which may have an important bearing on the future of weather modification.

I am Robert D. Elliott, president of North American Weather Consultants, a private meteorological firm which has been engaged in weather modification and other meteorological work since 1950. I have served as a consultant to President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Weather Control and, more recently, as a consultant to the Office of Science and Technology to conduct negotiations for a weather modification project on the Indian monsoon in a drought area of that country.

My company has conducted some 150 project-seasons of cloud seeding operations, primarily in western mountain regions, aimed at increasing water resources for hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, and domestic water supply. In doing so we have earnestly endeavored to gather scientific information and to prepare detailed summary reports. It is partly on the basis of these projects, and similar ones conducted by other private firms, that the Advisory Committee on Weather in its 1957 report, presented optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of seeding in western mountain areas, and the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification of the National Academy of Sciences in their 1966 report expressed conviction that the Federal Government should greatly increase funding of research in this field.

There has been abundant testimony on the economic benefits at even small fractional increases in water supply.

Benefit-cost ratios are astonishingly high, and it is no wonder that hardheaded management has been willing to assume the risks of contracting for weather modification. The penalty for not doing so was too great. It is my belief that if such projects had not been conducted, we would presently find weather modification research confined to laboratory and theoretical works.

I should like first to testify on S. 373. I recognize this bill as providing a means for putting Federal Government sponsored weather modification research and development on a sound basis. The bill outlines in some detail the missions to be performed by the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Defense, and State, and by such Federal agencies as the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Mention is made of research and development of means for increasing water resources, diverting hurricanes, and controlling tornadoes and hail storms. If all of these techniques come into being, they will certainly be of enormous benefit to the United States and eventually to the world.

At present, we are operational with respect to increasing water resources in limited watersheds. Here we basically know what we are doing, but we also understand the need for further research to sharpen our tools and improve the state of the art. This costs a considerable amount of money and the utility company, the irrigation district, or the local government agency is not in the business of funding research.

The prospects for attacking atmospheric water production on the scale of a major river basin is indeed intriguing. Further in the future, after considerable research and development, lies operational severe storm cloud control.

I should now like to discuss what I regard as a shortcoming of the bill in this present form. On page 8, under the heading "Commercial

Operations," I obtain the impression from the present wording that the private practitioner, who has supplied so much of the background justification for expanding Federal activities in weather modification, is being put into the position of someone who may now be interfering with these new activities. I submit that there are some long continuing privately sponsored cloud seeding projects in western mountain areas that should not be interfered with by new Government projects.

This brings me to the point that regulation, to be fair, should provide for an impartial hearing in cases of conflict between Government and private groups, as well as between Government groups. This bill puts various agencies very much into the weather modification business and it would certainly violate the principle of separation of powers for one such agency to exercise overall regulatory powers.

Parenthetically, I would add, the implication here is that the Department of Commerce and ESSA could be put into this position, and I am not casting any reflections at all on the capabilities of the Department of Commerce or ESSA.

This concern has been voiced in the past, in particular in testimony given on February 21, 1966, and again on March 26, 1966, in connection with bills relating to weather modification. There was presented a statement prepared by the Weather Control Research Association, which has recently been renamed Weather Modification Association, an association which includes on its membership roster numerous utility companies, irrigation districts, universities, local government agencies, and professional weather modification firms that are interested in, or directly involved with weather modification activities.

This statement pointed out that a separate regulatory or licensing commission should be established independent of any operational or coordinating Government groups.

The statement further emphasized the need to utilize private manpower in both planning and operations, and that full use should be made of the facilities of private industry and local government.

In another instance, in hearings before the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on April 4, 1967, there was presented a statement prepared by the National Water Policy Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers, suggesting that regulation of weather modification activities, government and private, should be vested in an independent Federal commission appointed by the President. The point was also made that

to avoid initial premature and unwarranted restrictions in developing the pplication of weather modification, any regulatory information on weather modification research and operation and/or licensing should be established either prior to legislation by hearings before congressional committees or subsequent to legislation after adequate opportunity for hearings by all interested parties before the commission.

I see no reason to change these position statements coming from the nongovernment sector, and only urge that this portion of the bill be redrafted so as to include the formation of a Presidentially appointed commission to develop regulations by the procedure recommended in the above-mentioned American Society of Civil Engineer's report.

A second item appearing in S. 373 which I feel to be unfortunate, and which has occasioned questioning by those familiar with the field

aspects of weather modification, is section 303 (a) on page 11. This section states that before any Federal agency conducts any weather modification activity intended to affect the atmosphere more than 150 miles from the source, it is necessary to send to various Senate and House committes a detailed report. This would impose an extraordinary burden on project planners.

In the present state of knowledge, it appears that under special conditions it is possible to obtain a strong, positive effect, localized in a line, 100 miles away from a silver iodide smoke generator source. This effect is in addition to the increases normally experienced 5 to 35 miles downwind of the generator, and no appreciable effect, plus or minus, occurs in the intervening region. This offers a potentially valuable addition to our arsenal of modes of operation for enhancing watershed snowpack. There is nothing extraordinarily hazardous, unusual, or threatening about targeting something 100 or even 150 miles away from the generators themselves.

I should like now to testify on S. 2058, Mr. Dominick's bill. This bill pertains explicitly to the Colorado River Basin. Our company experience has been primarily in the Sierras, the Cascades, and the Rockies; however, we did conduct seeding for 10 years in the Uinta Mountains, which are part of the Upper Colorado River Basin. An independent analysis of the results of this seeding showed that substantial increases in snowpack had occurred. There is no reason why productive weather modification work cannot be done in the Colorado Basin, and the need for additional water supplies there is quite evident.

Current discussions within the weather modification community suggests that projects fall into three categories. And, I might add parenthetically, that these three categories were discussed at the last Skywater Conference, which has already been referred to in Dr. Stinson's testimony. The three categories are: research projects, pilot projects, and operational projects.

Under the present Bureau of Reclamation program, all projects are of the research type; however, there is now no scientific or engineering reason against instituting pilot projects in the Colorado Basin. Nor is there any reason for delaying, until the research projects are completed, the start of pilot projects, or even operational projects subject to design studies. Indeed, there will be a continuing need for research projects concurrent with operations because the information feedback loop between research and operations is vital in improving the state of the art.

I feel this is a rather important point, that operations are not going to displace research.

At present my firm is under contract for a cloud seeding project which perhaps falls into the category of a minimal pilot project, although it is officially listed as a Bureau of Reclamation research project. This is the Hungry Horse project in Montana, in which the aim is to increase snowpack primarily for hydroelectric water resources for the benefit of Bonneville Power Administration and various other downstream water users. At present the methods being employed conform, or will soon conform, to best commercial practice. In addition, several innovations have been investigated for development as possible operational tools. One of these has been the col

lection of samples of snow and their analyses by a highly refined technique capable of detecting minute traces of silver in them. This technique has been developed at the Desert Research Institute here in Reno.

I might add parenthetically that Professor Warbuton has already made some comment on that.

From these collections it was discovered that the target area silver content of the snowpack was five to 10 times greater than that found upwind where only the natural background concentration of silver would be expected.

There are national reasons for concentrating on developing prototype and operational projects within the Colorado Basin. The growing population of the Southwest demands more domestic water supplies. From the agricultural viewpoint, production is in order in the face of a dwindling commodity surplus and in view of the Vietnamese conflict.

I would like to suggest certain minor modifications of wording. On page 4, lines 22 and 23, I suggest inclusion of private research groups as well as institutions of higher education. Some private groups also have the required research and study capabilities.

On page 5, line 17, I suggest inclusion of business concerns, since they also have capabilities in evaluation. Some recognition should be given on the administrative level to the need for the performance of evaluation and of operations by separate groups, but the law should make provision for the necessary flexibility in decisionmaking at that level.

The timing of the commencement of pilot and operational projects requires careful consideration. For example, it is obligatory that funding for a winter project start during the preceding summer so that remote field instrumentation can be fully installed before snow becomes a problem.

Another factor is the need for a design study. The Bureau of Reclamation has one underway at present for the Colorado Basin. That is the end of my testimony.

Senator CANNON. In other words, the planning agency has to have their funds available well in advance so that they can get set up and be prepared to become operational at a certain time?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct, sir.

Senator CANNON. Now, we received your report on the Hungry Horse project in Montana. I wonder if you could make similar reports available to us on your work that may be designed to increase water resources in limited watershed areas?

Mr. ELLIOTT. I would be glad to do that.

Senator CANNON. It certainly would be of interest to the committee. Of course, where you refer to the necessity of increasing the flow in the Colorado Basin area, I think that generally would apply to many, many other watershed areas, certainly right here in Nevada, and, of course, the areas that you have been working on in California. Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes; that is correct.

And it's rather odd to me, in looking back at it, though, that so many of our projects have been in relatively water-rich areas. And I think that probably is only because the water resources have been developed, the reservoirs are available, and it is part of the system. All this is in

the form of potential for the future as far as Nevada is concerned and the Colorado Basin.

Senator CANNON. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and presenting your testimony today.

Mr. Elmo DeRicco, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, is unable to be here. We have Mr. Norman Hall here, the assistant director, who will present Mr. DeRicco's

statement.

Mr. Hall?

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF ELMO J. DeRICCO, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PRESENTED BY NORMAN S. HALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Elmo DeRicco, director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, sends his regrets for not being able to be present at this hearing. My name is Norman Hall, assistant director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Nevada, being the most arid State in the Union, has always been extremely interested in weather modification. This State is still 87.2 percent federally owned, mainly due to lack of water for agricultural development. We are not so optimistic as to believe that weather modification would make the deserts bloom, but just a small percentage increase of average annual precipitation or snow pack at a feasible cost would be of tremendous value to our agricultural, recreational, and social well-being.

The State of Nevada fully supports S. 373 and also S. 2058. Needless to say, the Colorado River is in deep trouble due to being overcommitted. It has been said that an increase of precipitation of approximately 5 percent would increase the average flow around 1 million acre-feet of water, which would be worth millions of dollars.

In 1961 the Nevada State Legislature authorized the department of conservation and natural resources to carry on weather modification research projects. The legislature provided that the counties within the area in which the project was under study would have to contribute at least 25 percent of the total cost of such research. It also provided that the director of the department of conservation and natural resources utilize the services, as much as possible, of the Desert Research Institute in such undertakings.

Such a research project started in the fall of 1961 on the upper reaches of the Humboldt River. The Humboldt River is the largest river totally within the State of Nevada. It originates in Elko County, in the eastern part of the State, and runs westerly some 300 or 400 miles, terminating in the Humboldt Sink.

Pursuant to the legislation, the department of conservation and natural resources entered into a contract with the Desert Research Institute to take on the full responsibility for carrying out this research project. In turn, the Desert Research Institute contracted with the North American Weather Consultants to do the actual field work.

The tabulation below shows the source of the $211,750 spent during the 6 years of operation. And this tabulation was included, Senator,