"Dr. KRICK. In our view it would. And if we could maintain the benefit-to-cost ratios which have been achieved in other projects of even greater magnitude than this, that would be a valid statement. Because I think the lowest return that has been computed on a 10 percent increase is around $14 million a year in an average year.

"Since 1953 we have advocated the establishment of an operational weather modification program over the Colorado River Basin. Feasibility studies have shown that such a program at sound costs would alleviate greatly the recurrent water shortages and the problems of the upper and lower basin State water users and our neighbors across the border in Mexico. Again, in our opinion, 15 years have elapsed without action to implement a vital and sound project.

"Gentlemen, the record clearly shows that whenever the validity of cloud seeding is put to the test, first by President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Weather Control and recently by the National Academy of Sciences, it has required an examination of long-term operational records of qualified commercial operators. In both instances findings have shown positive increases in precipitation. Both times the findings have been in the similar order of magnitude.

"Therefore, what is now being said in 1966 was also self-evident in 1957—this represents quite a timelag to recognize almost identical findings.

"Why should we wait longer? The commercial operators have shown they are achieving economically important results. The world has no time to lose in acquiring additional water and increasing food production to meet the population demands. An operational program to add precipitation and streamflow within the Colorado River Basin is practical now. We are ready, have been since 1950, are established in this area, have completed numerous feasibility studies, have intensively studied the daily weather of the area and have other knowledge applicable to this specific task. We have not argued or sought the restriction of research funds expended since 1957 within this field. We do, now, urge that serious consideration be given to the practical capabilities of the commercial operator. Why shouldn't he be a constructive member of this over all effort? Let's use available talents. We, as a group, have prepared over many years to take part in such an effort.

"There are sufficient data and analyses available to validate the merits of commencing an operational weather modification program, without delay, within the Colorado River Basin. In chapter VI, ‘Economic Effect of Increased Precipitation on the Colorado River Basin,' Dean A. M. Eberle, Vice Chairman of President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Weather Control, reports:

"If we assume that precipitation is increased by only 10 percent as a result of weather modification the estimated value of the additional water is as follows for the Colorado River Basin at Lee's Ferry:

"This yields the following dollar values on an average year basis:

"(a) Hydroelectric power value $1,135,000 (additional runoff was valued at 50 cents per acre-foot).

(b) For diversion to agricultural, urban, and industrial uses, assuming a value of 50 cents per acre-foot, $1,135,000.

(c) Grazing land yield annual increase, $12,500,000.

(d) Total dollar value of increase, $14,770,000.'

"The above figures do not include the effect upon the general economy of the West. The additional water would help to offset part of the potential water deficit in the basin. The total annual cost of a weather modification program to increase precipitation upon the Colorado River Basin above Lee's Ferry would be a small fraction of the potential estimated value of the additional water. It is extremely important to note that the value of only a 10 percent increase is in line with estimates included in a final report of the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification to the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council as reported in 1966. Such an increase is also in agreement with the findings of President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Weather Control as reported in 1957.

"It should be noted that a very conservative value of 50 cents per acre foot was used to determine the value of additional runoff. A recent American Meteorological Society Bulletin article, 'Summary Report on Weather Modification' quotes as follows:

"The costs of water in the United States have been variously estimated to be in a range from $1 to $75 per acre-foot, depending primarily upon uses to which it is put.'

"There are other authoritative estimates of additional water values from weather modification within this basin reported upon ranging from $10 million to $150 million."

Summary

I don't believe it is necessary to belabor or discuss in small detail the true and urgent need for additional water within the Colorado River Basin. I believe we are all familiar with the problem and are truly interested in seeking a solution.

But I should like to point out that it is almost 20 years from the time we announced streamflow could be economically increased by weather modification. Today most competent scientists, deeply involved in weather modification, will agree what we stated in 1949 is feasible. We have lost many precious years of time, so let's not permit more years to pass before initiation of this Colorado River Basin project.

We propose the following for your consideration:

1. That no time be lost in implementing the project.

2. That a broad-scale weather modification program be commenced to augment the flows of the Colorado River. (A major portion of the runoff originates within the State of Colorado so concentrated efforts should be placed upon snowpack increases within this State).

3. That the program have at least a 10 year life.

4. That current and continuing evaluation of results be maintained.

5. That operations be conducted within the framework of a long range weather/streamflow forecast.

6. Since 1950 our company has accumulated 18 years of operational experience in the Colorado Rockies-right in the heart of snowpack areas for runoff. Gentlemen, I do appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and discuss this urgent program and look forward to the time when it becomes a reality.

RELATING TO WEATHER MODIFICATION

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Reno, Nev.

The committee met at 10 a.m., in room 4040, Bankruptcy Courtroom, Federal Building, Reno, Nev., Hon. Howard W. Cannon presiding. Present: Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. The hearing will come to order.

This is a hearing on two bills to advance weather modification.

One bill is S. 373, of particular interest to my home State of Nevada, the University of Nevada, and its very fine Desert Research Institute. Several eminent scientists of the institute will be witnesses at this hearing.

The bill, S. 373, is to provide what would be in effect a coordinated national program in weather modification in which four departments and two agencies would participate.

The other bill, S. 2058, is to provide a practicable weather modification program for the Upper Colorado River Basin, which is defined in the measure as Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

S. 373 is similar to S. 2916 of the 89th Congress, which passed the Senate late in the second session, too late for action in the House of Representatives. In November 1965 I conducted hearings on S. 2916 at Las Vegas and Elko, Nev., and several witnesses appearing here today gave important testimony also at those hearings.

Hearings on proposed legislation similar to S. 373, but with a number of largely technical changes, have been held by the Subcommittee on Communications and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, and that bill, H.R. 9212, is pending before the standing committee.

S. 373 is cosponsored by four members of the Committee on Commerce, which has jurisdiction over legislative matters relating to weather. They are Senators Warren G. Magnuson, of Washington, chairman of the committee; Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania; Peter Dominick, of Colorado, and myself. Senator Dominick introduced S. 2058.

Weather modification has many aspects, among them:

Producing moisture in the form of rain or snow where or when the normal precipitation is insufficient; hail suppression; lightning suppression; fog dissipation, particularly in airport areas;

Moderating or preventing tornadoes, hurricanes and other violent storms; and frost prevention.

There are others, but perhaps the earliest goal of mankind has been to produce precipitation in areas that are arid or semiarid, or in areas

where there are deficiencies in rainfall during certain seasons of the year.

In more recent times this has been expanded to encouraging snowfall in upstream areas so that there will be increased runoffs for irrigation and for reservoirs.

A start toward attaining these objectives has been made, as I believe the witnesses here today will confirm, but there is still much to be done and a long ways to go.

And I might add that a very interesting matter appeared at our hearing in Denver a few days ago, where the statement was made that one firm was willing to enter into a contract based upon performance, where they would guarantee that they could increase the flow of the Colorado from the Upper Colorado Basin to the extent of 2 million acre-feet a year.

Congress has been alert to the need to increase precipitation, particularly in the West, for nearly three-quarters of a century. In 1890 it provided limited funds for experiments in producing rainfall by exploding balloons in the clouds.

In mid-Texas, where these experiments were made, the tests were discouraging, although light spatters of rain for 20 or 30 seconds were known. The tests were abandoned in 1893.

Today, in Soviet Russia, antiaircraft guns are battering threatening hail storms with projectiles charged with silver iodide, and the U.S.S.R. claims that in one area last year 15 "hail focuses" were destroyed by antiaircraft shells. We may perhaps take this report with a grain of salt, but in any event S. 373 does not contemplate the use of antiaircraft guns.

We are fortunate today in having as our first witness Dr. Patrick Squires, director of the Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Desert Research Institute of Nevada.

Dr. Squires is one of the real pioneers in weather modification. He participated in conducting the first cloud seeding experiment that produced rain on the ground in Australia. That was in 1947, only a few months after the first cloud seeding experiments anywhere were undertaken here in the United States by Dr. Vincent Schaefer, and the late Dr. Langmuir.

Dr. Squires has a further distinction. He was the first scientist to artifically stimulate convection to build a quiescent cumulus cloud into a towering storm cloud.

Nevada is fortunate to have him. His coming to the university here in Reno, I am told, was responsible for it being designated as a "center of excellence" for "Project Themis" of the Department of Defense, in which our Navy has a particular interest. And perhaps Dr. Squires will tell us about that today.

The Desert Research Institute has many other eminent scientists in weather modification or related fields. I have asked Dr. Squires to bring some of them with him, and the committee extends to them a warm welcome.

Before we proceed with Dr. Squires' testimony, I would appreciate it if Dr. Squires would introduce the people who are accompanying him, and state briefly the activity that they are primarily engaged in. If time permits, at the conclusion of the testimony today, we may have these gentlemen elaborate some on their work.

I am particularly interested for one in electronic and radar applications in the trace analysis methods that have been developed here, and in the work that the laboratory is doing for the Atomic Energy Commission.

Other witnesses here today who will testify are Mr. J. Robert Stinson, Associate Chief, Office of Atmospheric Resources, Bureau of Reclamation.

Dr. George S. Benton, Director, Environmental Science Services Administration, at Boulder, Colo.

Mr. Robert Elliott, president of North American Weather Consultants, a private metorological concern that has wide and long experience in western cloud-seeding operations.

Mr. Elmer DeRicco, director of the State department of conservation and natural resources, is unable to be here, and has Mr. Norman Hall appearing for him.

And I understand that Dr. Williams from the Department of Atmospheric Science of Fresno State College, of Fresno, is here, and also Mr. Thomas Henderson of Atmospherics, Inc., of Fresno, Calif. So with that, you may proceed, Doctor.

Dr. SQUIRES. I would like to add a little to what I have given in written testimony, touching the high points only.

Senator CANNON. I may say that the typed statement will be made a part of the record in full. So if you, or any of the other witnesses, desire to summarize or add to it, feel free to do so, and the printed copy will be made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK SQUIRES, DIRECTOR, LABORATORY OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RENO, NEV.; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN CHISHOLM, WILLIAM BUTCHER, AND DR. JOSEPH WARBURTON, DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RENO, NEV.

Dr. SQUIRES. The bill S. 373 represents a great diversity of interests involved in any modification of the atmosphere, and in this respect it is a very long step toward realism.

There is no doubt whatever that there are some places and some seasons where it is possible and in fact it is achieved that weather modification techniques increase precipitation, particularly in the form of snowfall.

The situation we now face is that we are somewhere within sight of small-scale operational experiments, pilot projects. And two questions naturally arise.

One has to do with how do we regulate for the national interest the activities of people who are undertaking the practical modification of the weather. And in what areas are research and development needed which will extend the application of these techniques and make them more efficient.

With respect to the first question, the regulation, licensing, it seems clear to us in the Desert Research Institute that the matters that we are dealing with here are not really suitable for State regulation. It is true that water law is a State function. Water, however, runs downhill in a predictable manner. The water vapor in the air, with which we are

97-309-GS- -6