7. The design and evaluation of ice nuclei generation devices. Here our effort has a somewhat unique nearby national laboratory so far as the significance is concerned for the evaluation of nuclei generation devices.

8. The evaluation of ice nuclei dispersion systems related to our previous one;

9. The determination of atmospheric silver by atomic spectroscopy on the hydrologic aspects of weather modification.

Senator Cannon, the testimony which I have presented, I hope, emphasizes two things:

1. That progress in weather modification is sufficiently far advanced that the research efforts can well be coordinated effectively with specific planning for field operational work, at least under the atmospheric circumstances that seem to prevail in the Upper Colorado River Basin; and

2. That the best progress for the future requires public policy and public support, such that we can have an intensive partnership program of governmental, university, and private industrial enterprise for the years ahead.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much for your very fine statement. The committee will consider your recommendations as to the proposed amendments of the bill.

The next witness is Dr. Irving Krick, president of Irving Krick Associates. Dr. Krick.

STATEMENT BY DR. IRVING P. KRICK, PRESIDENT, IRVING KRICK ASSOCIATES

Dr. KRICK. Senator Cannon, ladies and gentlemen, we have enterea on behalf of our companies a written report, and rather than read that full report, I would like to read a summary statement which I will also enter for the record, if I may.

Senator CANNON. Your full statement will be made a part of the record, and if you will summarize, that will be very fine.

Dr. KRICK. Yes, sir. I will simply make a summary statement as follows:

We began our investigations in weather modification at the California Institute of Technology in 1946, following the General Electric discovery that certain nucleans could be dispersed into the atmosphere to stimulate precipitation. By 1949 we had conducted fieldwork combining research and actual operations for the Salt River Valley River Users' Association in Arizona, and we found substantial evidence that precipitation and resultant streamflow could be increased through these operations. That gave us our first interest in broadening the scope of our operations, so that ultimately we might engage in work on the Colorado River, which was so important to our own State of California and to the other upper and lower basin States.

We were invited by the Denver Water Board in 1950 to begin experimentation in this area of Colorado, to see what could be done to augment snowpack in the Colorado Rockies. We have continued now for 18 consecutive years to operate winter programs for snowpack in portions of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.

Following our early research in 1947 and 1948 we withdrew from the California Institute of Technology to broaden the scope of our operation. We formed a nonprofit research foundation to conduct the research aspects of our work called the American Institute of Aerological Research, in which the quality of nucleans, their reaction in the atmosphere, dispersion and diffusion patterns, were studied. Proper concentrations of materials were used for use under various storm conditions, and basically the type of thing that is still being investigated by those that have recently entered the field.

In addition to our research organization, we formed a number of corporations in the United States and abroad to carry on field operations, and my summary statement will simply be a review of our actual field operations to give you an idea of the scope of the work in the past 18 years in the full spectrum of climatic areas throughout the world. Gentlemen, consider the following:

1. Our group has been engaged in actual weather modification research and program servicing since 1946, over 20 years of time; 2. We were convinced man could increase the streamflow of the Colorado River Basin as early as 1949;

3. We have operated programs of weather modification in 30 States of the United States, seven Provinces of Canada, Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, Spain, France, the French Alps, Italy, Sardinia, Israel, Syria, Algeria, and the Congo;

4. We have conducted actual projects designed to increase streamflow and resultant storage into catchments within the following areas:

In the United States: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, and North Carolina; in foreign areas: Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec; Spain, France, the Alps, Italy, Sardinia, and the Congo.

Some projects covered river basins ranging from a minor size to and including the 32-million-acre drainage basin of the Columbia River. We have experience of 18 years in snowpack operations within the Colorado Rockies;

5. Our group has operated the longest consecutively sustained weather modification operations for agriculture in the States of Washington and Oregon. If you would consolidate the time sequence of our four projects in these areas, with a commencement date of 1950 to now, it would amount to a timespan covering 50 years. It is important to note that all four projects are in a very similar, a homogenous climatic structure;

6. Based upon our background of experience and actual operations of generators, which now exceeds 2 million hours of generator time, it is our opinion:

(a) That estimates of increasing the streamflow in the Colorado River Basin by 10 and 20 percent are conservative estimates;

(b) That no further time be lost in implementing such a program;

(c) That the program be established for at least 10 years; (d) That the program be operative within the framework of a long-range weather/streamflow forecast. I refer to ex

planation relative to this statement contained in our detailed report. We believe that all weather modification operations of any duration should be conducted and planned within the framework of ultra-long-range weather prediction, which we now have been able to establish on a routine basis commercially for power interests up to periods of 5 years;

(e) That current and continuing evaluation of results be maintained and progress reports issued at intermittent periods;

(f) That the so-called private operator be given a part in the performance of such contemplated programs.

7. It is our basic opinion that the results achieved in a program of weather modification are directly related to:

(a) The financing of the project;

(b) The skill of the operator;

(c) The generating equipment and potency of particles dispersed;

(d) The individual characteristics of the weather regime being influenced.

I wish to thank Senator Cannon for the opportunity to present our portion of the information, and we appreciate the depth of interest expressed by these Senate committee members in attempting to apply all scientific means available to augment the flow of the Colorado River.

I have one other short statement which is not directly related to the Colorado River problem, but which we feel is interesting and perhaps important. And this is a summary review comparing the results in Russia as published by the Russians on hail reduction as compared to those that we have achieved over a 12-year span in the areas of Alberta, east of Calgary, which are reputed to be probably the worst in the world, even more extreme than here in eastern Colorado, where we conducted early research on hail suppression back in the 1951 and 1952 intervals. It is interesting to note that the Russians have achieved essentially the same results over a 2-year period, which they feel was a realistic period, of appraisal of operations. We've gone on, however, for 12 years, and the results are rather interesting. I'll just read the summary of comparisons.

The project area in Canada comprises 2,400,000 acres; in Russia, 1,200,000 acres. Hail incidence prior to hail suppression in Canada, one of the three worst in the world; in Russia, a less severe area than the Alberta target. This is an opinion based upon a study of the report. The experimental period, in other words, the one used for refining techniques for hail suppression, our period covered 1956 to 1959. In other words, we were in the process of developing effective operating techniques during that period. In Russia their period was 1956 to 1963, 8 years. The operational period in our case was 1960 through 1967, 8 years; in Russia, 1964-65, a 2-year period.

The agent used in our case was silver iodide for dispersal of the hail-producing clouds; in Russia it was lead iodide.

The delivery system in our case was ground-based equipment and aircraft. The Russians used antiaircraft artillery guns. The amount of seeding agent used for severe hail threats: We used over a thousand grams per hour from ground generators and aircraft (average drain 6- to 9-hour interval). In Russia, their early tests, they used 500 grams

which they thought necessary to seed one cubic kilometer of hail cell

centers.

Further tests proved that the desired modification could be accomplished with 20 grams, which amounts to about 450 to a thousand grams per hour, which is similar to our release.

Seeding principles: We seeded the total air mass before entering the protected area to decrease the degree of supercold moisture. Aircraft line seeding is used to introduce high concentrations of silver iodide in the cloud-breeding area prior to any cloud development, continuing line and cell seeding on approach to target as well as seeding across protected area.

In Russia, after hail is detected over target on radar, 80 grams of lead iodide is fired into the hail center of the cloud. They must reach this point in the cloud in 2 or 3 minutes after first detection on radar.

Protected area of reduction and hail damage: During the last 2 years in Canada, to make it comparable to Russia-and this is the meat of the coconut-the hail reduction in 1966 and 1967 is 80 percent in Canada; 83 percent in 1964 and 1965 in Russia.

Unprotected area hail damage change in the last 2 years; in other words, outside the target area: The hail has been somewhat more intense in Canada than normal, based on a 40-year record. And in Russia it was also more intense than normal, based on a 5-year record.

Now, protected area of long period reduction. In other words, if we take a 7-year running mean in our project in Canada, from 1961 through 1967, the hail reduction averaged 71 percent. Our 88 percent during the last 2 years of operation showed that we had increased our efficiency. In Russia, only the 1964-65 results were available, which I read a moment ago, 83 percent.

Now, the method of evaluation is interesting, because we both used the same method. In Canada we used hail and insurance data, hail reports from farmers which are collected by the Albert Hail Research Organization, which is Government sponsored, and physical and meteorological data. In Russia they used hail insurance; in other words, hail loss data inside and outside the target areas, both before and after any protection was given. They also used physical and meteorological data and an inspection of areas by hail-control groups. In other words, their method of assessment is about the same as ours. And they received reports of our method which we introduced in 1960, and we suspect that they felt it of enough value so that their method of evaluation for 1964-65 more or less paralleled what we had developed in Canada by 1960.

Now, the historical hail insurance data record is interesting. Before hail suppression operational programs in Canada, we had 40 years of this loss to risk data; whereas in Russia they only had 5 years. Although it's not definite as to the length of time of the record used, 4 or 5 years were used.

Now, evaluation results: Great reduction in hail damage insurance payments on protected cropland in comparison to unprotected cropland. And in Russia it was the same as it was in Alberta. So this means that one of the most violent products of nature, severe hailand in Alberta these hailstones are of cantaloup and basketball size on occasion, which kill cattle-have now been suppressed to a point. where insurance data shows a significant reduction. And we are enter

97-309-68- -5

ing a whole new era in hail insurance. Insurance companies are becoming interested in the possibility of reducing premiums in areas that are protected by a program that has shown such demonstrable results. We find that we have been able to develop in our cloud-seeding programs for streamflow and for filling reservoirs and in agricultural areas, due to the evaluation techniques that have been developed over the years, that we are now in a position to make guarantees of certain results which might be achieved. And I have had correspondence with Senator Dominick in connection with the Colorado River based on our studies and those of others which are contained in the overall report, indicating that we can guarantee over a 10-year period an average increase in streamflow, say, measured at a place like Lee's Ferry, of a million and a half acre-feet per annum. Now, that means that it might be less in dry years and more in wet years, and we feel that this is a conservative estimate, that's why we feel that it's a thing that could be guaranteed. We also feel that it is possible to operate a program effectively within the framework of 5-year forecasts of the streamflow within the river. And there is an example given in our report of a 5-year streamflow forecast verification in a very anomalous period for a number of river basins, including the Columbia, subscribed to by a power group in the Pacific Northwest to verify the validity of this sort of work.

Now, we have made a cost estimate indicating that on the basis of an increase of a million and a half acre-feet of water a year, operating primarily in the Upper Colorado River Basin, we could produce such a program at approximately 50 cents per acre-foot, which would mean something under a million dollars a year, including the evaluation effort and also the forecast of streamflow to be anticipated so that management decisions on the operation of a river basin of this kind, from all the economic aspects, flood control, and so on, could be anticipated.

I believe that summarizes basically what I wanted to state. I know you are running late and I don't want to hang over too long, but if there are any questions that the Senator would care to ask, I would be very happy to try to answer them.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Doctor, for your very fine statement. and summary. I will look forward to going through your statement in detail. It was quite interesting to hear those comparisons that you gave. I appreciate very much your appearing here. You are the concluding witness. So with that, the hearing will be adjourned at this time. The hearing will resume at 10 a.m. Monday morning in Reno, Nev., our next series of hearings.

(The hearing was recessed at 12:35.)

(Dr. Krick's prepared statement follows:)

THE COMBINED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AEROLOGICAL RESEARCH, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IRVING P. KRICK ASSOCIATES. INC., IRVING P. KRICK, INC., OF TEXAS; PRESENTED BY IRVING P. KRICK, PH. D., PRESIDENT

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of this Senate Committee, it is with deep gratitude that I accepted your invitation to appear and provide information relative to the vital subject of increasing the streamflow of the Colorado River Basin.

I don't intend to enter into a long dissertation nor elaborate fully on the benefits to be derived from the application of weather modification within this region