ment? If so, we would be very happy to have you make a statement, as well as making your statement a part of the record. Mr. WILLIAMS. I really have nothing more specific to add than already given in my written statement. Most of the things have been very adequately covered by the other speakers this morning. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MERLIN C. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, ATMOSPHERIC WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, FRESNO STATE COLLEGE FOUNDATION, FRESNO, CALIF. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to point out that we can't ignore the fact that operational programs have been taking place for a number of years, particularly in the Sierra Nevada. And our particular research activity has been designed with the feeling that research and operational activities can be carried forth concurrently and cooperatively, and to the mutual benefit of both groups. The results that are obtained from operational programs can De utilized as a basis for designing good, solid experiments with which to further the field and optimize the results and the technology currently available. By the same token, the research efforts that are going forth in the Sierra can be utilized to upgrade and improve operational techniques that are underway. I have also made some statements with regard to the Weather Modification Association's activities during the past 2 years, with respect to State regulations and the State laws pertaining to weather modification. Also, the activities by that organization to develop meaningful criteria for certifying certain individuals whom we feel are qualified to carry forth field activities, both research and operations, pointing out that the field itself recognizes a need for designation of qualified individuals and a need for regulation, and good, solid legislation. Senator CANNON. Do you agree with others who have testified, who say that this regulation must be on a national scope, rather than State regulation, to really get at the problem? Mr. WILLIAMS. To an extent, I do. Without really having a detailed knowledge of current regulatory practices, other than the studies that are being conducted by the WMA, this seems to be a desirable feature at this point. However, I would like to reiterate the statement of some of the other speakers, that studies of regulations, and regulation itself, should be carried out by an independent commission or agency that represents all of the interests involved, those of Federal, State, university and private interests, rather than being placed in a missionoriented agency. This is the position taken by the WMA, the ASCE, and most of the people that I know, including the Atmospherics, Inc. people, who are unable to be here today. They take this position, that this should be an independent agency. If I may, I would like to read the summary to my paper. Mr. WILLIAMS. In summary, I feel that excellent progress has been made in the field of weather modification in the past past few years. This progress has brought the field to a point where it is now possible to develop projects which apply the best technology and equipment avail able to the problems of optimization of weather modification activities designed to produce additional water supplies. Vast amounts of information requiring detailed research activities are necessary to provide this optimization and the funding required for this research should be made available. However, sufficient information is currently available to permit operations in certain areas concurrently and cooperatively with research efforts. Thus, an overall program which utilizes the talents of private, university, and governmental groups for parallel research operations can be used to advance the program. The development of an agency to regulate all weather modification activities in the Nation does not appear to be necessary or desirable if the progress of the past 2 years can be used as a measure of the ability of groups active in the field to work together toward a common goal. The importance of water to most areas of western United States is such that concurrent operations and research should be conducted as soon as possible. The efforts of this committee to provide support for such activities should be developed and encouraged. And I personally endorse the proposed bills, S. 373 and S. 2058, with the qualifications regarding regulation of activities as stated above. Senator CANNON. Thank you for your statement. I perhaps should have asked this question of Mr. Elliott, but can you give me a figure as to what your water costs have been? You have operated some projects that have been both operational and from a research standpoint, joint project; is that right? Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; we have not. Senator CANNON. Oh, I though you had. I'm sorry. Mr. WILLIAMS. As yet our efforts have been totally research, and we have developed a program which utilizes the seeding activities of previous commercial operations. We intend to start seeding activities this coming year on a research basis. As far as costs are concerned, the estimate given by the Kings River people for the Kings River project over the past 12 years has been on the order of 50 cents to a dollar an acre-foot. That's as opposed to the value of water in the San Joaquin Valley, which ranges up to, say, $0.80 to $1.20 an acre-foot. This is value to the farmers that are using it. Senator CANNON. Mr. Elliott, would you like to respond to that question. What in your experience does the cost per acre-foot run, as best you can pin it down from an operational standpoint? Mr. ELLIOTT. I would say that was in the correct ballpark. However, our clients don't like to spread that word around. It's too good. Senator CANNON. One of the witnesses, I think in Denver, testifiedof course, they were testifying on the amount of the increase in the flow that could come out of the Colorado River Basin, and I believe, if I remember correctly, we had estimates as low as about 30 cents an acrefoot, but anywhere from 30 cents on up, 30 to 50 cents, in that general area. Mr. WILLIAMS. If I might, a great deal of the figure that you quote as the cost of producing this water depends upon how extensively you instrument to evaluate and to monitor what's going on during the time the activities are occurring. The 50 cents to a dollar an acre-foot figure that I gave was published in a paper given in November to an ASCE meeting in Sacra mento. Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams, for your appearance here, and your fine statement. Is Mr. Thomas Henderson here? Mr. Henderson, from Atmospherics, Inc., has submitted a paper, and that will be made a part of the record. (Statement of Thomas J. Henderson, follows:) JUNE 10, 1968. PREPARED Statement of THOMAS J. HENDERSON, PRESIDENT, ATMOSPHERICS INC., FRESNO, CALIF. Well designed and professionally operated weather modification programs will continue to play an important role in the full development of water resources in the United States. In the near future the importance of this relatively new science could well rate with space exploration, foreign policy, international aid or national defense. The field may already be that important. For this reason we feel S. 373 and S. 2058 are extremely important bills and deserve substantial indepth considerations. On a national level, there is an increasing general acceptance of weather modification by various members of the scientific community and there now seems to be general belief that current cloud seeding technology can inexpensively produce supplemental water under some rather specific and rigid conditions. I am sure you are familiar with the current positions of our scientific community but for the record, and perhaps a few members of your staff, the following excerpts will reemphasize the present level of understanding. 1. "Weather and Climate Modification, Problems and Prospects", Vol. II. Research and Development Publication No. 1350. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1966, Pg. 32-33. "Extended operational programs are found mainly in mountainous areas of the Western United States, where silver iodide ground generators have been used in the same areas continuously for many seasons to seed winter orographic storms with the goal of increasing winter snowpack. We checked four such projects, totalling 41 project seasons. In all evaluations the variates were seasonal watershed runoff values, obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey Record, with regressions based on nearby control watersheds for which runoff values correlated strongly (order of R=0.9) with the target runoff. Table No. 2 summarizes the Panel's independent evaluations of the four orographic projects (Kings River included), in which runoff was employed as the test variate. Project durations ranged from 8 to 14 years. The duration-weighted average runoff increases of these four projects is about 12% and it is apparent that their combined significance level is such that natural variability is not a likely explanation for these increases." 2. "Weather Modification-Seventh Annual Report, 1965", National Science Foundation Report No. NSF 66-4, Page 32. "During the summer of 1965, an analysis jointly sponsored by the Kings River Conservation District in California and the National Science Foundation, has been completed for ten years of commercial cloud seeding operations carried out by Atmospherics Incorporated. The results indicate a 6% increase in the runoff into the Kings River Drainage area occurred due to the seeding of winter storms under orographic conditions. While many commercial operators have reported increases in precipitation over short periods of time, this NSF sponsored study is one of the first to indicate results over a significant long period of time. There seems to be every indication that under the conditions of operations in the Kings River drainage area, the use of silver iodide has enhanced the rainfall totals." 3. "Weather Modification-Seventh Annual Report, 1965", National Science Foundation Report No. NSF 66-4, Page 61. "The Kings River drainage area of the Western Slope of the Sierra Nevada Range in California, provides an excellent natural study area for investigation of winter storms under orographic influence. During the past 10 years the Kings River Conservation District has given support to a full-scale cloud seeding program conducted by Thomas J. Henderson of Atmospherics Incorporated. This grant supports a study of the physics of clouds and precipitation in this ongoing cloud seeding program. The object is to obtain a better understanding of the winter storm mechanisms and to provide a means of evaluating the results of the operation. Necessary aircraft support is provided by the Conservation District contract. An analysis has now been performed by Henderson on the ten-year results of the Kings River seeding operation and indicates clearly an increase of 6.1% in the runoff over an average ten-year period in which seeding was performed." 4. "Weather and Climate Modification-Report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification", National Science Foundation, Report No. NSF 66-3. Page 45-46. "For the past ten years the Kings River Conservation District has supported cloud seeding programs by Atmospherics Incorporated in the Kings River drainage area on the Western Slopes of the Sierra Nevada Range in California. A grant from the National Science Foundation provided for additional measurements for study of cloud physics and precipitation. Recent analysis of the data indicates an average 6.1% increase in the runoff in the drainage area due to seeding for the period. This supports preliminary results of a research study by Colorado State University in the area of Climax, Colorado, and of other commercial seeding operations extended over shorter periods of time, that seeding can give a moderate increase in precipitation in orographic situations. An analysis of these and other seeding experiments is included in the National Academy of Sciences Panel Report." I am hopeful that some of the above quotations may be helpful to you and your staff in providing basic information on the current status of weather modification technology. I further emphasize, we are no longer involved in projects designed to prove whether or not it is possible to enhance precipitation by cloud seeding techniques. This has been adequately demonstrated in the past 20 years, particularly so in the past two or three years with the development of improved naterials and application techniques. Our goal now is to optimize this technology and move these increases upward from the apparent 6-12% levels. In the eyes of some members of your staff, there still might remain two areas of concern. First, they might question that such programs have apparently succeeded over the Kings River area and perhaps in other mountain sections but this does not necessarily mean the technology can be applied to the Upper Colorado River basin. It seems apparent to us that, while snow and rainfall rates in the Upper Colorado basins are much less than in some areas of the Sierra Nevada Range in California, there is enough meteorological similarity in storms to provide the appropriate basis for a meaningful operational program. This belief is strongly substantiated by Mr. Lewis Grant's research activities conducted near Climax, Colorado, by Colorado State University. The second question which might still concern many on your staff deals with whether or not cloud seeding results are worth the expenditure of funds. Answers to this are difficult and must necessarily deal with supplemental water above certain storage reservoirs as well as in adjacent areas. The problems are further compounded by factors dealing with multiple use water and lands. It must also deal with the total amount of water available in any given year. In the case of the Kings River area in California, if the value of water is placed at the modest $5.00 per acre foot level, then the cloud seeding program has produced a ten-to-one return on the Kings River Conservation District's investment. Similar estimates can be made for possible programs designed for the Upper Colorado River basin. For example, assuming an operational period of October through May the total annual cost for a field program designed to increase the water supply of the Colorado River would be approximately $547,000 per year. This would include professional level personnel, radar surveillance, aircraft, ground generators, communications, support equipment, all necessary supplies, and a reasonable statistical evaluation. Assuming a minimum 5-10% increase in river flow due to weather modification activities, the cost benefit ratio appears similar to the long-term well-established program here in the Southern Sierra Range of California. We feel that Senate Bill S. 2058 would provide sound legislation and promote the establishment of a meaningful weather modification program on the Upper Colorado River basin. We would heartily endorse its passage. Senate Bill S. 373 does not provoke a similar enthusiasm. We are certainly in agreement with the general concepts presented in the bill but we are uneasy about possible implications in a number of its sections. Pages 1-3 state the neces sary fundamental philosophy precisely and well. We feel the statements provided on Pages 4-7 correctly and fairly delineate the responsibilities under the various areas of meteorological phenomena. Beginning with Line 8 on Page 8, we sensed our first uneasiness. Perhaps we are demonstrating an extreme bias but whenever we see the term "Secretary of Commerce", the implication of Weather Bureau or ESSA is instantaneous. With all due respect to current personnel under the Department of Commerce, their background has always indicated a persistent lack of enthusiasm for a bold and imaginative thrust toward the design, implementation, operation and evaluation of a meaningful weather modification operation. These strong feelings are the result of 20 years exposure in this particular field and we tend to be just a little "gun shy" when the terms "Secretary of Commerce" and "regulation" are used in the same sentence. Fundamentally we would strongly oppose any legislation which allows an agency of the Federal Government to conduct weather modification operations and issue regulations governing the weather modification activities of private business. For this reason, we would strongly urge the formation of a separate 11-man regulatory board composed of representatives from the six federal agencies mentioned in S. 373, three members from universities currently engaged in meaningful weather modification research, and two certified consulting meteorologists from private business. Weather modification is a subject of considerable importance to all of the people in the United States. In addition, we feel the implications on an international level are almost beyond imagination. We note the inclusion of this thinking in Lines 5-10 on Page 3 of S. 373. We suggest the field of weather modification can act as an international tool for peace much like the variety of "Atoms for Peace" programs. We would enthusiastically endorse federal projects oriented in this direction. Personnel in our group have dealt with weather modification and associated problems in great depth during the past 20 years, and we are hopeful those viewing the current technology and future problems will do so on a similar level. From this background of experience, we would be most happy to provide any information your committee might feel is appropriate to present and future federal legislation. Senator CANNON. I also have a statement from E. Bollay Associates, Inc., which will be made a part of the record. This is from Mr. E. Bollay, president. (Statement of Mr. E. Bollay, follows:) U.S. Senator HOWARD W. CANNON, 4024 Federal Building, E. BOLLAY ASSOCIATES, INC., 300 Booth St., Reno, Nev. DEAR SENATOR CANNON: At the invitation of Senator Warren G. Magnuson, I am snubmitting the following comments on S. 373 for the record of hearings that you are holding in Reno on June 17, 1968. S. 373, as currently drafted, places both regulatory and operating authority in a single government agency. I believe it is generally accepted that this is contrary to good administrative practice. S. 373 would place a major responsibility for weather modification in the Department of Commerce. I believe that each mission-oriented agency should have authority to do research on, and apply, those aspects of weather modification that contribute to the success of its mission. With reference to the coordination of weather modification activities in this country, I support the suggested criteria and guidelines for legislation on weather modification, prepared for, and accepted by, the National Water Policy Committee, American Society of Civil Engineers: (1) We suggest that the regulation of all the weather modification activities (Government and private) be vested in an independent Federal Commission. It is considered undesirable for a Government agency to have the combined task of regulating private, university, and other Government agency's projects and conducting projects of its own. Principles in administrative law and sound management suggest that the regulatory functions should be |