U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–211 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–446

WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE

WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT

OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEES ON: SCIENCE AND SPACE; 

DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 10, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 10, 2005 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator DeMint ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 18

WITNESSES

DeFelice, Dr. Thomas P., Past President, Weather Modification Association .... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Garstang, Michael, Ph.D., Professor, University of Virginia; Chair, Committee 

on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, National Research 

Council of the National Academies ..................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Golden, Dr. Joseph H., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for 

Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado .... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX

Marburger, III, John H., Director, Executive Office of the President, Office 

of Science and Technology Policy, letter, dated December 13, 2005 to Hon. 

Kay Bailey Hutchison .......................................................................................... 29

Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement .. 27

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas P. DeFelice by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 33

Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 33

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 34

Response to written questions submitted to Michael Garstang, Ph.D., by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 35

Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 35

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 35

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joseph H. Golden by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ...................................................................................... 30

Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson ................................................................................ 31

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 32

Wilhite, Dr. Donald, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln, prepared statement .......................................................... 27

(1)

WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE 

WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2005

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEES ON: SCIENCE AND SPACE; DISASTER

PREVENTION AND PREDICTION, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Good afternoon. Sorry for the confusion. I appreciate all of you folks joining us this afternoon and look forward 

to hearing from you. My other chairman of this meeting, Senator 

Hutchison, will be back in just a moment. And I know she’s been 

a part of inviting this group here today. 

I am very interested in the testimony. We saw, numerous times 

this summer, and just this past weekend, in Indiana and Kentucky, 

that weather has a profound impact on the lives of Americans. And 

this afternoon, the Subcommittees will be discussing weather modification, and, specifically, legislation introduced by my colleague, 

Senator Hutchison, Senate bill 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. 

As I understand, the genesis of this legislation was to help provide relief to drought-stricken farmers in West Texas and across 

the Nation. As we are all aware, weather modification technologies 

have been pursued for a number of years. For decades, the Federal 

Government has dedicated significant resources to weather modification research, and State and local governments continue to 

spend millions on both operational weather modification technologies and weather modification research. 

I was interested to learn that recently the National Research 

Council of the National Academies, the Nation’s leading scientific 

body, raised some concerns about efficacy of weather modification 

research. Because of the importance of this issue, I’m looking forward to Dr. Garstang’s comments this afternoon and his assessment of the state of the science surrounding weather modification 

research. It’s entirely possible that, at some point in the future, 

2

weather modification technologies might be viable. I continue to be 

impressed by the progress of all kinds of American innovations. At 

some point, this Committee may get to the point where it is considering the complex legal, social, and political issues surrounding 

whether or not the Nation should support a regimen of weather 

modification. But I am aware there are serious concerns about pursuing a regimen of intentional weather modification and want to 

give those concerns careful consideration. 

I’m also concerned that, as a Nation, we do not have sufficient 

understanding of how our atmosphere behaves. It seems that this 

may be a concern shared by the Academy, noting some of the findings in their recent report. I think this Committee should give 

thoughtful consideration to their principal conclusion, which stated 

that, ‘‘Atmospheric science is now in a position to mount a concerted and sustained effort to delineate the scope and expectations 

of future weather modification research. Such an effort must be directed at answering fundamental scientific questions that will yield 

results that will go well beyond application to intentional modification. The emphasis must be on understanding processes, and not 

on modification.’’ I think—in other words, I believe what I’m hearing them saying is that we need to understand how weather works 

now before we go too far in trying to modify it. 

I would also encourage the scientific community, and particularly 

the atmospheric-sciences community, through the National Academies or our scientific societies, to decide what are the highest priorities and most promising areas of research for fundamental atmospheric research. The NRC report on weather modification research outlines some areas that may inform weather modification, 

such as precipitation physics and cloud modeling. Could these 

areas or other areas of the research be considered as part of a comprehensive program of atmospheric research? I’ll let you answer 

the question today. 

Priority-setting is going to be important. In recent years, Republicans in Washington have endeavored to constrain Federal spending. We’ve not been as successful as I would like, but I’m committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that Federal discretionary spending not only does not grow, but that it shrinks. 

I say all this to encourage the atmospheric-science community to 

think critically about where you want to put the next dollar in atmospheric research. There are some very promising places to put 

this funding that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of all 

Americans. I would encourage you to consider the various research 

initiatives proposed by the Academy in light of the other important 

initiatives that need to be undertaken to improve prediction of tornado formation, to understand the rapid intensification of hurricanes, and the other challenges facing us. 

How do all of these competing priorities interact? Maybe there is 

some overlap that will address these important issues and inform 

weather modification. I hope the scientific community can help me 

and this Committee with this priority-setting. 

This Committee is committed to advancing atmospheric sciences, 

because we understand what an important role weather plays in 

the lives of all Americans. So, I’m looking forward to hearing from 

3

you. This issue leaves me with a lot of questions, and I’m hoping 

my witnesses can answer some of those questions today. 

Appearing this afternoon is Dr. Joe Golden, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences. Dr. Golden previously directed NOAA’s weather modification research programs. He will discuss Senate bill 517 

and its potential benefits for weather modification. 

Also with us is Dr. Tom DeFelice, past President of the National 

Weather Modification Association. He will be providing perspectives on the importance of weather modification and weather modification research. 

Finally, appearing before the Subcommittees this afternoon, is 

Dr. Michael Garstang. Dr. Garstang is a Distinguished Emeritus 

Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, 

at the University of Virginia. He’s a fellow at the American Meteorological Society, the AMS—and has served on numerous AMS 

committees. He was also the Chair of the 2003 National Research 

Council Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research. 

OK, having introduced all of our panelists, Dr. Golden, we’ll start 

with you, and if Senator Hutchison comes in, we may need to take 

a break and let her make a statement if she can’t stay the whole 

time. 

So, Dr. Golden, please—I think we’re going to try to keep this to 

five minutes, and then some questions. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN, SENIOR RESEARCH 

SCIENTIST, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (CIRES), UNIVERSITY OF 

COLORADO 

Dr. GOLDEN. Thank you, Senator DeMint. 

I am honored to appear before you today in regards to Senate bill 

517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer 

Authorization Act of 2005. My name is Dr. Joseph Golden, retired 

from NOAA on September 2, 2005, after over 41 years of Federal 

service in NOAA, both in severe-weather research and NWS operations. I now work part-time as a Senior Research Scientist in the 

University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute, in Boulder, Colorado. 

My background in weather modification research relates to the 

fact that I was the last NOAA manager of the Atmospheric Modification Program, or AMP, in NOAA research until its termination 

by the Congress in 1995. None of the NOAA AMP funds were used 

to conduct any operational cloud-seeding, and I feel that, at this 

time, funding under Senate bill 517 should also not be used to conduct any operational cloud-seeding. 

The Texas participation in my AMP program was the first to utilize the NWS NEXRAD Doppler radar data to estimate the rainfall 

increases from seeding convective clouds in Texas. However, one of 

my greatest career frustrations has been witnessing the adoption 

of new research results and technologies, that we developed under 

AMP, by other countries, while our Federal research and technology transfer in my country has largely stagnated. 

4

One example, a chemical tracer technique that we developed in 

my Nevada AMP program to quantify the amount of snow increase 

due to seeding over mountains is now being used by a new cloudseeding program in Australia. 

In China alone, their government is now funding a greatly expanded weather modification research and operations program at 

$100 million per year, as well as training over 1,500 new weather 

modification scientists. 

Federal funding for weather modification research in the United 

States reached its pinnacle in the 1970s and early 1980s, and has 

steadily declined ever since. During its heyday, weather modification research in the U.S. was at the cutting edge of worldwide efforts. For example, NOAA conducted large-scale seeding experiments, in South Florida, called FACE, and we collaborated with 

the Navy and university scientists in Project STORMFURY to 

weaken hurricanes. I participated in STORMFURY while I was a 

Ph.D. candidate, and found it to be one of the most exhilarating experiences of my career. 

The need for a renewed national commitment and funding for 

weather modification research has become more urgent, in my 

view. In recent years, we have seen severe drought in my home 

State of Colorado and the Pacific Northwest. New research results 

show unmistakable impacts of air pollution in reducing seasonal 

precipitation over mountainous areas of the Western U.S. during 

the past several decades. Pollution is systematically robbing the 

western mountains of winter snowpack, and, if the process continues, will lead to major losses of runoff water for hydroelectric 

power and agricultural crop productivity. However, research results 

in Israel—has demonstrated that their long-term cloud-seeding programs have offset similar pollution-induced rainfall losses in their 

country. 

Another weather modification research issue, and one that elicits 

scientific controversy, is severe-storms modification. I don’t have 

time to go into this in any depth, but one of the longest-running 

hail-suppression programs in the world is in North Dakota. And, 

during my tenure, AMP sponsored their research. Positive results 

on the impact of cloud-seeding to reduce hail damage to crops using 

insurance companies’ records of crop-loss ratios were so impressive 

in North Dakota, that the Canadian insurance industry has supported a new multi-year effort in the Province of Alberta, Canada, 

to protect its largest cities from hail. The Alberta hail-suppression 

program uses many of the techniques that we used in the AMP 

North Dakota program. 

Finally, after the horrendous devastation and loss of life from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I have been asked several times 

about the possibility of hurricane modification. And, while we don’t 

have time to fully address the issue today, I firmly believe that we 

are in a much better position, both with the science and the undergirding technology, than we were when Project STORMFURY was 

terminated by our government in 1982. We now understand that 

both tornados and hurricanes exhibit a life cycle, and both exhibit 

natural instabilities during their lifetimes. 

Even after the demise of the AMP program in 1995, operational 

weather modification programs have continued to expand and 

5

flourish in the U.S. This is reflected in the annual reports of all 

such projects to NOAA, as required by law. 

I like the idea of establishing a Weather Modification Advisory 

Board with broad representation, which is needed to set the national agenda and priorities, as Senator DeMint has already 

touched upon, for these and other urgent water-management issues 

facing the country. I have many close scientific colleagues in NOAA 

weather research who would welcome the opportunity to contribute 

to a reinvigorated national program of weather modification research and technology transfer. 

In closing, I want to assure you that the U.S. has the technology 

and the best and brightest scientists, who would welcome the opportunity to reinvigorate the weather modification field. These are 

very challenging issues, and the worsening water crises in the 

West and elsewhere demand our urgent attention. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Golden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST,

COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

(CIRES), UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

I am honored to appear before you today in regards to S. 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005. My name is 

Dr. Joseph H. Golden, retired from NOAA on September 2, 2005 after 41.5 years 

of Federal service in NOAA, both in severe weather research and NWS operations. 

I now work part-time as a Senior Research Scientist in the University of Colorado’s 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in Boulder, Colorado. My background in weather modification research relates to the fact 

that I was the last NOAA manager of the Atmospheric Modification Program (AMP) 

in NOAA Research, until its termination by the Congress in 1995. I was never 

asked by anyone to defend the AMP Program, based on its merits and accomplishments. The AMP program was written into NOAA’s budget by the Congress for 

many years, beginning in the late 1970s. I view the AMP program and its research 

productivity as a highlight of my NOAA career, especially due to the cooperative efforts among the six States in the program (Illinois, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Nevada and Arizona), the universities, private-sector operators, and NOAA research. 

None of the NOAA AMP funds were used to conduct any operational cloud seeding, 

and I feel that, at this time, funding under S. 517 should also not be used for operational cloud seeding efforts. I am pleased to see my colleague, George Bomar here 

from Texas: he was one of the State program managers in AMP, and his State was 

the first to utilize NWS NEXRAD Doppler radar data to estimate the rainfall increases from seeding convective clouds. One of my greatest career frustrations has 

been witnessing the adoption of new research results and technologies we developed 

under AMP by other countries, while Federal research and technology transfer in 

my own country has largely stagnated. For example, a chemical tracer technique developed by the Nevada-AMP program to quantify the amount of snow increase due 

to seeding over mountains is now being used by a new cloud seeding program in 

Australia. In China alone, their government is funding a greatly-expanded weather 

modification research and operations program at $100 million per year, as well as 

training over 1,500 new weather modification scientists. 

In the limited time I speak before you today, I want to address two types of natural disasters, and the potential for planned weather modification to alleviate them: 

slow-onset disasters over many years, such as the continuing drought in the West, 

and the quick-onset disasters such as the record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season 

this year and the massive Oklahoma City tornado outbreak of May 1999. 

Federal funding for weather modification research in the U.S. reached its pinnacle 

in the 1970s and early 1980s, and has steadily declined ever since. During its heyday, weather modification research in the U.S. was at the cutting edge of worldwide 

efforts. For example, NOAA conducted large-scale seeding experiments in South 

Florida (called FACE) and collaborated with the Navy and university scientists in 

Project STORMFURY, to weaken hurricanes. I participated in STORMFURY while 

a Ph.D candidate, and found it to be one of most exhilarating experiences of my caVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
6

reer. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) also organized the National Hail Research Experiment, which attempted to test the validity of the Russian approach to artificially reduce hail by cloud seeding. Finally, the Bureau of 

Reclamation carried out the High Plains experiment, to seed convective clouds for 

rainfall increases over the Central U.S. While each of these programs, in my opinion, produced outstanding scientific results and new operational insights, they produced results that were inconclusive insofar as statistical evaluation is concerned. 

Nevertheless, I feel that our community was a good steward and used limited funding very wisely. I am also convinced that the atmospheric sciences have come a long 

way during the intervening years. The scientific foundation and underlying physics 

in purposeful weather modification, i.e., cloud seeding, is sound and well-established. We now have both the science and the technology to launch a new research 

attack on some of these other vexing problems. 

The need for a renewed national commitment and funding for weather modification research has become more urgent. In recent years, we have seen severe drought 

in my home State of Colorado and the Pacific Northwest. New research results show 

unmistakable impacts of air pollution in reducing seasonal precipitation over mountainous areas of the Western U.S. during the past several decades. Pollution is systematically robbing the Western mountains of winter snowpack, and if the process 

continues, will lead to major losses of runoff water for hydroelectric power and agricultural crop productivity. However, research in Israel has demonstrated that their 

long-term cloud seeding programs have offset similar pollution-induced rainfall 

losses in their country. The new research has also developed new analysis techniques with NOAA satellite data to objectively identify and separate pollution episodes from affected neighboring clouds. The pollution effects on natural precipitation 

in our country and elsewhere is certainly a critical research issue for this bill. Another issue needing more research attention is the question of extra-area effects: if 

we seed cloud systems in one area, and successfully produce increases of precipitation there, are we ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’’ in downwind locations? Results supported by AMP suggested the answer is no, and that there is either no effect downwind, or a slight increase in precipitation. 

Another weather modification research issue, and one that always elicits scientific 

controversy, is severe storms modification. This issue was not addressed much in 

the NAS/NRC weather modification report chaired by my distinguished colleague, 

Michael Garstang. These are the quick-onset disasters of which I spoke earlier, and 

include hailstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes like Katrina and Rita this year. I 

should emphasize that AMP supported some outstanding hail modification research 

with the North Dakota Cloud Modification Program. This operational program is 

one of the longest-running hail suppression programs in the world. Positive results 

on the impact of cloud-seeding to reduce hail damage to crops, using insurance companies’ records of crop-loss ratios, were so impressive, that the Canadian insurance 

industry has supported a new multi-year effort in the province of Alberta, Canada 

to protect its largest cities from hail. The Alberta hail-suppression program uses 

many of the techniques that we used in the AMP-North Dakota program. 

After the horrendous devastation and loss of life from Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, I have been asked several times about the possibilility of hurricane modification. And while I don’t have the time to fully address this issue today, I firmly believe that we are in a much better position, both with the science and the undergirding technology, than we were when Project STORMFURY was terminated in 

1982. We now understand that both tornadoes and hurricanes exhibit a life-cycle, 

and both exhibit natural instabilities during their lifetimes. The key atmospheric 

condition leading to the decay of both destructive vortices is cooler, drier air, as well 

as cooling sea surface conditions for decaying hurricanes. Recent observational and 

modeling studies both suggest that there may be new approaches possible for future 

weakening or track-diversion of hurricanes threatening our shoreline. The key uncertainty, and one which requires enhanced observations, is more continuous and 

accurate monitoring of the natural fluctuations in hurricane intensity and path. For 

example, Wilma intensified in the western Caribbean overnight from a Category 1 

to a Category 5 hurricane, resulting in the lowest pressure ever measured in the 

eye of an Atlantic-basin hurricane. There are now some very exciting computer models that reproduce both hurricane intensification and tornado behavior in remarkable detail. If we mount a sustained, adequately-funded national program of weather modification research and technology transfer, I believe that it may also be possible to successfully weaken tornadoes (or, alternatively, shorten their life-cycles). I 

would be pleased to elaborate details on promising approaches and testable 

hypotheses for tornado/hurricane amelioration at some future time. I am presently 

collaborating with colleagues, Drs. Rosenfeld and Woodley, in testing a new technique for identifying storm systems with high threat of producing tornadoes. This 

7

technique utilizes NOAA satellite data at various wavelengths and shows promise 

in improving NWS lead-times for tornado watches and warnings. 

Even after the demise of the AMP Program in 1995, operational weather modification programs have continued to expand and flourish in the U.S. This is reflected 

in the annual reports of all such projects to NOAA, as required by law. Most of 

these projects are supported by the States, utilities or the private-sector. One of my 

private-sector colleagues recently noted his estimate of total annual expenditures in the U.S. of $25–30 million for weather modification operational projects. There is 

now very little Federally-supporting research to aid these operational programs in 

evaluation, or improving their technological base. We have some of the best cuttingedge science in NOAA research, NCAR and the universities that can help the private weather modification operators improve their evaluation of seeding effects, as 

well as improved targeting of seeding materials in suitable cloud systems. I like the 

idea of establishing the Weather Modification Advisory Board, with broad representation, which is needed to set the national agenda and priorities for these and other 

urgent water management issues facing the country. I have many close scientific 

colleagues in NOAA weather research who would welcome the opportunity to contribute to a reinvigorated national program of weather modification research and 

technology transfer, if support can be found. In fact, our Boulder laboratories won 

a Department of Commerce Gold Medal for our contributions to the recently-completed NWS Modernization and AWIPS computer workstations. I am one who has 

long believed, that to be successful in any form of purposeful weather modification, 

we must first do a very good job of predicting the natural phenomena. 

In closing, I want to assure you that the U.S. has the technology and the best 

and brightest scientists who would welcome the opportunity to reinvigorate the 

weather modification field. These are very challenging issues and the worsening 

water crises in the West and elsewhere demand our urgent attention.

Senator DEMINT. Thank you. 

Dr. Defelice? 

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE, PAST PRESIDENT, 

WEATHER MODIFICATION ASSOCIATION 

Dr. DEFELICE. I am honored to appear here today in regards to 

Senate bill 517. 

My name is Dr. Tom DeFelice. I have two degrees in atmospheric 

science, bachelor’s in—and Ph.D., and a master’s in atmospheric 

physics. 

I was the WMA President—‘‘WMA’’ stands for the Weather Modification Association—President for 2 years, between 2000 and 2002. 

I’m now the Chair of the WMA Public Information and Outreach 

Committee. I began the process before you today by engaging a retired State Senator from Texas, John Leedom, who then engaged 

Senator Hutchison and her staff. 

My experiences and the literature demonstrate that weather 

modification technologies generally possess the potential to increase the rainfall when applied under appropriate conditions. I 

don’t have time to go into all the details of those conditions, but 

will gladly take some questions later. 

The scientific and operational communities generally agree that 

the recent advances in the relevant general physical processes and 

technologies used to assess those processes come together and form 

the basis for the need to have a sustained national program to 

carry out basic and applied research in weather modification 

sciences. This happens to be one of the main recommendations of 

the Garstang report. 

Basically, I see Senate bill 517 as the next logical step as one 

could derive from the Garstang report. It is about research and development of technologies. But it’s not just any research and any 

development; it is research and development that could ultimately 

8

be used to produce a product that could help everybody. It could 

help commerce, improve better forecasts of the weather, which 

could then help our agricultural entities better plan their crops, for 

example. It could help science by improving their models, improving our understanding of processes, especially those of hurricanes, 

to understand why hurricanes like Katrina could form, for example. 

But it also could reinvigorate education. It could help transportation by planning for certain weather events that we may or may 

not be able to detect, or take for granted—freezing rain, icing of 

roads, for example. Predicting and mitigating adverse weather conditions in these cases would have a great benefit, not only to lives, 

but also to our economies. It could also help airports in certain circumstances, particularly during the winter, by clearing out fogs. 

Technology could benefit, since the results, information from this 

bill could be another application directing its innovators and be 

used to transfer said information to the public. So the research 

from this bill could also help the people. And that’s what it’s all 

about. Because the people are faced with an impending water 

shortage. By the decade of the 2020s, our models predict that 40 

percent of the world’s population are going to be living in droughtstressed areas. And we need to start doing something now about 

that, because if we wait, it will be too late, because we haven’t been 

doing the research to develop and to make sure we have all our 

ducks in a row, all our technologies up to par, so that they could 

be of some more use (for those that are not useful already). We 

need to do something about this, because 8 percent of the total 

water budget on the globe is due to consumption, and only 1 percent of the water budget is currently an input. That’s rain. Now, 

with global warming—and the results of that are predicted to minimize precipitation falling to the ground—that means by the decade 

of the 2020s, or shortly thereafter, less than 1 percent of the total 

water budget is going to be an input. That means we’re—and with 

the population growing, we’re going to consume more water, so 

we’re going to have a really, really grave and—how do I say it?—

big problem on our hands, because, well, there won’t be enough 

water to feed our crops. 

And so, I strongly urge everybody—on this Committee and elsewhere—to consider passing this bill and bringing it to its companion bill in the House. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. DeFelice follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE, PAST PRESIDENT, WEATHER

MODIFICATION ASSOCIATION

I am honored to appear before you today in regards to Senate bill 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005. My 

name is Dr. Thomas P. DeFelice. My background in weather modification began 

when I was 15 by reading books on the subject; I had many sessions with WMA 

forefathers Schaefer & Vonnegutt as an undergrad; my academic and subsequent 

professional career concentrated on learning the fundamentals of weather modification relevant sciences and its technologies; President of WMA (2000–2002), Chair 

WMA Public Information Committee (since 2004). I now work as the contractor program manager for two NOAA programs. I am here on my own behalf, expressing 

my own beliefs. I began this process, engaged John Leedom, who engaged Senator 

Hutchison & her staff, and here we are today. 

Weather modification technologies are key to dealing with many present and potential future scientific, environmental, and socioeconomic issues like steadily increasing human suffering and property damage caused by hazardous weather (e.g., 

9

severe weather-Katrina, supercooled fog, freezing rain), fire, and other environmental problems related to ‘‘acid rain,’’ biological or chemical warfare, for instance. 

Their application generally increases rainfall amount. Rain contributes 1 percent of 

the total global water budget. Global water consumption presently makes up 8 percent of the total global water budget. Models estimate about 40 percent of the 

world’s population will live in water—stressed areas by the decade of the 2020s and 

consumption will increase. Further, air pollution (global warming) is reported to reduce the amount of rainfall. Hence, a need to develop new technologies, while applying proven techniques. Water rationing and water management techniques are useful, they do not replenish the reduced rainwater amount. (They simply put a small 

band-aid on a wound that requires multiple stitches.) Therefore they fail to resolve 

the issues’ root cause. Alternatively, weather modification technologies increase the 

rainfall amount (compared to normal) under certain conditions. (They simply put 

multiple stitches on a wound that requires multiple stitches.) Therefore weather 

modification technologies can resolve the issues’ root cause, which will be ensured 

through the research and development program set up by passing S. 517 and its 

companion bill (H.R. 2995). 

Yet some retain an issue concerning whether operational cloud seeding activities, 

especially associated with convective clouds, achieved the intended results claimed. 

Additional evaluations should pacify this issue, especially with the recent technological advances. This would also help us answer, are weather modification technologies ready to increase water resources and alleviate, or possibly prevent 

drought. Yes, they are ready to increase water resources under certain cases, based 

on the available 60-year literature archive, and first-hand information. S. 517 provides a research and development infrastructure for a program that addresses and 

ultimately resolves these issues, while nurturing and developing these technologies 

to provide better returns on our investment. 

The scientific and operational communities generally agree that the recent advances in the relevant, general physical processes and technologies need to be capitalized upon in the form of a concerted and sustained national program to carry 

out basic and applied research in weather modification (e.g., Garstang report, 

Orville report, NRC). However, the perceptions between the science and operational 

communities differ, namely, (1) Interpretation of scientific proof, (2) Current status 

of cloud models as applied to weather modification, (3) Evidence of glaciogenic seeding in convective clouds, (4) Cold season orographic seeding, (5) Evidence for hail 

suppression, and (6) Support for specific purposes. The cold season orographic seeding perceptual difference (4) is not a significant difference in perspective, since the 

science community (post Garstang report) sees orographic cloud seeding as a particularly promising candidate for an intensive field program. 

Perceptual difference (6) reflects the differences between the individual cultures 

(i.e., scientific versus operational) than anything else. Nonetheless, no implementation plans have been proposed. 

I summarize an implementation plan for S. 517 for consideration by its Weather 

Modification Board, which addresses all issues. This implementation plan is born 

from sound scientific basis derived from 60 years of lessons learned exercises, recent 

technological advances, and science community recommendations (Garstang report, 

Orville report, NRC). Societal need provides an impetus for developing systems and 

technologies that monitor and manage atmospheric events, the creation of a new 

weather modification research program and implementation plan according to 

standard engineering practices. This plan helps mitigate the perceptual diferences 

by setting up an integrated team approach to its activities, and by insisting that 

its research and development component be geared toward improving the effectiveness of operations. 

It calls for administering the resources and the activities for all research and development efforts directed toward optimizing the technologies used to manage atmospheric processes and their resultants (e.g., collision-coalescence, hurricanes, 

orographic and convective precipitation, frozen rain). Its mission would be to develop 

the technologies used for operational activities that help provide sustainable water 

supplies and reduce airborne hazards. This includes improving the understanding 

of the relevant processes and their simulations, as well as the evaluation methods 

(physical; chemical; statistical-random, non-random) for operational activities 

through cooperative multidisciplinary research and development arrangements and 

a well-designed outreach effort. Further development is needed for successful application of weather modification technologies to mitigate hurricane and tornado damage, minimize the negative affects of anthropogenic air pollution on precipitation efficiency, or to neutralize negative effects from pollutant deposition. Such requires 

a modeling approach, then verification, and transition to operational use. 

10

The modern weather modification technologies applied to disperse supercooled fog, 

augment the ice crystal process in cloud systems, especially orographic clouds, are 

very effective. Statistical reanalysis using 50+ years of Sierra data show strong signals that the seeding did produce seasonal snowpack increases of 5–10 percent; as 

measured by stream runoff data (a conservative surrogate for snowpack increases). 

Thus, orographic systems, especially winter orographic systems, would help maximize S. 517 derived program success. Garstang’s report apparently was unclear on 

this fact. 

The implementation plan does not include less developed technologies (e.g., extraterrestrial mirrors; ionization, chaos theory-related approaches; sonic initiation of 

precipitation, making a hurricane disappear from conventional radar), or technologies that are already known to be too costly for the benefits they provide if any 

(e.g., using vertical pointing jet engines, or mono-layer films to suppress moisture 

flow into hurricanes), based on insufficient scientific and engineering test results, 

which pose a significant risk to programmatic success. The plan does not support 

funding for Federal Operational cloud seeding, except for small tests/experiments of 

new technologies.

In closing, failure to send S. 517 to appropriate committee hearings with the companion Udall Bill (H.R. 2995), translates into desertification, more destructive 

weather, and even jeopardizes our standing as the premier scientists, engineers and 

practitioners in this area. We have an implementation plan for the program under 

this bill. We have the best technology, the brightest personnel to successfully carry 

out the implementation plan. The 60 years scientific and engineering basis helps assure success. Passing S. 517 now, helps avert adverse efects of desertification, 

Katrina-like hurricane destruction, and air pollution effect on the rain process, for 

example. Thus, this tax payer fully supports passage of Senate bill S. 517 with a 

sufficient budget and duration.

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Garstang? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GARSTANG, PH.D., PROFESSOR,

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON CRITICAL 

ISSUES IN WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH, NATIONAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Dr. GARSTANG. Thank you, Chairman Hutchison and Senator 

DeMint. 

My name is Michael Garstang. I am a Distinguished Emeritus 

Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences 

at the University of Virginia. I’m a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. And I was also Chair of the 2003 National Research 

Council’s Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research. The National Research Council is the operating arm of the 

National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the 

Government on matters of science and technology. 

This afternoon, I will give you a brief summary of the status of 

weather modification research as described in our report. You’ll be 

provided with the executive summary of that report. 

Efforts to minimize harmful weather effects go far back in time. 

The first serious scientific efforts in the United States began in the 

1950s. This effort was not sustained. During the past 30 years, 

there has been a progressive decline in weather modification research. Research support related to weather modification in the 

United States has dropped to less than a half a million dollars per 

year in the year 1999, from a high of $20 million in the late 1970s. 

There have been, concurrently, significant advances in technology over the past 30 years. This has greatly improved our ability to observe, understand, and predict the weather. These advances, however, have not been either collectively or persistently 

applied to the problem of weather modification. 

11

This decline in research must—may be the result of a combination of factors, including early over-optimistic claims, unrealistic 

expectations, and a failure to provide scientifically demonstrable 

successes. But, despite these limitations, and because of the considerable pressures that my colleagues have already indicated resulting from drought, hail, floods, and storm damage, private and State 

agencies spend significant resources to attempt to modify the 

weather. 

In 2001, there were 66 operational weather modification programs in ten States in the Union, and much more activity overseas. 

How do we overcome this disparity between our willingness to attempt to modify the weather and our reluctance to fund research 

to understand such activities? 

The NRC’s committee concluded that, first, with few exceptions, 

there is still no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification. In some instances, encouraging results 

have been observed, but this evidence has not been subjected to 

adequate testing. 

Second, that despite this lack of proof, scientific understanding 

has progressed on many fronts. For instance, there has been substantial improvements in ice-nucleating capabilities of new seeding 

materials. Also, new technologies such as satellite imagery are giving us tools to better understand microphysical processes that lead 

to precipitation. Dr. Golden referred to this. These advantages will 

help us focus and optimize weather modification research. 

Third, that if progress in establishing our capability to modify 

the weather is to be made, the focus must be on key uncertainties 

that hamper progress. For example, there are critical gaps in our 

understanding of the complex chain of physical processes that lead 

to rain, snow, and hail. 

The NRC committee’s primary recommendation is the establishment of a coordinated national program of weather modification research designed to reduce these and other key uncertainties. The 

program should consist of a sustained research effort that uses a 

balanced approach of modeling, laboratory studies, and field measurements. Instead of focusing on near-term operational applications 

of weather modification, the program should address fundamental 

questions. It should take full advantage of recent related research 

and advances in observational, computational, and statistical technologies. 

Our Committee—in our—in the Committee’s opinion, it is premature to initiate large operational weather modification programs. 

Instead, great opportunity exists to coordinate research efforts to 

address fundamental questions that will lead to credible scientific 

results. Focused investigation of atmospheric processes plus coupled technological applications will advance understanding and 

bring many unexpected benefits. This research will place us in a 

position to determine whether, how, and to what extent weather 

systems can be modified. 

In conclusion, the NRC committee emphasizes that weather 

modification should be viewed as a fundamental and legitimate 

part of the atmospheric and environmental science. Growing demand for fresh water, increasing levels of damage and loss of life 

resulting from severe weather, the undertaking of operational acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
12

tivities without the guidance of a sound scientific foundation, and 

the reality of inadvertent atmospheric changes, the science community now has the opportunity, the challenge, and the responsibility 

to assess the potential efficacy and value of intentional weather 

modification. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Garstang follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GARSTANG, PH.D., PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF

VIRGINIA; CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON CRITICAL ISSUES IN WEATHER MODIFICATION

RESEARCH, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Good afternoon Chairmen Hutchison and DeMint, Ranking Members Bill Nelson 

and Ben Nelson, and Members of the Subcommittees. My name is Michael 

Garstang, and I am a Distinguished Emeritus Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. I’m a fellow of the 

American Meteorological Society (AMS) and have served on numerous AMS committees. I was also the chair of the 2003 National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee 

on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research. The National Research Council 

is the operating arm of the National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 to 

advise the government on matters of science and technology. 

This afternoon I will give you a brief summary of the status of weather modification research, as described in our NRC report, the major uncertainties that exist, 

and convey the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. We will also provide 

an Executive Summary of the report which lists the key findings and recommendations in greater detail. 

Efforts to minimize harmful weather impacts go back far in time. In the last 30 

years, significant evidence has accumulated that human activities unintentionally 

affect the weather on scales ranging from local to global. Many of the same fundamental principles underlie both intentional and unintentional weather modification. 

Yet during this 30-year time period, there has been a progressive decline in weather 

modification research. Research support related to weather modification in the 

United States had dropped to less than $0.5M per year in 1999 from a high of $20M 

in the late 1970s. During the same period, there have been significant advances in 

technology. This has greatly improved our ability to observe, understand, and predict the weather. These advances, however, have not been either collectively or persistently applied to the problem of weather modification. 

This decline in research is likely the result of a combination of factors, including 

early overly-optimistic claims, unrealistic expectations, and failure to provide scientifically demonstrable successes. But despite these limitations, and because of 

considerable pressures resulting from drought, hail, floods, and storm damage, private and state agencies actually spend significant resources on attempts to modify 

the weather. In 2001, there were 66 operational weather modification programs in 

10 states and much more activity overseas. 

How do we overcome this disparity between our willingness to attempt to modify 

weather and our reluctance to fund research to understand such activities? The 

2003 National Academies committee that I chaired was charged to provide an updated assessment of the current state and the future of weather modification research, from new technologies to advances in numerical modeling and operations. 

A summary of our report is included in my written testimony. In my comments, I 

want to focus on our conclusions and recommendations. 

First, with a few exceptions, the Committee concluded that there still is no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts. In 

some instances encouraging results have been observed, but this evidence has not 

been subjected to adequate testing. 

Second, despite this lack of proof, the Committee concluded that scientific understanding has progressed on many fronts. For instance, there have been substantial 

improvements in the ice-nucleating capabilities of new seeding materials. Also, new 

technologies such as satellite imagery are giving us tools to better understand the 

microphysical processes that lead to precipitation, and these advances, in time can 

help focus and optimize weather modification research. 

Third, the Committee stated that if progress in establishing our capability to modify the weather is to be made, intellectual and technical resources must be brought 

to bear on the key uncertainties that hamper progress. For example, there are critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
13

ical gaps in our understanding of the complex chain of physical processes that lead 

to rain, snow, and hail. 

Finally, and most importantly, the Committee called for the establishment of a 

coordinated national program of weather modification research designed to reduce 

these and other key uncertainties. The program should consist of a sustained research effort that uses a balanced approach of modeling, laboratory studies, and 

field measurements. Instead of focusing on near-term operational applications of 

weather modification, the program should address fundamental research questions. 

It should take full advantage of recent related research and advances in observational, computational, and statistical technologies, by:

• Capitalizing on new remote and in situ observational tools to carry out exploratory and confirmatory experiments in a variety of cloud and storm systems;

• Improving model treatment of cloud and precipitation physics;

• Improving the use of current computational and data assimilation methods; and

• Capitalizing on existing field facilities and developing partnerships among research groups and select operational programs.

In the Committee’s opinion, it is premature to initiate large-scale operational 

weather modification programs. However, a great opportunity exists to coordinate 

research efforts to address the fundamental questions that will lead to credible scientific results. Focused investigation of atmospheric processes, coupled with technological applications, will advance understanding and bring many unexpected benefits and results. In time, this research will place us in a position to determine 

whether, how, and to what extent weather and weather systems can be modified. 

Closing Thoughts 

The NRC Committee emphasizes that weather modification should be viewed as 

a fundamental and legitimate element of atmospheric and environmental science. 

Owing to the growing demand for fresh water, the increasing levels of damage and 

loss of life resulting from severe weather, the undertaking of operational activities 

without the guidance of a careful scientific foundation, and the reality of inadvertent 

atmospheric changes, the scientific community now has the opportunity, challenge, 

and responsibility to assess the potential efficacy and value of intentional weather 

modification technologies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittees might have. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The weather on planet Earth is a vital and sometimes fatal force in human affairs. Efforts to control or reduce the harmful impacts of weather go back far in 

time. In recent decades our ability to observe and predict various types of meteorological systems has increased tremendously. Yet during this same period there has 

been a progressive decline in weather modification research. Extravagant claims, 

unrealistic expectations, and failure to provide scientifically demonstrable success 

are among the factors responsible for this decline. Significantly, every assessment 

of weather modification dating from the first National Academies’ report in 1964 has 

found that scientific proof of the effectiveness of cloud seeding was lacking (with a 

few notable exceptions, such as the dispersion of cold fog). Each assessment also has 

called for a dedicated research effort directed at removing or reducing basic scientific uncertainties before proceeding with the application of weather modification 

methods. Yet, this type of intensive, committed effort has not been carried out. 

In this, the latest National Academies’ assessment of weather modification, the 

Committee was charged to provide an updated assessment of the ability of current 

and proposed weather modification capabilities to provide beneficial impacts on 

water resource management and weather hazard mitigation. It was asked to examine new technologies, such as ground-based, in situ, and satellite detection systems, 

and fast reacting seeding materials and dispensing methods. The Committee also 

was asked to review advances in numerical modeling on the cloud and mesoscale 

and consider how improvements in computer capabilities might be applied to weather modification. This study was not designed to address policy implications of weather modification; rather it focused on the research and operational issues. Specifically, the Committee was asked to:

• review the current state of the sciences of weather modification and the role of 

weather prediction as it applies to weather modification, paying particular attention to the technological and methodological developments of the last decade;

14

• identify the critical uncertainties limiting advances in weather modification 

science and operation;

• identify future directions in weather modification research and operations for 

improving the management of water resources and the reduction in severe 

weather hazards; and

• suggest actions to identify the potential impacts of localized weather modification on large-scale weather and climate patterns.

Issues and Trends in Weather Modification 

Motivation 

Increasing demands for water make the potential for enhancing the sources, storage, and recycling of freshwater a legitimate area of study. Destruction and loss of 

life due to severe weather, which is increasing with population growth and changing 

demographics, require that we examine ways to reduce these impacts. In addition, 

there is ample evidence that human activities, such as the emission of industrial 

air pollution, can alter atmospheric processes on scales ranging from local precipitation patterns to global climate. These inadvertent impacts on weather and climate 

require a concerted research effort, yet the scientific community has largely failed 

to take advantage of the fact that many of the scientific underpinnings of intentional and unintentional weather modification are the same. 

Current Operational and Research Efforts 

Operational weather modification programs, which primarily involve cloud-seeding activities aimed at enhancing precipitation or mitigating hail fall, exist in more 

than 24 countries, and there were at least 66 operational programs being conducted 

in 10 states across the United States in 2001. No Federal funding currently is supporting any of these operational activities in the United States. Despite the large 

number of operational activities, less than a handful of weather modification research programs are being conducted worldwide. After reaching a peak of $20 million per year in the late 1970s, support for weather modification research in the 

United States has dropped to less than $500,000 per year. 

The Paradox 

Clearly, there is a paradox in these divergent trends: The Federal Government 

is not willing to fund research to understand the efficacy of weather modification 

technologies, but others are willing to spend funds to apply these unproven techniques. Central to this paradox is the failure of past cloud-seeding experiments to 

provide an adequate verification of attempts at modifying the weather. A catch-22 

ensues in which the inability to provide acceptable proof damages the credibility of 

the entire field, resulting in diminished scientific effort to address problems whose 

solutions would almost certainly lead to better evaluations. 

Limitations and Problems 

The dilemma in weather modification thus remains. We know that human activities can affect the weather, and we know that seeding will cause some changes to 

a cloud. However, we still are unable to translate these induced changes into 

verifiable changes in rainfall, hail fall, and snowfall on the ground, or to employ 

methods that produce credible, repeatable changes in precipitation. Among the factors that have contributed to an almost uniform failure to verify seeding effects are 

such uncertainties as the natural variability of precipitation, the inability to measure these variables with the required accuracy or resolution, the detection of a small 

induced effect under these conditions, and the need to randomize and replicate experiments. 

Conclusions 

The Committee concludes that there still is no convincing scientific proof of the 

efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts. In some instances there are 

strong indications of induced changes, but this evidence has not been subjected to 

tests of significance and reproducibility. This does not challenge the scientific basis 

of weather modification concepts. Rather it is the absence of adequate understanding of critical atmospheric processes that, in turn, lead to a failure in producing predictable, detectable, and verifiable results. Questions such as the transferability of seeding techniques or whether seeding in one location can reduce precipitation in other areas can only be addressed through sustained research of the 

underlying science combined with carefully crafted hypotheses and physical and statistical experiments. 

Despite the lack of scientific proof, the Committee concludes that scientific understanding has progressed on many fronts since the last National Academies’ report 

15

and that there have been many promising developments and advances. For instance, 

there have been substantial improvements in the ice-nucleating capabilities of new 

seeding materials. Recent experiments using hygroscopic seeding particles in water 

and ice (mixed-phase) clouds have shown encouraging results, with precipitation increases attributed to increasing the lifetime of the rain-producing systems. There 

are strong suggestions of positive seeding effects in winter orographic glaciogenic 

systems (i.e., cloud systems occurring over mountainous terrain). Satellite imagery 

has underlined the role of high concentrations of aerosols in influencing clouds, rain, 

and lightning, thus drawing the issues of intentional and inadvertent weather modification closer together. This and other recent work has highlighted critical questions about the microphysical processes leading to precipitation, the transport and 

dispersion of seeding material in the cloud volume, the effects of seeding on the dynamical growth of clouds, and the logistics of translating storm-scale effects into an 

area-wide precipitation effect. By isolating these critical questions, which currently 

hamper progress in weather modification, future research efforts can be focused and 

optimized. 

Additional advances in observational, computational, and statistical technologies 

have been made over the past two to three decades that could be applied to weather 

modification. These include, respectively, the capabilities to (1) detect and quantify 

relevant variables on temporal and spatial scales not previously possible; (2) acquire, store, and process vast quantities of data; and (3) account for sources of uncertainty and incorporate complex spatial and temporal relationships. Computer 

power has enabled the development of models that range in scale from a single 

cloud to the global atmosphere. Numerical modeling simulations—validated by observations whenever possible—are useful for testing intentional weather modification and corresponding larger-scale effects. Few of these tools, however, have been 

applied in any collective and concerted fashion to resolve critical uncertainties in 

weather modification. These numerous methodological advances thus have not resulted in greater scientific understanding of the principles underlying weather modification. This has not been due to flawed science but to the lack of support for this 

particular field of the science over the past few decades. As a result there still is 

no conclusive scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification, although the probabilities for seeding-induced alterations are high in some instances. 

Despite this lack of scientific proof, operational weather modification programs to 

increase rain and snowfall and to suppress hail formation continue worldwide based 

on cost versus probabilistic benefit analyses. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation: Because weather modification could potentially contribute to alleviating water resource stresses and severe weather hazards, because weather 

modification is being attempted regardless of scientific proof supporting or refuting 

its efficacy, because inadvertent atmospheric changes are a reality, and because an 

entire suite of new tools and techniques now exist that could be applied to this 

issue, the Committee recommends that there be a renewed commitment to advancing our knowledge of fundamental atmospheric processes that are central to the 

issues of intentional and inadvertent weather modification. The lessons learned 

from such research are likely to have implications well beyond issues of weather 

modification. Sustainable use of atmospheric water resources and mitigation of the 

risks posed by hazardous weather are important goals that deserve to be addressed 

through a sustained research effort. 

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that a coordinated national program be developed to conduct a sustained research effort in the areas of cloud and 

precipitation microphysics, cloud dynamics, cloud modeling, and cloud seeding; it 

should be implemented using a balanced approach of modeling, laboratory studies, 

and field measurements designed to reduce the key uncertainties listed in Box ES.1. 

This program should not focus on near-term operational applications of weather 

modification; rather it should address fundamental research questions from these 

areas that currently impede progress and understanding of intentional and inadvertent weather modification. Because a comprehensive set of specific research questions cannot possibly be listed here, they should be defined by individual proposals 

funded by a national program. Nevertheless, examples of such questions may include the following:

• What is the background aerosol concentration in various places, at different 

times of the year, and during different meteorological conditions? To what extent would weather modification operations be dependent on these background 

concentrations?

16

• What is the variability of cloud and cell properties (including structure, intensity, evolution, and lifetime) within larger clusters, and how do clouds and cells 

interact with larger-scale systems? What are the effects of localized seeding on 

the larger systems in which the seeded clouds are embedded?

• How accurate are radar reflectivity measurements in measuring the differences 

between accumulated rainfall in seeded and unseeded clouds? How does seeding 

affect the drop-size distribution that determines the relationship between the 

measured radar parameter and actual rainfall at the surface?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX ES.1

Summary of Key Uncertainties 

The statements in boldface type are considered to have the highest priority. 

Cloud/precipitation microphysics issues 

• Background concentration, sizes, and chemical composition of aerosols 

that participate in cloud processes

• Nucleation processes as they relate to chemical composition, sizes, and concentrations of hygroscopic aerosol particles

• Ice nucleation (primary and secondary)

• Evolution of the droplet spectra in clouds and processes that contribute to spectra broadening and the onset of coalescence

• Relative importance of drizzle in precipitation processes

Cloud dynamics issues 

• Cloud-to-cloud and mesoscale interactions as they relate to updraft and 

downdraft structures and cloud evolution and lifetimes

• Cloud and sub-cloud dynamical interactions as they relate to precipitation 

amounts and the size spectrum of hydrometeors

• Microphysical, thermodynamical, and dynamical interactions within clouds

Cloud modeling issues 

• Combination of the best cloud models with advanced observing systems 

in carefully designed field tests and experiments

• Extension of existing and development of new cloud-resolving models explicitly 

applied to weather modification

• Application of short-term predictive models including precipitation forecasts and 

data assimilation and adjoint methodology in treated and untreated situations

• Evaluation of predictive models for severe weather events and establishment of 

current predictive capabilities including probabilistic forecasts

• Advancement of the capabilities in cloud models to simulate dispersion trajectories of seeding material

• Use of cloud models to examine effects of cloud seeding outside of seeded areas

• Combination of cloud models with statistical analysis to establish seeding effects

Seeding-related issues 

• Targeting of seeding agents, diffusion and transport of seeding material, and spread of seeding effects throughout the cloud volume

• Measurement capabilities and limitations of cell-tracking software, 

radar, and technologies to observe seeding effects

• Analysis of recent observations with new instruments of high concentrations of 

ice crystals

• Interactions between different hydrometeors in clouds and how to best model 

them

• Modeling and prediction of treated and untreated conditions for simulation

• Mechanisms of transferring the storm-scale effect into an area-wide precipitation effect and tracking possible downwind changes at the single cell, cloud cluster, and floating target scales 

17

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tasks involved in weather modification research fall within the mission responsibilities of several government departments and agencies, and careful coordination of these tasks will be required. 

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that this coordinated research program include: • Capitalizing on new remote and in situ observational tools to carry out exploratory and confirmatory experiments in a variety of cloud and storm systems 

(e.g., Doppler lidars and airborne radars, microwave radiometers, millimeterwave and polarimetric cloud radars, global positioning system (GPS) and celltracking software, the Cloud Particle Imager, the Gerber Particle Volume Monitor, the Cloud Droplet Spectrometer). Initial field studies should concentrate on 

areas that are amenable to accurate numerical simulation and multiparameter, 

three-dimensional observations that allow the testing of clearly formulated 

physical hypotheses. Some especially promising possibilities where substantial 

further progress may occur (not listed in any priority) include:

—Hygroscopic seeding to enhance rainfall. The small-scale experiments and 

larger-scale coordinated field efforts proposed by the Mazatlan workshop on hygroscopic seeding (WMO, 2000) could form a starting point for such efforts. A 

randomized seeding program with concurrent physical measurements (conducted over a period as short as three years) could help scientists to either confirm or discard the statistical results of recent experiments.

—Orographic cloud seeding to enhance precipitation. Such a program could 

build on existing operational activities in the mountainous western United 

States. A randomized program that includes strong modeling and observational 

components, employing advanced computational and observational tools, could 

substantially enhance our understanding of seeding effects and winter 

orographic precipitation.

—Studies of specific seeding effects. This may include studies such as those of 

the initial droplet broadening and subsequent formation of drizzle and rain associated with hygroscopic seeding, or of the role of large (>1 μm) particles (e.g., 

sea spray) in reducing droplet concentrations in polluted regions where precipitation is suppressed due to excess concentrations of small cloud condensation 

nuclei (CCN).

• Improving cloud model treatment of cloud and precipitation physics. Special 

focus is needed on modeling CCN, ice nuclei processes, and the growth, collision, 

breakup, and coalescence of water drops and ice particles. Such studies must 

be based on cloud physics laboratory measurements, tested and tuned in model 

studies, and validated by in situ and ground observations.

• Improving and using current computational and data assimilation capabilities. 

Advances are needed to allow rapid processing of large quantities of data from 

new observations and better simulation of moist cloud and precipitation processes. These models could subsequently be used as planning and diagnostic 

tools in future weather modification studies, and to develop techniques to assist 

in the evaluation of seeding effects.

• Capitalizing on existing field facilities and developing partnerships among research groups and select operational programs. Research in weather modification should take full advantage of opportunities offered by other field research 

programs and by operational weather modification activities. Modest additional 

research efforts directed at the types of research questions mentioned above can 

be added with minimal interference to existing programs. A particularly promising opportunity for such a partnership is the Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program/Cloud and Radiation Test bed (DOE 

ARM/CART) site in the southern Great Plains (Oklahoma/Kansas) augmented 

by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Global Precipitation Mission. This site provides a concentration of the most advanced observing systems and an infrastructural base for sustained basic research. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Environmental Technology Laboratory (NOAA/

ETL) also could serve as important focal points for weather modification research.

In pursuing research related to weather modification explicit, financial and collegial support should be given to young aspiring scientists to enable them to contribute to our fundamental store of knowledge about methods to enhance atmospheric resources and reduce the impacts of hazardous weather. It must be acknowlVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
18

edged that issues related to weather modification go well beyond the limits of physical science. Such issues involve society as a whole, and scientific weather modification research should be accompanied by parallel social, political, economic, environmental, and legal studies. 

The Committee emphasizes that weather modification should be viewed as a fundamental and legitimate element of atmospheric and environmental science. Owing 

to the growing demand for fresh water, the increasing levels of damage and loss of 

life resulting from severe weather, the undertaking of operational activities without 

the guidance of a careful scientific foundation, and the reality of inadvertent atmospheric changes, the scientific community now has the opportunity, challenge, and 

responsibility to assess the potential efficacy and value of intentional weather modification technologies. 

Closing Thoughts 

The Academy Committee emphasizes that weather modification should be viewed 

as a fundamental and legitimate element of atmospheric and environmental science. 

The growing demand for fresh water, the increasing levels of damage and loss of 

life resulting from severe weather, the undertaking of operational activities without 

the guidance of a careful scientific foundation, and the reality of inadvertent atmospheric changes gives the scientific community the opportunity, challenge, and the 

responsibility to determine how and to what extent humans can influence the 

weather.

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Doctor. 

Chairman Hutchison is here. I believe she would like to make an 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON [presiding]. Thank you. 

Well, I very much appreciate the three of you coming. I’m sorry 

I’m late, but I do want to talk to you. I’ve read your testimony, and 

I’ve also read the executive summary of the report in which you 

participated. This was an issue brought to me by a distinguished 

former State Senator from Texas, John Leedom, who is with us 

today, and his wife, Betty, I see. But I thought that the points that 

he made to me were certainly worth pursuing. 

And it seems to me, from all of your testimony, that further research is something that the scientific community wants to see 

happen. And I think, from what Dr. Garstang has just said, that 

the view of the scientific community and the committee that you 

are on is that we shouldn’t be running out there doing things until 

we have the research that either proves what the long-term effects 

are going to be, or not. And I think it’s very important that we pursue this research, which is why I’ve introduced the legislation. 

I am very interested in the findings and recommendations of the 

Committee in which they say that it is recommended that we have 

a sustained research effort in this area. And I want to pursue this 

a little further when we get into questions. I know that Senator 

DeMint has to be on the floor at 3 p.m., so I’m going to defer to 

him to ask his questions first. But I am going to want to talk to 

the three of you about how we should pursue this research, which 

is the purpose of my bill, and to get the best results, and especially 

to determine, from what was said in the report—that there is a 

growing demand for fresh water, the increasing levels of damage 

and loss resulting from severe weather—would indicate that we 

should be researching what we can do to mitigate damage and also 

provide a more steady, even, and balanced source of fresh water, 

19

rather than having a Hurricane Katrina while there is a drought 

in other parts of our country. 

So, I will pursue that, but I will yield to Senator DeMint, because he has another—this, I will tell you, just so that you understand—because this is the last week or 10 days of our session, all 

of us have hearings and conference committees, which is what I 

had to attend earlier, and why I’m late. We had a conference committee on our transportation bill, and I’m sure you’re going to the 

floor for your bill. So, why don’t you go——

Senator DEMINT. OK. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—forward, and I will——

Senator DEMINT. Thank you——

Senator HUTCHISON.—follow you. 

Senator DEMINT.—Chairman. 

Just a quick question, and I will have to leave in a just a moment, but——

This is a fascinating subject for me. The idea that we could actually impact weather is exciting and, I guess, frightening, in some 

ways. But, Dr. Golden, you mentioned just some successes, the successes of adding to the snowfall in mountains and, again, I guess 

we can’t get into a lot of science today, but I assume if we’re able 

to get additional snow in one area, that some other area is not 

going to get as much rainfall or moisture-fall. I mean, we’re not 

putting more moisture in the air, we’re just collecting it in a different place. Is that the concept? 

Dr. GOLDEN. This is one of the very areas that we need to do a 

lot of additional research under Senator Hutchison’s bill. But the 

work that has been done—and there are—we did some of this on 

our FACE program in Florida. We looked at what you’re talking 

about is extra-area effects. If you seed in a target area, are you robbing Peter to pay Paul in areas that are downwind? And both in 

the FACE Project, as well as in other States—in Utah, we looked 

at possible downwind effects from seeding in the mountains of 

Utah. Did they see any decreased snowfall in Southwestern Wyoming? The answer is no. Even the most ardent proponents of the 

mountain seeding will tell you that you’re only processing—you’re 

only affecting a very small fraction of the water vapor that passes 

over the mountains. And so, all of the results in both winter 

oragraphic mountain seeding, as well as convective storm seeding 

suggests that either you have no effect downwind or it’s a slight increase. But, again, there needs to be additional research. There’s 

nothing that suggests large increases outside your target area. It’s 

either no effect or very weak positive effect. 

Senator DEMINT. And you mentioned other countries apparently 

using this successfully. I mean, are there any studies that the scientific community would recognize that says Australia, or, I think 

you mentioned, China, have actually been successful in weather 

modification? 

Dr. GOLDEN. Some of them, yes, but it’s still—I think what Dr. 

Garstang says is true, there still needs to be work on evaluation. 

And while I’m not a strong proponent of using only statistical evaluation, I think, for example, there are—some of the new computer 

models and tracers—we now have come a long way in just the last 

10 years; and this is an effort that we pioneered in this country. 

20

There are now tracer techniques that you can use right when you 

seed to tell you not only how much increase in snow is due to the 

seeding, but how much of the seeding material actually made it 

into the snow that fell. And so, this has just been developed over 

the last 10 years, and they’re just starting to apply this technology 

in the Australia program. So——

Senator DEMINT. Well, thank——

Senator HUTCHISON. Could I ask a question just on that——

Senator DEMINT. Sure. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—same subject, while you’re here? 

There are ten States and probably 66 operational modification 

programs just ongoing now by States and local water agencies. Is 

there any place that those projects that are ongoing, operations 

that are ongoing, where data is collected at a central point so that 

we do see the effects of those particular operations as they are supposed to be working? 

Dr. GOLDEN. No. You raise a very good point. I mean, that’s what 

we’re all about today, is—I talked to one of the biggest operators 

that supports many of these programs, both in the U.S.—many of 

the operational weather modification programs—and they told me 

that—he estimates that there is now an expenditure per year, a 

combined expenditure, just in our country, of $25 to $30 million per 

year on operations. But since the demise of my AMP program, 

there is no central focus. And, frankly, most of the operational 

groups that support the seeding activity feel that most of their 

funding has to go to the seeding effort, to the operations. So, they 

look to the Government. They look to the Federal Government to 

play the major role here. 

To be honest with you, some of them, recognizing the value of research to helping them evaluate what they do, are supporting small 

research efforts. The newest entry into this, by the way, is the 

State of Wyoming. They’re about to start a new $8 million program 

of snowpack seeding enhancement. 

Senator HUTCHISON. At the very least, we ought to be——

Senator DEMINT. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—gathering the data. 

Senator DEMINT. So, we’re spending $25 million a year, but we 

really don’t have any quantitative data that suggests that it works, 

just more of an—empirical evidence that people believe there is 

some impact, right? 

Dr. GOLDEN. They do their own evaluation. No, I don’t mean to 

say—they are not—not much of that money is going to support any 

of the research that Dr. Garstang recommended in his report. Most 

of that is for their operations and some evaluation. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But nothing is gathered nationally——

Dr. GOLDEN. Right. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—to see what the effects are. 

Senator DEMINT. You’re going to have to excuse me. 

Senator HUTCHISON. OK, thank you. 

I wanted to ask you, because we’ve been through some particularly bad weather situations this year, is there any thought in the 

scientific community that you could, by, say, seeding, maybe, a hurricane in the early stages, that you could lessen its effect, make it 

start dropping earlier, and lessen its effect when it hits land? Is 

21

there any potential for that kind of modification? We’ve been talking about modification, obviously, over land, where you’re trying to 

get rain for crops. But we also are looking at ways to maybe even 

out the kind of weather and rainfall that we would have. Is there 

any hope that we could eventually use some kind of scientific 

means like this to take out the violence of a storm? 

Dr. GARSTANG. I’ll pick that one up, Senator Hutchison. 

Yes, as Dr. Golden said, there was a program, STORMFURY, 

that did, indeed, attempt to—and they used the word ‘‘moderate’’ 

a hurricane, change its wind speeds. And although it’s controversial now, there was a conclusion that they had, indeed, got evidence for a reduction of 15 percent in the wind speeds. Now, if you 

take a hurricane wind from 100 miles an hour down to 85 miles 

an hour, the damage is the square of the wind velocity, so you mitigate damage considerably. However, as I said, there’s question 

about that. 

There are no current methodologies that could be employed to reduce or to deflect a hurricane. However, there are very promising 

computer models that are beginning to suggest how we might approach this. And, interestingly enough from what Dr. Golden said, 

one of the most advanced pieces of work is being done by the European community’s National Center for Meteorology or long-range/

medium-range forecasting. And it’s using our ideas. But there are 

efforts in this country where the model suggests that very small effects might have quite drastic consequences. And this is a characteristic of the atmosphere. 

I’m sure you know that the whole theory of chaos came from a 

meteorologist, Dr. Ed Lorenz, from MIT, where he was trying to determine what, in all these small effects—and to use the kind of 

analogy that he used, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil 

creates a tornado in Kansas. In other words, these very tiny effects 

can have, ultimately, very large consequences. 

Models now are being used to find these. Are they there, and can 

we find them? And Dr. Ross Hoffman’s work suggests that, yes, 

they are. It’s not clear how you would necessarily bring that about, 

but if we don’t pursue this work, we will never know the answer. 

So, the answer is: not right now, but yes in the future. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Dr. DeFelice? 

Dr. DEFELICE. Yes, I’d like to just add to this. I think the—excuse me, technical difficulties—I think under your bill, once it’s 

passed, I would recommend to the board an implementation plan 

for the research that would be conducted under it, and part of that 

plan would involve hurricane modification and some of the issues 

that my distinguished colleagues have mentioned. But I would just 

want to emphasize the need to do modeling studies to test all possible seeding scenarios relative to the result of those inputs. Get 

the best models that we can on hurricanes, because there are really—there’s some really good ones out there, even in the United 

States. And then have some of our computer scientists add a computer program—or a subroutine that would act like we were seeding them, but not do any seeding. 

Under our plan, the implementation plan for this bill, there 

would be no way that the Government would be doing any operVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
22

ational cloud-seeding or anything like that. They would—hurricane 

modification and all that research would have to be done by models. And once the modeling studies were complete, then one might 

form a hypothesis which might be testable out in the field. But we 

would know what would happen or think we know what would 

happen, based on the models. I just wanted to emphasize the use 

of models in any severe-storm type of modification research that 

happens under this bill. At least that would be my view and hope. 

Senator HUTCHISON. If you were going to do an implementation 

plan—say, we pass the bill, we have appointments to the board, 

and you would want a representative board from the different 

areas of weather expertise, but what areas do you think would be 

the most productive in which to do research? Obviously, cloud-seeding for fresh water. And hurricane or violent weather modification 

would be two. What else could we gain from this kind of effort? 

Dr. DEFELICE. I’ll start, and then I’m sure there’ll be plenty to 

add to it. 

I would think that we might consider looking into clearing out 

fog in the vicinity of airports, and perhaps other areas, particularly 

in the Northeast, which might benefit from increased sunlight particularly during the winter. So, these would be cold clouds. Another 

area would be hygroscopic seeding. And there’s a lot that’s not 

known about that. There’s a lot of promising results. 

Senator HUTCHISON. ‘‘Hygroscopic,’’ being? 

Dr. DEFELICE. Putting small salt nuclei into the proper part of 

the cloud so that those nuclei would help enhance the interaction 

between the droplets in the cloud, so that would then, in turn, 

produce more precipitation. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Is that different from other types of cloudseeding, or are there different forms? 

Dr. DEFELICE. It’s just that—that is different in the sense that 

it’s just a different way to trigger the precipitation process in the 

cloud. You can use agents that would grow ice crystals in the cloud. 

But those clouds would have to be cold enough for the ice to exist, 

if it was to form. 

Senator HUTCHISON. OK. 

Dr. DEFELICE. But those would be the primary areas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Any others? 

Dr. GOLDEN. I want to emphasize—and I wish Senator DeMint 

were here—that one of the terrible things that happened when we 

cut STORMFURY in the early 1980s was that, beginning at that 

point, the research funding for hurricane research in NOAA steadily declined. And it’s declined ever since. The other thing that happened is that most of our research on cloud physics evaporated. 

People left the agency, people changed their careers. In fact, there 

are almost no cloud physicists left—cloud physicists in NOAA have 

become an endangered species. 

Why is that important? It means that if you don’t understand the 

cloud physics, as Dr. Garstang emphasized, you have no hope of 

understanding how you might beneficially modify clouds to produce 

increased rainfall. And that feeds back into being able to predict 

heavy rain and heavy snow. In other words, this is one of the top 

priorities for my colleagues in the National Weather Service. I 

mean, we all get frustrated that our skill scores, our forecast accuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
23

racies for heavy rain or heavy snow aren’t what they need to be. 

And so, this is all linked together, so that there is no doubt in my 

mind that any investment by this bill in weather modification research will yield big payoffs in the prediction arena. And, as I said 

in my testimony, ultimately we’re never going to be able to convince ourselves or anyone else that we’re successful in weather 

modification unless we can do a good job of predicting the unmodified natural event. That’s the—that’s one of the most fundamental 

questions. 

Dr. GARSTANG. I certainly agree with all of those sentiments. But 

I’d like to emphasize that if the bill could bring cohesive and sustained effort directed at solving the outstanding problems that we 

know are roadblocks to our progress, if you can remove these roadblocks, you can progress. And if you simultaneously, with this coherent program, brought to bear on it all of the technological advances that have occurred in the last 30 years, there would be immediate and tremendous advances. Dr. Golden has referred to a 

couple. 

For example, in the successful, I think, attempts at increasing 

snowpack on the Sierras and western slopes of the Rockies, we 

didn’t know where the seeding material was going. We now can determine precisely where it’s going. And often it didn’t go where we 

thought it was going, didn’t go where it would do any good. We also 

can precisely describe the flow fields through the cloud. We couldn’t 

do that 10 years ago. 

These techniques have not been coherently brought to bear on 

weather modification. As soon as we do that, we will have immediate results. 

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s assume that all of cardiac investigations were prevented from using the technological advances 

that have occurred in heart research over the last 20 years. Where 

would we be in preventing heart disease today? We would be way 

behind where we are. 

We have not brought these same kind of sophisticated techniques, which are in place, to bear on the problem. And if you could 

create that situation where that was possible, you would get immediate results. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Have you looked at my bill? I would like to 

ask each of you. And do you have any suggestions on any ways to 

improve it? 

Basically, what I’m trying to do is establish this research and a 

board that would be made up of experts from these various areas 

with various expertise that would be advisory to the Department 

of Commerce and NOAA. And my question is, Is there something 

that you would suggest that would make it any more able to 

achieve the goal of more emphasis on research, an implementation 

of the research, and an advisory board made up of experts that 

would really focus the Department on the areas that should be 

looked at that we’ve discussed? 

Dr. DEFELICE. I think, as—let me just check—thank you. As I 

looked through the bill, I think one rule of thumb that I’d like to 

see—and I believe I’ve seen this—was to have a multidisciplinary 

approach to the research agenda, and have the board basically get 

together with these multidisciplinary components of the field and 

24

discuss the priorities. Now, we come up with priorities, and this is 

great. And, from what I heard they make sense. But there might 

not be enough money to carry out all of those particular items. So, 

I think we need to make sure that we have representatives from 

all components of the system that we’re trying to research, including the general public. So, if the general public is going to be involved, then we might have to have an outreach component, which 

I strongly urge be in there. I think it is. And we would want representatives from the scientists—science community, maybe some 

sociologists, economics-type people, commerce, and, so on. But the 

point is, we want people that are affected by the system, and we 

need those people to represent each component of that system, so 

that when we do develop the priorities, everybody will be represented in that process, and will be part of it, and will—should 

stay with that process from beginning to end. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I’d—we certainly——

Dr. DEFELICE.—that’s great. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—do have a multidisciplinary concept, and if 

there are any other disciplines that should be added, I would like 

for you to write me a letter about that later. 

Yes? 

Dr. GOLDEN. No, I don’t want to tinker with your bill. I think 

that the board is well represented. Is NSF—do they have a representation on the board? 

Senator HUTCHISON. It is the—one representative of the National 

Center for Atmospheric Research of the National Science Foundation. 

Dr. GOLDEN. OK. Because they, in the past—this is no longer the 

case, but in the past, I know that during my AMP Program, we 

did—some of the States actually got—funded proposals through 

NSF, and then NSF has also stopped supporting weather modification research. But, I mean, your bill—I think it’s fine. I think it 

says that the board can appoint extra staff, and it can appoint subcommittees. And, no, I wouldn’t want to second-guess that. I think 

once they’re assembled, then they can start tackling this issue of 

national priorities, and I think they’ll come to the AMS, they’ll 

come to the American Society of Civil Engineers, they’ll come, 

hopefully, to the Weather Modification Association, and—I mean, 

these are the venues where the national priorities could be set. I 

have no problem with that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Dr. Garstang? 

Dr. GARSTANG. I have only had the benefit to discuss your bill. 

I have not read it. We hadn’t—it wasn’t in time when I got notified 

to appear here. But I would be glad to look at it carefully, because 

I gather, from both yourself and from discussions, that you’ve incorporated a lot of ideas, results from the NRC report. And I would 

be glad to send these to you—to your staff in writing right away. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would really be pleased if you would, because I think we all are on the same wavelength regarding the 

need to have an emphasis here, trying to implement that through 

an advisory board. I think the advisory board—we tried to make 

it representative of the different areas of expertise, and—so, I’d like 

to move the bill, so I’d like to have all of your comments and look 

forward to perhaps being able to do this in——

25

* The information referred to has been printed in the Appendix. 

OK, I’m told that Senator Ben Nelson had a witness recommendation who was unable to attend the hearing and has submitted a statement to be included in the record, Commander Donald Wilhite, Director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at 

the University of Nebraska. * 

Senator HUTCHISON. OK. Well, I have no further questions. Is 

there anything further that any of you would like to add for the 

record? 

[No response.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. If not, we will give you a copy of the bill, 

Dr. Garstang. And I hope that we can all come together. And I 

hope Senator DeMint will work with us, as well, to try to move this 

forward. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I learned a lot, and I 

think we can make some great headway in this area with your expertise. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(27)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Due to the short notice of the scheduling of the Joint Subcommittee hearing on 

S. 517, ‘‘The Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization 

Act of 2005,’’ I am unable to attend the hearing today. This is an important issue 

and I regret not being able to reschedule prior commitments in order to be there. 

However, I did want to take the opportunity, as we discuss weather modification, 

to highlight an area of research that is happening at the University of Nebraska 

related to drought mitigation. While the focus of this hearing is weather modification, I believe it is relevant to address another aspect important to this area of research, which is adequate monitoring of weather patterns so that we may appropriately respond to and mitigate the effects of adverse weather. 

The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, was established in 1995 and performs a number of activities of importance to Nebraska, the region, and the Nation. Its functions include maintaining 

a web-based information clearinghouse, drought monitoring, the preparation of the 

weekly U.S. Drought Monitor (which covers all 50 states), the development of 

drought policy and planning techniques, collaborative research on improved decision 

tools for agricultural producers and natural resource managers, and outreach and 

training workshops for Federal, State, and foreign governments and organizations. 

The NDMC has worked with most states in the development of drought mitigation 

and response plans aimed at reducing vulnerability to episodes of severe drought. 

The NDMC has worked closely with the Western Governors’ Association and NOAA 

in formulating the proposal for a National Integrated Drought Information System. 

This system is currently being implemented by NOAA with the assistance of the 

NDMC. 

With this statement, I am submitting a statement from Dr. Donald Wilhite, Director of the NDMC, which details more fully the work they are doing at the University 

of Nebraska. I believe the research that is being conducted there is critical to our 

ability to respond to the devastating effects of drought. 

This research is especially relevant to Nebraska and other Plains states right 

now, which have been experiencing drought conditions for several years; but the research done by the NDMC has a national benefit. Droughts have plagued all regions 

of the country over the past 10 years and many parts of the West have been in 

drought for 5 to 7 years. They are often slow in developing, but the costs and indirect effects have a substantial impact on water supplies, agriculture, energy production, natural resources, recreation and tourism, transportation, development, and 

the environment. 

The effect of drought in recent years in my state has been devastating. Its impact 

has been felt throughout the economy of Nebraska. While drought typically does not 

produce dramatic news footage like a hurricane or tornado will, it is nonetheless, 

a disaster. 

I believe it is crucial to encourage more investment in research in programs such 

as the NDMC. The research done upfront in monitoring drought trends will help 

our capabilities to mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. I am hopeful that we can hold a hearing on drought in the Disaster Prevention 

and Prediction Subcommittee next year. This is an important issue that I believe 

warrants more discussion. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD WILHITE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DROUGHT

MITIGATION CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the National 

Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), which is located at the University of Nebraska 

in Lincoln. Climate variability is an important issue that affects everyone across the 

28

United States. This is true whether it is related to heating bills for the upcoming 

winter; to El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a events that might cause flooding or drought; or the 

frequency of natural hazards striking our Nation, like the numerous hurricanes during the past two years. The truth is that drought is one of the costliest hazards to 

affect the country: FEMA has estimated that the annual losses due to drought are 

approximately $8 billion, which is a higher estimate than for any other natural hazard. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma may change that placement slightly, but 

drought remains a serious threat across the United States. The impacts resulting 

from drought are complex, and as our vulnerability to droughts changes with the 

shifting pressures on the Nation’s finite water resources, impacts due to drought 

may increase in the future. 

I would like to emphasize that drought is a normal part of the climate across the 

United States. At any given time, approximately 14 percent of the Nation is in severe drought or worse. It is also important to note that multiple-year events (like 

the 1930s and 1950s, and the 1960s along the East Coast) are not unusual events 

in the paleo-climate record. For this reason, we need to be prepared for droughts, 

and focus our attention on mitigation and planning strategies that would reduce 

drought impacts before droughts strike. 

The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) was formed in 1995. At that 

time, there was no national initiative or program that focused on drought monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness and the Nation was just coming out of a period 

of serious drought lasting from 1988 to 1994. I have been involved in drought-related research and outreach since 1980, and the formation of the NDMC developed 

out of a national conference on drought that I organized in 1994. During the first 

year, our funding came from both NOAA and USDA. Since then, the NDMC’s base 

operating budget is provided through USDA and supplemented by numerous grants 

from NOAA, NSF, NASA, USGS, BoR, and other USDA agencies. 

The NDMC’s program is directed at lessening societal vulnerability to drought 

through a risk-based management approach. The NDMC’s activities include promoting and conducting research and outreach activities on drought monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness technologies; improving coordination of drought-related activities and actions within and between levels of government; and assisting in the 

development, dissemination, and implementation of appropriate mitigation and preparedness technologies in the public and private sectors. Emphasis is placed on research and outreach projects and mitigation/management strategies and programs 

that stress risk management measures rather than reactive, crisis management actions. 

After the NDMC formed, a severe drought struck the Southern Plains and Southwestern United States in 1995–96. Beginning in 1999, the Nation has experienced 

another series of drought events. These droughts peaked in 2000 and 2002, when 

close to 40 percent of the Nation was considered to be in severe drought or worse. 

At the end of July 2002, all 50 states were experiencing some level of dryness or 

drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. For states in the West (Montana, 

Wyoming, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Colorado), the drought became a multipleyear event that continues in some of these locations. For states in the Southeast 

(Georgia and South Carolina, for example), an unprecedented five-year drought took 

place between 1998 and 2002. 

Even during 2005, when the percent area of the country experiencing serious 

drought fell below that of previous years, an extreme drought spread over parts of 

Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. For some locations, the summer was 

one of the driest ever. At a few other locations, 2005 is on pace to be the driest year 

on record, surpassing even the dryness experienced during the famous drought 

years of the 1930s and 1950s. The area in drought in 2005 included a portion of 

the Nation’s Corn Belt. Estimates of crop losses for Illinois originally totaled $1.3 

billion, but recent estimates have improved that number to approximately $0.7 billion, mainly in the northern and central parts of the state. These drought losses 

could have been much worse without the well-timed moisture remnants moving 

across the area as a result of several of the hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast 

in 2005. The last big drought to hit the Corn Belt hard was in 1988, with estimated 

crop production-related losses of approximately $15 billion. We narrowly dodged a 

huge bullet in 2005. 

Through these recent droughts, the NDMC has continued to work across the country on its mission. The NDMC maintains its involvement in drought monitoring 

through the U.S. Drought Monitor map, which is a weekly assessment of the current 

drought conditions. Two of the NDMC staff, Mark Svoboda and Michael Hayes, 

serve as authors for this product, along with partners at NOAA and USDA. The 

NDMC also participates in the monthly North American Drought Monitor, which includes collaboration with Canadian and Mexican scientists. Several countries and 

29

regions around the world have expressed interest in adopting the Drought Monitor 

format to assess drought conditions. The NDMC has been involved in a NATO 

project with the Czech Republic to investigate drought monitoring opportunities in 

Central Europe. In November 2005, the NDMC, NOAA, and USDA will be participating in a bilateral workshop with the Chinese Meteorological Agency on drought 

monitoring strategies for China. 

The NDMC is continuing to conduct research in the broadly defined areas of 

drought monitoring, mitigation, and planning. We continue to work with NOAA and 

the Western Governors’ Association on the implementation of the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). The NDMC recently launched a new 

web-based product directed at development of a web-based drought impacts tool to 

help NOAA, USDA, and other agencies determine the impacts associated with 

drought in a timely manner. The NDMC has a proposal pending with NOAA to further support this activity. 

In terms of outreach, education, and training, the NDMC continues to maintain 

and improve its website (drought.unl.edu) and the U.S. Drought Monitor website. 

These two sites resulted in more than 12 million hits in 2005. We organized and 

conducted three drought workshops during 2005 and participated in many other 

workshops and conferences throughout the United States and internationally. The 

Center continues to assist other states and local governments in the development 

or revision of drought plans. Thirty-eight states now have drought response or mitigation plans in place, largely through the efforts of the NDMC. 

In summary, the NDMC strongly supports more research and development to investigate issues of climate variability, natural hazards, and drought. Our experience 

with drought is that, in the long run, by making a wise initial investment, the Nation will save money by improving our capability for drought monitoring, mitigation, 

and response. Initial investments like these will reduce the adverse affects of future 

climate events on our Nation. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

POLICY

Washington, DC, December 13, 2005

Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Chairman, 

Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space, 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hutchison:

This letter is in response to S. 517, ‘‘the Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005,’’ reported out by the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science and Transportation on November 17, 2005 (Senate Report 

No. 109–202). While the Administration recognizes the Committee’s interest in 

weather modification research and development, there is a host of issues—including 

liability, foreign policy, and national security concerns—that arose in the past and 

should be adequately considered before the U.S. Government undertakes the coordinated national research program this legislation would require. 

The Administration respectfully requests that you defer further consideration of 

the bill pending the outcome of an inter-agency discussion of these issues that the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) would coordinate—with the Department of Justice on legal issues, with the Department of State on foreign policy implications, with the Departments of Defense and State on national security implications, and with pertinent research agencies to consider the reasons the U.S. Government previously halted its work in this area. At the conclusion of this review, the 

Administration would report back to you on the results of these discussions so you 

are fully apprised of all possible issues associated with authorizing a new Federal 

program on this topic. 

Specifically, the Administration believes concerns in the following areas must be 

better understood:

• Local Political & Legal Ramifications

—Because small scale weather modification (e.g., cloud seeding) may promote 

rain in one area to the detriment of another, weather modification could result 

in inter-state (including Indian Tribes) litigation or private citizen litigation 

against the modification programs.

—The legal and liability issues pertaining to weather modification, and the potential adverse consequences on life, property, and water resource availability 

30

resulting from weather modification activities, must be considered fully before 

the U.S. Government could take responsibility for this new research program.

• International and Foreign Policy Implications

—Small and large scale (e.g., hurricane) weather modification efforts could benefit the United States to the detriment of other countries (such as Canada or 

Mexico).

—Given global weather patterns, whether one country ‘‘owns’’ its weather so as 

to assert intra-border control with extra-border consequences, must be considered under present international conventions.

—The manner in which such a program could benefit or harm the present U.S. 

positions on foreign policy matters, such as global warming/climate change, 

should also be considered.

• National Security Implications

—The U.S. Government’s previous weather modification programs were part of 

our Cold War history; restarting them today could promote (possibly hostile) foreign responses.

—In 1978, the United States became a party to an international treaty banning 

the use of weather modification for hostile purposes. While modification for 

peaceful purposes is allowed, whether well-intentioned programs could be considered ‘‘hostile’’ and perceived to violate this ban should be considered.

• Research Issues

—The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) primary atmospheric and meteorological research focus is on 

improving weather forecasting, which has proven to save lives and property. 

NOAA abandoned weather modification activities some time ago in favor of 

other research areas that more directly relate to the agency’s core mission and 

responsibilities.

—Redirecting funding to focus on weather modification can shift funds away 

from other important programs such as research to improve weather forecasting 

capabilities for severe weather events and research to better understand climate 

variability and change.

In addition to discussing these concerns on an interagency basis, and in recognition of your interest in this area, OSTP would be willing to charter a study to address the above issues. This study would be conducted by the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI), a federally-chartered research and development center that provides objective, technical advice to OSTP. The study would address the 

history and current status of weather modification research. Such a study will help 

us understand the technical position of this field of science, the significance of the 

issues discussed above, and the field’s historical context. 

The Administration requests that you not move forward with your legislative proposal until a better understanding can be developed of the full range of possible implications. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN H. MARBURGER, III, 

Director. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN

Weather Board 

Question 1. What is this Board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the 

Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA? 

Answer. There is no legal and line of authority relationship of the Board to the 

Secretary of Commerce and NOAA. However, a Subcommittee would be established 

under OSTP and a board of private advisors will support the Subcommittee’s efforts. 

NOAA will be a Co-Chair of the Subcommittee with NSF.

Question 2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity? 

Answer. This entity is being established to study the effectiveness of a weather 

modification program and would not establish direct authority to conduct operational weather modification.

31

Question 3. The establishment of this Board appears to place weather modification 

research above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding 

within the Federal system. Why? 

Answer. No, I do not believe the bill places weather modification research above 

any other type of atmospheric research within the Federal agencies. Further, one 

cannot divorce weather modification research from basic atmospheric research. One 

must not forget that a prerequisite for meaningful weather modification is that one 

must first understand the phenomenon being modified. Thus, weather modification 

research always adds to the body of knowledge of basic weather we already have 

now, resulting in better forecasts and warnings of most weather phenomena. I 

strongly believe that now is the time to begin a sustained Federal effort in weather 

modification research, not only to determine optimum conditions and appropriate 

technologies for winter snowpack and summer rainfall enhancement, but for studies 

of severe storm modification (including hurricanes and tornadoes) as well. I have no 

doubt that some of the most urgent weather modification research will directly benefit NWS/NOAA goals as well in short-term weather forecasts and warnings.

Question 4. Would this board have subpoena powers and the power to issue 

‘‘rules,’’ as is suggested by the bill? 

Answer. No, I don’t anticipate that the Board, in either bill, would have subpoena 

powers. Nor do I feel that it should issue ‘‘rules,’’ as other groups like the ASCE 

already issue best-practice documents for weather modification operations. The 

Board should organize and coordinate a national Federal program in weather modification research and technology development, and recommend needed funding to accomplish these tasks (through the expert Subcommittee).

Question 5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of 

grants? Please explain. 

Answer. No, again, the Board and its Subcommittee of experts should develop a 

coordinated national program of research through existing Federal agencies, including especially NOAA, NSF, and NASA. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON TO

DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN

Legal Issues of Weather Modification 

Has anyone considered the legal issues involved in weather modification? There 

is only a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere; if artificial measures are 

used to make it rain in a particular location to relieve drought, for example, that 

water is diverted from another location where it would have ultimately fallen. This 

raises similar issues as water rights controversies, where rivers have been diverted 

to accommodate certain interests at the expense of others. 

Question 1. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of 

weather modification? 

Answer. Yes, the scientific community has carefully considered the legal implications of weather modification for many years. One of my esteemed colleagues in the 

weather modification community (deceased) was Ray Jay Davis, a lawyer from Salt 

Lake City. My colleague, Dr. Tom DeFelice will include more details and some of 

Mr. Davis’ writings on legal issues in his response to your question.

Question 1a. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported 

Weather Modification Board might support research and development of weather 

modifications without considering the legal implications? 

Answer. I believe that the Board will be composed of a broad cross-section of public and private individuals who will act responsibly, with additional oversight by 

OSTP. Legal implications become most important in weather modification operations, but at this time, no operational seeding will be conducted by the Federal 

Government in any research supported by the bill. The Congress passed a Public 

Law in l971 that requires all operational weather modification projects in the U.S. 

to report details of their projects at least once a year to NOAA.

Question 2. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather? 

Answer. There is no sole ownership of the weather, therefore, any large-scale 

operational weather modification projects have always had to address both legal and 

environmental issues. For example, the NOAA/Navy joint hurricane modification 

Project STORMFURY had to produce an extensive study of possible environmental 

impacts prior to its commencement, and these were all documented in an EIS Report subjected to peer review. Currently, the Weather Modification Association cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:20 Jun 30, 2006 Jkt 028211 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\28211.TXT JACKF PsN: JACKF
32

tifies weather modification operators, and includes ethical and legal guidelines in 

the process. 

Funding 

I am concerned that there are a number of areas within weather research that 

are inadequately funded. For example, drought is of particular concern to my state 

right now. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) in Nebraska has only 

been in existence since 1995. Previously, no national initiative or program existed 

to monitor drought trends. The work at the NDMC in monitoring drought, not only 

in Nebraska, but nationwide, will help us mitigate and respond to its effects in a 

much more effective manner. This is only one of numerous programs addressing 

weather monitoring, mitigation, and response that is years behind where it could 

be. 

Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater 

priority than research in the weather we already have now? 

Answer. No, I do not believe either version of the bill places weather modification 

research above any other type of atmospheric research within the Federal agencies. 

One cannot divorce weather modification research from basic atmospheric research. 

One must not forget that a prerequisite for meaningful weather modification is that 

one must first understand the phenomenon being modified. Thus, weather modification research always adds to the body of knowledge of basic weather we already 

have now, resulting in better forecasts and warnings of most weather phenomenon. 

I strongly believe that now is the time to begin a sustained Federal effort in weather modification research, not only to determine optimum conditions and appropriate 

technologies for winter snowpack and summer rainfall enhancement, but for studies 

of severe storm modification (including hurricanes and tornadoes) as well. I have no 

doubt that some of the most urgent weather modification research will directly benefit NWS/NOAA goals as well in short-term weather forecasts and warnings.

Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in 

order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support private research? 

Answer. Yes, we should ensure adequate funding for Federal weather research. 

This bill will not make a commitment to direct private research in weather. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN

Funding 

The Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research has 

been inadequately funded for many years. As a result, research staff vacancies have 

gone unfilled, years of data have gone unanalyzed, and the science of hurricane prediction—especially with regard to intensity—is years behind where it could be. 

Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater 

priority than research in the weather we already have now? 

Answer. No, I believe that the two types of research are both needed and are not 

mutually exclusive. Weather modification research will certainly add to the body of 

knowledge of the weather we already have now. This research will be supportive 

and complementary. Many of the most critical research issues for weather modification involve technology and scientific questions that directly impact the short-term 

weather forecast and warning problems faced by my colleagues in the National 

Weather Service and the U.S. Military.

Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support 

private research in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications? 

Answer. Yes, we should ensure adequate funding for government research. I am 

knowledgeable about the need for hurricane research. This bill would not make a 

commitment to support private research in weather. 

I believe that the premise of this question is incorrect, because the bulk of the 

research and funding to carry it forward would occur in the Federal weather labs 

and the universities. The weather modification research would have applications extending far beyond ‘‘commercial applications.’’ The outputs of this research would 

also have immediate payoffs to helping Federal agencies reach their GPRA goals in 

improved observations, modeling and improved forecast/warning performance for 

NWS. For example, improved 3–D models for determining transport of seeding materials into cloud systems could also be used for tracking bioterrorism releases in 

populated areas and for improved forecasts of air quality. 

33

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE

Weather Board 

Question 1. What is this board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA? 

Answer. Recent bill mark up discussions call for a permanent subcommittee 

(Weather Modification) within the Office of Science and Technology, who’s chair 

would report directly to the President’s Science Advisor.

Question 2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity? 

Answer. There are multiple reasons to take everyday basic and applied science 

knowledge, combine it with latest technologies and apply them creating not only improved science and technology, but also tools that better serve and support the people. There is no funding to accomplish said, and time is running out. This subcommittee is necessary to study and verify the effectiveness and reliability of the 

science of weather modification.

Question 3. The establishment of this board appears to place weather modification 

research above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding 

within the Federal system. Why? 

Answer. No, the establishment of this board does not place weather modification 

research above all other types of research, Research related to weather modification 

more visibly serves societal needs (such as providing more water for reservoirs, energy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy storage, reducing the 

destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation), and also provides data for the research already underway.

Question 4. Would this board have subpoena powers and the power to issue 

‘‘rules,’’ as is suggested by the bill? 

Answer. No, the Board will only report to the Subcommittee which will be comprised of Federal agencies.

Question 5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of 

grants? Please explain. 

Answer. No, the Board will report suggestions and provide answers to technical 

questions issued by the subcommittee. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON TO

DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE

Question 1. Has anyone considered the legal issues involved in weather modification? There is only a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere; if artificial 

measures are used to make it rain in a particular location to relieve drought, for 

example, that water is diverted from another location where it would have ultimately fallen. 

Answer. Yes there is a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere and most 

of it naturally stays there in some form or another. Very little atmospheric moisture 

falls out as precip (rain) on a global average basis. The precipitation efficiency of 

a thunderstorm is only about 20 percent, meaning 80 percent of the moisture associated with it remains in the atmosphere. I can provide the reference. 

Cloud seeding does not divert rain from falling in one place in favor of another 

(or in other words, cloud seeding does not rob Peter of rain to ‘water’ Paul, it provides a little more rain to Peter and more rain to Paul than he would have received 

naturally). Clouds have been observed to contain plenty of moisture, even during the 

early months of a drought-period. Clouds just don’t always possess a natural precipitation initiation mechanism (virga—precipitation that doesn’t reach the ground—is 

not an example of a viable precipitation process, but may occur). The absence of a 

viable precipitation process also happens frequently in the areas surrounding 

deserts (drought regions). 

Cloud seeding applied to such clouds, under the right atmospheric conditions, provides the trigger to initiate a viable precipitation process. So cloud seeding extends 

the area of precipitation beyond what nature is able to provide. This is analogous 

to receiving a flu shot to make our immune system more viable during flu season. 

It is mostly not true that getting a flu shot gives us the flu. Not getting the flu shot 

generally means getting the flu.

This raises similar issues as water rights controversies, where rivers have been 

diverted to accommodate certain interests at the expense of others. 

34

Question 2. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of 

weather modification? 

Answer. The legal implications of weather modification are well documented (e.g., 

Ray Jay Davis, lawyer (deceased); Academic Press book on Weather Modification by 

Arnett Dennis 1981; American Society Civil Engineers (ASCE), Manual of Professional Practice for precipitation enhancement, 2nd Edition, and the ASCE standard 

practice documents on hail suppression, precipitation augmentation, and supercooled fog dispersal seeding operations). 

The scientists who regularly attend weather modification association meetings are 

familiar with these implications, and efforts have been underway to reach others. 

The Weather Modification Association Public Information Committee Chair will be 

happy to provide such documents to the Senator.

Question 3. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported 

Weather Modification Board might support research and development of weather 

modifications without considering the legal implications? 

Answer. Legal implications mostly apply to operations, and operational seeding 

will not be conducted by the Federal Government under Senator Hutchison’s bill. 

The board is comprised of people who have direct experience with weather modification activities.

Question 4. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather? 

Answer. This is currently left to the States. Under this bill any activity to modify 

the weather would have to address legal and environmental issues before it commenced since all would have a stake in the deliverable. 

Funding 

I am concerned that there are a number of areas within weather research that 

are inadequately funded. For example, drought is of particular concern to my state 

right now. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) in Nebraska has only 

been in existence since 1995. Previously, no national initiative or program existed 

to monitor drought trends. The work at the NDMC in monitoring drought, not only 

in Nebraska, but nationwide, will help us mitigate and respond to its effects in a 

much more effective manner. This is only one of numerous programs addressing 

weather monitoring, mitigation, and response that is years behind where it could 

be. 

Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater 

priority than research in the weather we already have now? 

Answer. No, but funding weather modification research can lead to additional 

technologies that more visibly serve societal needs, such as providing more water 

for reservoirs, energy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy 

storage, reducing the destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation. 

If science and technology expenditures can be explicitly directed toward resolving 

a societal issue, it will make it easier to obtain public support, as society will see 

and appreciate that their taxes are being used to help resolve issues they face.

Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in 

order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support private research? 

Answer. Private research support for weather modification does not exist. Thus 

research related to weather modification requires some research to understand what 

is to be modified. So, funding technology development and their application also 

funds the existing research. The direct benefits of funding weather modification research could be realized in the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Homeland 

Security (tracking and removal of bioterrism agents). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE

Funding 

The Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research has 

been inadequately funded for many years. As a result, research staff vacancies have 

gone unfilled, years of data have gone unanalyzed, and the science of hurricane prediction—especially with regard to intensity—is years behind where it could be. 

Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater 

priority than research in the weather we already have now? 

Answer. No, but funding weather modification research can lead to additional 

technologies that more visibly serve societal needs, such as providing more water 

35

for reservoirs, energy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy 

storage, reducing the destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation. 

It was envisioned that the NOAA Hurricane Research Division (HRD) could play 

a significant role in weather modification research, since HRD models represent the 

best available for simulating realistic hurricanes. The unanalyzed data from previous hurricane research are useful for conducting crude verification of select hurricane model outputs.

Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support 

private research in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications? 

Answer. Yes, government hurricane research must be adequately funded, along 

with all weather system research. There is no known funding authorization for private research.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MICHAEL GARSTANG, PH.D. 

Priorities and Funding of Atmospheric Research 

Questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson:

1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority 

than research in the weather we already have now? 

2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support 

private research? 

Questions from Hon. Bill Nelson:

1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority 

than research in the weather we already have now? 

2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded 

in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support private research 

in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications? 

Questions from Hon. Daniel K. Inouye:

1. What is this Board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the Secretary 

of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA? 

2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity? 

3. The establishment of this board appears to place weather modification research 

above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding within the 

Federal system. Why? 

4. Would this Board have subpoena powers and the power to issue ‘‘rules,’’ as is 

suggested by the bill? 

5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of grants? 

Please explain.

Answers to questions 3 and 5 (questions 1, 2, and 4 were beyond the Scope of the 

NRC Report). 

The NRC report documents the decline in funding for research in weather modification over the past 3 decades. Federal funding of weather modification research 

declined by the 1990s to less than $0.5M/year. 

The NRC report points out the paradox between 

1. funding (largely by States) of unverified weather modification methods to address critical needs for water and reduction of damage (hail) but failure to fund the 

research needed to understand and improve these methodologies. 

2. substantial application of research funds directed at understanding and defining the implications of inadvertent weather modification (global warming) but failure to employ resources that would address advertent weather modification despite 

the fact that many of the basic scientific principles underly both unintentional and 

intentional weather modification. 

The NRC report emphasizes the fact that over the past 30 years enormous strides 

have been made in technology enabling processes critical to all weather to be observed, recorded, assimulated and modelled. Explicit attack upon critical physical 

processes such as the formation of a raindrop or a hail stone is now possible. Such 

a directed and sustained effort to remove obstacles to progress would pay dividends 

not only in weather modification but in many areas of the weather. 

For example, one of the greatest difficulties facing a weather forecaster is the prediction of the intensity and amount of the expected rain and hence flooding and 

other damage. Understanding the microphysics leading to rain can be significantly 

36

enhanced by carrying out controlled weather modification experiments. This understanding of precipitation would contribute directly to furthering our ability to predict the intensifying or weakening of a hurricane. 

The NRC report recommends a very directed research effort which would address 

a series of obstacles in understanding critical atmospheric processes. Such an effort 

would benefit a broad spectrum of applications of weather science. 

The NRC report explicitly advises against the application of Federal research resources to rain enhancement or hail reduction experiments until the critical questions blocking progress have been addressed. 

Finally, the NRC report points to the need and responsibility to address questions 

of water needs, severe storm damage ranging from hail and lightning to wind and 

water damage. The capability now exists to determine whether and to what extent 

humans are capable of exercising control over the weather. Unless a concerted and 

sustained effort is mounted by all of those responsible such questions will remain 

unanswered. 

Legal Implications of Weather Modification 

Questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson:

1. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of weather modification? 

2. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported Weather 

Modification Board might support research and development of weather modifications without considering the legal implications? 

3. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather? 

Answer: 

The NRC report recognized the importance of weather modification research to society including legal implications. The NRC Committee’s terms of reference were 

confined to addressing the current and future state of weather modification research. 

The NRC report does, however, point out that efforts in rainfall enhancement are 

directed at the redistribution and efficient use of existing water vapor supplies in 

the atmosphere. Intervention could produce rain where needed without ‘‘robbing 

Peter to pay Paul’’. Research and operations which have shed light on this question 

suggest instead that ‘‘extra area’’ effects extend rather than limit the effects of rainfall enhancement.

Æ