

official AMS statement on weather modification. The 1973 statement is

currently being reevaluated and revised; however, no major changes

are contemplated. 33

The frame of reference for the AMS committee on weather modi-

fication follows :

Established in 1968 to promote and guide the society's contributions

to the increasingly important field of weather modification, this com-

mittee is responsible for keeping abreast of one of the more challenging

and promising interfaces between meteorology and society. The func-

tions of this committee are the following :

1. To serve as the official arm to relate the society to the large seg-

ments of the public who are affected by, interested in, or concerned

about weather modification.

2. To develop and update official policy statements on weather modi-

fication as may be needed by the society.

3. To plan and oversee the society's major meetings and conferences

on weather modification.

4. To provide a platform for atmospheric scientists and other spe-

cialists to discuss the results of their research and to develop general

guidelines for future research in weather modification.

5. To advise the society of current activities, trends, and prospects

for weather modification by means of an annual report to the society's

Scientific and Technological Activities Commission.

6. To promote advancement in the broader aspects of weather modi-

fication including: (a) the societal utilization, planning, and manage-

ment of weather modification ; (b) experimental design and evaluation,

simulation, and prediction, and modification technology; (c) tech-

nological mitigation of weather hazards; and (d) the use of land

and energy resources to achieve more desirable responses in weather

and climate. 34

The AMS committee on weather modification has been instrumen-

tal in planning and conducting a series of AMS national weather

modification conferences. The first of six such conferences was held in

1968 at the State University of New York at Albany. 35 The first con-

ference was part of a call for an assessment of the technical status of

weather and climate modification and stemmed from a recommenda-

tion received by the AMS from the Interdepartmental Conference on

Weather Modification, the annual meeting of representatives of Fed-

eral Government agencies engaged in weather modification. 30 ' 37

The second, third, and fourth AMS conferences on weather modifica-

tion were held, respectively, in Santa Barbara, Calif., in April 1970;

32 Policv statement of the American Meteorological Society on purposeful and Inadver-

tent modification of weather and climate. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,

vol 54, No. 7. July 1973. pp. 694-695. (Adopted hy the AMS Council. January 2S, 1973 )

33 Ban m, Werner A. (President of the American Meteorological Society). In testimony

hefore the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Modification Advisory Board. Cham-

pa'gn. 111., October 14. 1977.

34 Frames of reference for scientific and technological activities committees. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society, vol. T)5, No. 8, August 1974, p. 1011.

K Americnn Meteorological Society, "Proceedings of the First National Conference on

Weather Modication," Apr. 28-May 1. 196S. Albany, N.Y., Boston, 1968, 532 pp.

36 Ibid., p. i.

37 See section on coordination of Federal weather modification activities, ch. 5, p. 223.

397

November 1974. 38 - 39 ' 40 The third conference, at Rapid City, was co-

sponsored by the irrigation and drainage division of the American

Society of Civil Engineers.

The fifth AMS conference was coincident with the Second Confer-

ence on Weather Modification, sponsored by the World Meteorological

Organization (WMO) during August 1976 in Boulder, Colo. 41 The

AMS was a cosponsor of this conference along with the International

Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics (IAMAP) of

the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics.

The sixth AMS conference, held in Champaign, 111., in October 1977,

was cosponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the

Weather Modification Association. 42 This was the first conference in

which a significant number of papers on inadvertent weather modifica-

tion were presented, and the title of the conference reflected this new

emphasis. The sixth AMS conference was also the occasion for two

other related weather modification meetings, also held in Champaign,

during and after the AMS meeting. The Weather Modification Asso-

ciation, a cosponsor of the technical conference, conducted its regular

fall business meeting; and the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather

Modification Advisory Board conducted its fifth meeting, during

which testimony was provided to the board from various groups, par-

ticularly officers of professional organizations concerned with weather

modification.

Because of the particular division of interests within the AMS, one

major aspect of weather modification, the suppression of hurricanes

and other severe tropical storms, has not been a concern of the Com-

mittee on Weather Modification, nor have papers on this subject gener-

ally been presented at the AMS weather modification conferences.

Modification of such storms has been considered as one part of the

overall subject of tropical meteorology and has, therefore, received the

attention of another AMS committee, the Committee on Hurricanes

and Tropical Meteorology. That committee has been responsible for

planning and sponsoring a number of technical conferences on hurri-

canes and tropical meteorology, at which papers on hurricane modifica-

tion are customarily given. There is also an overlap between the func-

tions of the Committee on Weather Modification and the Committee on

Cloud Physics. AMS conferences are sponsored in both subject areas;

the more applied papers tend to be given at the weather modification

conferences, while those on more basic cloud research are presented at

cloud physics conferences. The distinction is sometimes blurred, how-

ever, so that many papers can easily fall into either category.

At least seven periodicals are published by the AMS. While there

is not a single journal devoted to weather modification, papers on the

3S American Meteorological Society. "Second National Conference on Weather Modifica-

tion" (preprints). April 6-9. 1970. Santa Barbara. Calif., Boston. 3 970. 440 pp.

39 American Meteorological Society. "Third Conference on Weather Modification" (pre-

prints). June 26-29, 1972. Rapid City. S. Dak.. Boston, 1972, 336 pp.

40 American Meteorological Society. "Fourth Conference on Weather Modification" (pre-

prints), Noy. 18-21, 1974. Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Boston, 1974, 575 pp.

41 World Meteorological Organization, papers presented at the Second WMO Conference

on Weather Modification, Aug. 2-6. 1976. Boulder, Colo. Secretariat of the World Meteoro-

logical Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. 1976.

42 American Meteorological Society. "Sixth Conference on Planned and Inadvertent

Weather Modification," Oct. 10-13, 1977, Champaign, 111., Boston, 396 pp.

34-857 O - 79 - 28

398

subject most often appear in the Bulletin of the American Meteor-

of a survey nature appear in the former, and more technical contribu-

tions are found in the latter. Pertinent papers are also cited in the AMS

Meteorological and Geoastrophysical Abstracts. Among the many

publications of the AMS is a glossary of weather modification terms. 43

In 1973 a group of scientists at the University of Washington, in

consultation with a number of experts from other organizations, con-

ducted a study and prepared a report, intending to clarify some policy

issues relating to weather modification. 44 The AMS took the initiative

in publishing this report and distributing it to a large number of State

and Federal Government officials.

Members of the AMS may become certified consulting meterologists,

upon meeting qualifications in the areas of knowledge, experience, and

character, as determined by an AMS board of certified consulting

meteorologists. Such certification is a formal recognition that the

applicant is well qualified to carry on the work of a consulting meteor-

ologist. The fivefold purpose of certification is stated as follows :

(1) To foster the establishment and maintenance of a high level of

professional competency, and mature and ethical counsel, in the field

of consulting meteorology.

(2) To provide a basis on which a client seeking assistance on

problems of a meteorological nature may be assured of mature, com-

petent, and ethical professional counsel.

(3) To provide incentive for the continued professional growth of

the meteorologist after completion of his academic training.

(4) To enhance the prestige, authority, success, and emoluments of

consulting meteorology specifically, and of professional meteorology

generally, by encouraging such a consistently high order of profes-

sional activity that unqualified practitioners will either labor to

achieve this recognition or retire from the field.

(5) To provide a guide for eventual licensing of consulting mete-

orologists by State governments. 45

As of August 1977 there were 169 certified meteorologists in the

AMS. While these certified consulting meteorologists are involved in

a large variety of public-oriented professional services, this certifica-

tion would also be applicable for some who are engaged in weather

modification, although the certification discussed in the previous sec-

tion on the Weather Modification Association applies more directly

to such professional services. A few meteorologists are certified by

both the AMS and the WMA.

Recently the president of the AMS. Dr. Werner A. Baum. and the

chairman of its Committee on Weather Modification, Dr. Bernard A.

Silverman, testified before the U.S. Commerce Department's Weather

Modification Advisory Board and answered questions from the Board

on weather modification positions of the AMS. Dr. Baum expressed

43 American Meteorological Society, "Glossary of Terms Frequently Used in Weather

Modification," Boston. 1968. 59 pp.' (This glossary was prepared initially by the AMS

for use in the Second Seminar for Science Writers on Weather Modification, New York

City. Apr. 25. 1908. sponsored by the AMS anrl the National Association of Science Writers.)

** Fleagle, Rohprt G.. James A. Crutchfield. Ralph W. Johnson, and Mohamed F. Ahdo,

"Weather Modification in the Public Interest." Seattle, American Meteorological Society

and the University of Washington Press. 1974. 88 pp.

45 Certification Program for Consulting Meteorologists, bulletin of the American Meteoro-

logical Society, vol. 58, No. 8, August 1977, p. 798.

399

his opinion that weather modification needs a major research effort

humanity. He felt that the Federal Government ought to take a more

dominant role, since the various State actions have been taken with

little uniformity, but urged that the functions of regulation and

operation be separated in any Federal organizational structure. 46

Dr. Silverman discussed in detail the areas of atmospheric research

which the AMS Committee on Weather Modification has identified as

significant for the progress of weather modification. These included

cloud physics, precipitation forecasting, cloud climatology, and in-

vertent weather effects. (These research recommendations were pre-

sented in an earlier chapter in connection with a discussion of weather

modification research needs.) 17 He urged support for a strong research

program, emphasizing the continued need for university research and

for continued support by the National Science Foundation. 48

OPPOSITION TO WEATHER MODIFICATION

General discussion

There are individuals and groups who for one reason or another

voice strong opposition to weather modification. Sometimes with

little or no rational basis there are charges heard that various otherwise

unexplained and usually unpleasant weather and weather-related

events are linked to cloud seeding. Such events might include droughts,

floods, severe storms, and extreme temperatures. Often charges are

made, again usually without substantiating data, that the silver iodide

from cloud seeding has caused harm to vegetation or polluted water

supplies.

There are also cases in which some farmers are economically disad-

vantaged through receiving more or less than optimum rainfall for

their crops, when artificial inducement of these conditions may have

indeed been beneficial to those growing different crops whose moisture

requirements are out of phase in time with those of the disadvan-

taged farmer. A frequent complaint of some farmers is that hail sup-

pression to reduce damage to ripening fruit in orchards has attend-

antly reduced the needed rain for growth of field crops.

Sometimes disastrous events have occurred during or soon after

cloud seeding, and, rightly or wrongly, they have been associated with

the seeding. The June 1972 flooding from excessive rainfall in the

Rapid City, S. Dak., area is an example of such a disaster which oc-

curred nearly simultaneously with cloud seeding operations in the

vicinity by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Though

subsequent technical evaluations disclaimed any direct connection be-

tween the flooding and the seeding, opposition in the form of legal

suits and general public reaction persists today.

Opposition to the seeding project above Hungry Horse Dam

Elliott recounts an interesting case where opposition developed to a

seeding project which his company, North American Weather Con-

sultants, had conducted for five winter seasons from 1967-68 through

46 Baum, testimony before the Weather Modification Advisory Board, 1977.

47 See p. 139, ch. 3.

48 Silverman, Bernard A., "Testimony Before the U.S. Department of Commerce Weather

Modification Advisory Board," Champaign, 111., Oct. 14, 1977.

400

1970-71. 49 This project, carried out for the Bonneville Power Authority

crease snowpack over the watershed above Hungry Horse Dam in

northwestern Montana. Increased water for hydroelectric power gen-

eration would result in less interruption in industrial power and more

steady employment in adjacent regions of Montana, Idaho, Wash-

ington, and Oregon. 50

Local opposition to the program was sharp, however, on the basis of

the possible reduction in the elk population in the nearby Bob Mar-

shall Wilderness Area ; an estimated additional 10 percent in snowpack

was considered capable of destroying the browse needed by the elk in

the winter. The influx of elk hunters each year, spending about $100 per

day each, was an important source of income to the area, and seeding

was regarded as a threat to the hunting industry. Fears were quieted,

however, after a successful program of explaining and teaching about

cloud seeding. Over the 5 years during which seeding occurred, the

elk herds grew larger than they had ever been before. 51

Tri- State Natural W eat her Association

Sometimes the groups opposing weather modification are organized

so that they can more effectively solicit and influence public opinion

for general support of their opposition, or so that they can more effec-

tively bring suits or injunctions against weather modifiers. One of

the more persistently vocal groups, active in the Potomac Valley re-

gion of the Mid-Atlantic States, is the Tri-State Natural Weather

Association, discussed in the next section. Activities of an opposition

group in Colorado are considered in a subsequent section.

In the 1960 ? s, a drought affecting much of the Northeast was blamed

in some counties of West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania on

cloud seeding. A local group of orchardists, the Blue Ridge Weather

Modification Association, had been contracting with various commer-

cial firms to suppress hail in the region. With the increasing drought,

intense opposition developed against both the seeding company and

the orchardists. Bills outlawing weather modification were introduced

in the legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, at

the urging of an organized group called the Natural Weather Associ-

ation. A bill passed the Maryland legislature making weather modifi-

cation illegal ; however, this act has since been repealed. Though no

measures were enacted in the other States, ordinances prohibiting cloud

seeding were passed in several south-central Pennsylvania counties,

and a generally negative public reaction to weather modification per-

sists throughout this region. There has been no seeding for some years

in Pennsylvania. 52 In 1969 Pennsylvania and West Virginia, both

passed weather modification laws that did not prohibit weather mod-

ification, but they were so restrictive that many operators felt that their

activities were ruled out for all practical purposes.

With the breaking of the drought of the 1960's and several years of

wet weather, some of the controversy subsided. However, the successor

to the Natural Weather Association, the Tri-State Natural Weather

Association, Inc., has continued strong opposition to cloud seeding and

M Ibid.

M Ibid., pp. 82-83.

401

has maintained charges that such seeding activities have been carried

Ridge Weather Modification Association (the group of orchardists

seeking hail suppression) and by the U.S. Air Force, while State

enforcement officials have "looked the other way." Tri-State has

charged that :

Defense Department aircraft work all weather patterns in the mid-Atlantic

States. One section of heavy concentration is the southern tier of Pennsylvania

counties ; according to the Federal Aviation agency, there are as many as 160

flights in a twenty-four hour period. These aircraft disperse ice nuclei at almost

infinity concentrations [sic] and inject it into the atmosphere, starting 24 to 48

hours before weather patterns move into the area. This seeding will dissipate

all summer cumuli storms. In the winter, snows are changed into rain with the

possibility of some increase of precipitation. This additional winter rain helps

make the annual precipitation record look decent. However, rain during the

winter leaches the soil of fertility and severely erodes crop fields. Snow is so

desperately needed for a cover to prevent this damage as well as protection to

prevent heaving of perennials such as alfalfa. 53

With regard to enforcement of State laws requiring licensing, and

regulation of weather modification, the following accusation has been

made :

The past two Secretaries of Agriculture have both stymied all efforts to regulate

weather modification. The Pennsylvania State University has engaged in black-

mail activities against those who want the law enforced, have conducted re-

search in contempt of the law and lied about the outcome of their own results

of cloud seeding. These various agencies have all helped to obstruct law enforce-

ment in the State of Pennsylvania : Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Avia-

tion, Federal Aviation Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pennsylvania

State University, and all branches of the Federal Government who have or are

doing cloud seeding work. A meteorological Watergate ! 54

Public sentiment in the Potomac Valley, especially among farmers,

has remained strongly opposed to weather modification of all kinds,

and Tri-State Natural Weather Association has continued to lead the

opposition. Once charging only that hail suppression had caused de-

creased rainfall at critical times for farmers, they later also claimed

that cloud seeding materials pollute the atmosphere and induce cancer

and even credited abnormally heavy rainfall to seeding operations.

Paul Hoke, president of Tri-State once stated :

There*s no question that during a dry season, cloud seeding aggravates con-

ditions to produce drought, and during a wet cycle, it triggers even more rain

and probably floods. 55

With the return of especially dry conditions in very recent years, a

new wave of opposition was aroused and new charges of illegal cloud

seeding have been forthcoming from the Tri-State Association. Its

vice president, Dr. Edmund R, Hill, professor of earth science at

Gettysburg College and a member of the Pennsylvania Weather Modi-

fication Board, stated that :

According to complaints we get, the pattern is still remaining as it did in the