. Mflif- HNiVhKsiry UBKARIES

1 C>1

’•' H WEA THER MODIFICATION*

GOVERNMENT

Storage

< _

H E A R I N G S

BEFO RE TH E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMUN ICATIONS AND POWER

OF T H E

X

COMMITTEE ON

INT ERSTA TE AND FOR EIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF RE PRESENTATIV ES

NIN ET IE TH CONG RESS 

F IR S T SE SS IO N 

ON

H.R. 9212

A BI LL TO AU TH OR IZE TII E SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO 

CARR Y OUT A CO MP RE HE NS IVE PRO GRAM IN TH E FIE LD 

OF WEA TH ER MO DIF ICA TIO N, AND FO R OT HE R PU RP OS ES

H.J. Res. 688

TO PR OV ID E FO R AN EX PA ND ED AND IN TEN SI FIE D EF FO RT 

TO IN CR EA SE TH E ACCURACY AND EX TE ND THE TIME 

RANGE OF WEA TH ER PR ED ICTION S AND TO RE QU EST TH E 

PR ES ID EN T TO TA KE ACT ION SO TH AT THE PE OP LE S OF 

TH E UN ITED STAT ES DE RIVE , AT THE EA RL IE ST PO SS IB LE 

TIM E, TH E SOC IAL AND ECONOMIC BEN EF IT S TH AT WOU LD 

ACC RUE FROM AC HIEV EM EN T OF TH IS NEW LE VE L OF 

CA PA BILITY IN WEA TH ER PR ED IC TI ON S

OC TOBER 31 AND NOVEM BER 7, 1967

Serial No. 90-14

Print ed fo r th e use of th e Comm ittee on In te rs ta te an d Fo rei gn Com merce

87-936

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

WA SHING TO N : 1968
*»-

n .i.

CO MMITTE E ON IN TE RST AT E AN D FO RE IG N COMM ERCE

H A R L E Y O. STA G G E R S, W es t V ir gi nia , Chairma n

SA M U E L N. F R IE D E L , M ar yl an d W IL L IA M L. SPR IN G E R , Il linoi s

T O R B E R T H. M ACD ON ALD , M as sa ch us et ts SA M U E L L. D EV IN E, Ohi o 

JO HN JA RM AN , Ok laho ma A N CH E R N ELS EN , Minne so ta

I

JO HN E. MOS S, C alifo rn ia

JO HN D. D IN G E LL, M ich igan

P A U L G. ROGERS, Flo ri da

H O RACE R. K O R N E G A Y, No rth Ca ro lin a 

L IO N E L V AN D E E R L IN , Cal if or nia 

J. J. P IC K L E , T exas

F R E D B. ROONEY , Pe nnsy lv an ia 

JO HN M. M U RPH Y, Ne w Yor k 

D A V ID E. S A T T E R F IE L D II I, V ir gi nia 

D A N IE L J. RO NAN , Il linoi s 

B R O CK ADAM S, W as hi ng to n 

R IC H A R D L. O TTIN G ER , Ne w Yo rk 

R A Y BLA N TO N , Te nn essee 

W. S. (B IL L ) S T U C K E Y , J r., Ge orgia 

P E T E R N. K Y R O S, Ma ine

H A ST IN G S K E IT H , M as sa ch us et ts 

G LENN CU NNIN GH AM , Neb ra sk a

JA M ES T. B R O Y H IL L, Nor th Ca ro lin a 

JA M E S H A R V EY, Michiga n 

A L B E R T W . W ATS ON , So ut h Car ol in a 

TI M L E E CA R TE R , Ken tu ck y 

G. R O B E R T W A T K IN S, Pen nsy lv an ia 

DON ALD G. BR OTZ M AN , Co lor ado 

C L A R E N C E J. BR OW N, J r„ Ohio 

DA N K U Y K E N D A L L , Te nn essee 

JO E SK U B IT Z , Kan sa s

W. E. W il lia m so n, C le rk

K en n eth J. P ain ter, A ss is ta n t C le rk

Professional S taff

A nd rew Ste v en so n

Ja m es M. Men ger , J r.

Wil lia m J. Dix on

R ob er t F . G u th rie

Subcommittee on Comm unications and Power

TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts, Chairman

H O R ACE R. K O R N E G A Y, Nor th Car ol in a 

LIO N E L V AN D E E R LIN , Cal if or nia 

F R E D B. RO ONEY, Pe nnsy lv an ia 

R IC H A R D L. O TT IN G ER , Ne w Yor k

JA M E S T. B R O Y H IL L, Nor th Car ol in a 

JA M E S H A R V E Y , M ichiga n 

DO N ALD G. BRO TZ M AN , Co lor ad o 

CL A R E N C E J . BR OW N, J r., Ohio

(I I,
C O N T E N T S

Hearin gs held on— P a r e October 31, 1967______________________________________________ 1 November 7, 1967_____________________________________________ 73 Text of—

H.R. 9212____________________________________________________ 1 House Jo int Resolution 688___________________________________ 17 Rep ort on H.R. 9212 by—

Agriculture De par tment__________________________________________ 8 Bureau of the Budget____________________________________________ 6 Commerce D epartme nt___________________________________________ 6 Defense Department____________________________________________ 13 General Accounting Office________________________________________ 14 Health, Education, and Welfare D epa rtm ent________________________ 10 Interior Department_____________________________________________ 8 Justice Depar tment________________________________ 

National Aeronautics an d Space A dm inistration___________________ 16 

National Science Fou nda tion _____________________________________ 15 State Department______________________________________________ 12 Transpo rtation Department____________________________________ 14 Report on House Joint Resolution 688 by—

Agriculture Depar tment__________________________________________ 20 Bureau of the Budget____________________________________________ IS Commerce D epa rtm ent_________________________________________ 18 Defense Department__________________________________________ 22 Int erior Department__________________________________________ 20 National Aero nautics and Space Administration__________________ 24 National Science Fou nda tion _____________________________________ 24 Sta te Department______________________________________________ 23 Tra nsp ortation Department______________________________________ 21 Statem ent of—

Barrows, Jack S., Director, For est Fire Research, Forest Service,

Departm ent of Agricu lture___________________________________ 73 Beacher, Dr. Bruce F., Cooperative State Research Service, Department of Agricu lture__________________________________________ 73 Elle rt, Robert B., Assistant General Counsel, Departme nt of Commerce _____________________________________________________ 25 Hall, W. Ferguson, staff scien tist, Office of Plans and Programs, Environmental Science Services Adm inistration, Departm ent of Commerce _____________________________________________________ 25 Hallgren, Dr. Richard, Dire ctor, World We ather Systems Division, Environmental Science Services Adm inistration, Department of Commerce _____________________________________________________ 25 Kahan, Dr. Archie M., Chief, Office of Atmospheric Wa ter Resources 

(Denver, Colo.), Burea u of Reclamatio n, Department of the Interio r _______________________________________________________ 58 Loustalot, Dr. Arnaud, Cooperative Sta te Rese arch Service, De partment of Ag ricu lture__________________________________________ 73 Malone, Thomas F., vice president, and head of Rese arch Department,

the T ravelers Insura nce Cos., Hartfor d, Conn___________________ 80 Schaefer, Dr. Milner B., science adviser to the Secretary, Department 

of the In terio r___________________________________________ ___ 58 White, Robert M., A dministrator, Env iron men tal Science Services Admin istr ation, D epartment of Commerce_________________________ 25

( H i)
IV

Additional ma terial supplied for the record by—

Air Tra nsp ort Ass ocia tion:

Letters from Stuart G. Tipto n, president, re— P ft ge

H.R. 9212____________________________________________ 99

House Joint Resolution 688___________________________ 101

Commerce De partm ent:

Weather modification research and development programs fo r various agencies, under H.R. 9212:

Estimated funding levels, fiscal yea rs 1968-70, let ter dated

November 16, 1967___________________________________ 11

Estimated new positions, GS-16 and above, fiscal years 1968-

70, letter dated November 16, 1967_____________________ 12

World Meteorological Organiz ation’s voluntary assistance program, statement on U.S. partici pation in----------------------------- 49

World weather program, estimated fund s required during fiscal 

yea rs 1968-70 for U.S. p articipation und er House Joint Resolution 68S, letter dated November 8, 1967____________________ 11

Epstein, Edw ard S., associate professor of meteorology, University of

Michigan, lette r____________________________________________ 102

Hewson, E. Wendell, professor of meteorology, University of Michigan, 

st at em en t_________________________________________________ 91

Interior De partm ent: Cost estimates for fiscal years 1969-72, for the

atmospheric wate r resources pro gram of the Bureau of R eclamatio n. 71

Malone, Thom as F .: “Weather Modification : Implications of t he New

Horizons in Research,” article reprinted from Science, May 19, 1967_ 85

National Association of Government Employees:

Letter, with attachm ents, from Juliu s A. Rudy, president, local 

R2 -48_________________________________________________ 97

Statem ent by Michael Scarpa, national representativ e for Weather 

Bureau affairs_________________________________________ 95

Wiin-Nielsen, A., chairman , Departme nt of Meteorology and Oceanography, University of Michigan, le tte r_________________________ 101

4
WEATHER MODIFICATION

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1967

H ouse of R epr esenta tives,

Subcomm ittee on Com mu nica tio ns and P ower,

Com mittee on I nterstate and F oreign Commer ce,

ash ing ton, D.G.

Th e subcom mittee me t at 10 a.m ., pu rsua nt to notice, in room 2123, 

Ra yb urn Ho use Office B uilding , Ho n. Tor be rt H. Ma cdo nal d (c ha irma n of the subcomm ittee) pre sid ing .

Mr. Macdonald. Th e he aring will come to order.

To day th e Subcom mittee on Com mu nicatio ns a nd Powe r of the Com ­

mittee on In te rs ta te and Fo reign Com merce commences heari ngs on 

H.R. 9212 and Ho use Jo in t R eso lution 688.

Th e first of these is a bill to id en tif y an d coord ina te the present 

Fe de ral and pr iv at e effo rts in we ath er mod ifica tion. Up to th is tim e 

I believe th at it is fa ir to say th at the num erous efforts which have 

been ta ki ng place in this very im po rta nt field have been fra gm ented . 

Co nstructive ga ins have been achie ved, but th ere is an obvious need fo r 

a com prehensive prog ram in we ath er modific ation so th at the var iou s 

intere sts are not wo rking a t cross-p urposes.

Some of the cha llen ges which face us are the desir ability of control lin g severe sto rm s; a need to augm ent our wa ter reso urces; the 

de sir ab ility of de term ining ways to com bat lig ht ning an d ha il; th e 

necessity to relie ve po llu tio n of o ur a ir ; an d the need to impro ve fog 

disper sal, perha ps pa rtic ul ar ly at airports.

The second and related leg islati on before th e subcom mittee th is 

mo rni ng—Hous e Jo in t Resolution 688—would dec lare it to be th e 

policy of the Uni te d St ates to p ar tic ip ate and fully s up po rt the wo rld 

we ath er prog ram . Briefly, the purpo ses of Hou se jo in t Resolution 688 

are to develop th e ca pability of the United State s to make lon ger 

ran ge we ath er predict ion s—f or peri ods up t o 2 w eeks; to increase th e 

accuracy of we ath er predictio ns ; and to exp lore sys tem atically th e 

pos sibilities an d lim ita tio ns of large-sca le we ath er an d clim ate 

modifica tions.

(T he bill, H.R. 9212, a nd dep artm en tal r ep orts thereon, fo llo w:) 

[H.R. 9212, 90th Cong., first sess .]

A BILL To authorize the Secre tary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in 

the field of weather modification, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Sen ate and House of Rep resenta tives of the United Sta tes

of America in Congress assembled, Th at thi s Act may be cited as the “Weather 

Modification Act of 1967”.
2

TITLE I—DECLARATION OF POLICY AND DEFINITIONS

DECLARATIO N OF POLICY

Sec. 101. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United 

States to develop, encourage, and maintain a comprehensive and coordinated 

program in weather modification in order to contribute to—

(1) the protection of life and property.

(2) the maintenance of adequate wate r resources for the United States, 

and

(3) the enhancement of commerce, transportation, agriculture, natural 

resources, health, and security in the United States.

(b) In order to achieve the objectives of this Act, the weather modification 

activities of the United States shall be conducted with full consideration o f:

(1) the development of the necessary scientific basis in a strong and balanced program in the atmospheric sciences;

(2) the mutual dependence of weather modification, weather forecasting, 

climatology, and other aspects of atmospheric sciences and meteorological 

services;

(3) the effective utilization of all applicable scientific and engineering 

resources of the Nation, including those in industrial, academic, and other 

public and private organizations, in all regions of the United Sta tes ;

(4) the close cooperation of all agencies and organizations concerned in 

order to avoid waste or unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, or equipment ;

(5) the effective utilization of scientific and technical knowledge, instrumentation, equipment, and techniques in all scientific and engineerig disciplines applicable to weather modification;

(6) the advancement of education and training in the atmospheric sciences; and

(7) the cooperation of the United States with other nations and international organizations, whenever such cooperation is in the national interest, 

in order to facilitate the exchange of scientific and technical information and 

the peaceful and beneficial application of weather modification.

(c) Whenever the President deems any tran sfer of a function of any department or agency of the United States to any other Federal agency having responsibilities under this Act is necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, he 

mav accomplish such transfer under the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 

1949.

DEF IN IT IO NS

Sec. 102. As used in this Act—

(a) The term “weather modification” includes any intentional or inadvertent 

artificially produced changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the 

atmosphere.

(b) The term “operational activities” means the construction and the systematic use of devices and systems for weather modification with intent to 

achieve a planned and continuing substantial result of social, economic, commercial. biological, or medical significance.

TITLE II—WEATHER MODIFICATION

FU NC TI ON S OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

Sec. 201. In order to carry out the purposes of this Act—

(a) The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to—

(1) carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification. which shall include a specific program designed to control or modify 

tornadoes, hurricanes, and other severe storms ; and

(2) furnish technical assistance and information in the field of weather 

modification to any other Federal agency requesting such assistance or 

information.

(b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to carry out a program in such 

aspects of weather modification as relate to the augmentation and improvement 

of the usable w ater resources of the United States;

,(c) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out a program in such 

aspects of weather modification as relate to the control of lightning and hail, and 

to the protection of vegetation from the effects of other weather phenomena ;
3

(d) The Secreta ry of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to carry 

out a prog ram in such aspe cts of wea ther modification as relate to the control of 

air pollution and other sim ilar deleterious effects of urba niza tion upon the composition of the atm osphere; and

(e) The A dm inistrator of the Federal Aviation Agency is authorized to—

(1) carry out a program for the effective and beneficial disp ersa l of fog 

and cloud cover interfering with airport operation s or air transp ort ation in 

the United State s; and

(2) conduct operational activities for such fog or cloud cover dispersal.

(f) The Nation al Science Foundation is authorized to advance the sta te of 

knowledge in weather and climate modification through the initiati on and support of basic and applied research, and programs of education and trai nin g, at 

univ ersities, colleges' and oth er appro priate institutions, in those sciences which 

relat e to and und erlie we ather and clim ate modification technology.

AD MIN ISTR AT IV E POW ERS

Sec. 202. In order to carry out the provisions of this Act, the head of any 

Fed eral agency charged with responsibilities under section 201 is authorized 

to —

(1) adopt, amend, and repeal regulations governing the exercise of his 

duties under this Act;

(2) acquire by purchase, license, lease, donation, or otherwise such inventions, patents, pa ten t applications, licenses, rea l prop erty and intere sts 

therein as he deems nec ess ary ;

(3) accepts as a gift, money, material, o r services an d notwithstand ing any 

oth er provisions of law, use of any such gift, i f the donor so specifies, may be 

restric ted or limited to certain projects or are as;

(4) enter into and perform such contrac ts, leases, cooperative agreements, 

or o ther trans action s, inclu ding the making of grants, as may be necessary to 

carry out his duties und er section 201 and on such term s as he may deem appropria te; and

(5) use, with their consent, the services, equipm ent, personnel, and facilities of other Fed era l agencies with or w ithout reimbursem ent, and on a simila r basis to cooperate with other public and private agencies and instrumentalities in the use of services, equipment, and facilitie s, and each department and agency of the F ede ral Government shall cooperate fully in making 

its services, equipment, personnel, and facilities available to an agency 

charged with responsibilities under section 201 and, with the appro val of the 

Dire ctor of the Bureau of the Budget, each dep artment or agency is autho rized, notwithstand ing any other provision of law, to loan to such agency, 

withou t reimbursement, property, equipment, and facilities requ ired for the 

performance of its duties und er this Act.

HE AR INGS

Sec. 203. (a) The head of any Federal agency charged with responsibilities 

under this Act or any employee of such agency designated by him, may for the 

purpose of performing his functions under this Act hold such hearings and sit 

and act at such times and places and take such testim ony as he deems advisable. 

Th e head of a ny such Feder al agency or a ny employee of such agency designated 

by him may adm inister oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing before the 

head of such agency or such employee.

ACCESS TO INF OR MA TION

Sec. 204. Inform atio n contained in any statement, report, record, other document furnished pursu ant to section 203, and information developed by any 

agency in the performance of its functions und er this Act shall be made ava ilable at all reasonab le times for public inspection except (1) information authorized or requ ired by sta tute to be with held and (2) information classified in 

accordance with law to protect the national security. Nothing in this subsection 

shall authorize or requ ire the publication, divulging, or disclosure of any information described in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, except 

th at the head of any Feder al agency charged with responsibilities und er section 201 may disclose information described in such section 1905, furnished 

pu rsua nt to section 203, whenever he determines th at the with holding thereof 

would be co ntrary to the pu rposes of this Act.
4

NON-FEDERAL OPERATIONS

Sec. 205. (a ) The Secretary of Commerce is authorized, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, to issue regu lations governing the weather modification activities of any person or persons not engaging in such activities pur suant 

to contract, lease, cooperative agreem ent, grant, or other transaction with agencies of the Fed era l Government, which conflict with or impede any activities 

conducted under this Act and to encourage compliance with such regulations by 

such business concerns.

(b) (1) The Secretary of Commerce may obtain from any person or persons 

by regulation, subpena, or otherwise such information in the form of testimony, 

books, records, or other writings, may require the keeping of and furnishing such 

reports and records, and may make such inspections of the books, records, and 

oth er writing s and premises or property of any person or persons as may be 

deemed necessary or appropriate by him to provide comprehensive data for the 

studies and investigations to be c arried out under this Act, including data as to 

the natur e and result of a ll weathe r modification activities (including research) 

carried out or intended to be carried out by such person or persons, but this 

autho rity shall not be exercised if adeq uate and autho rita tive da ta are available from any Federal agency. In case of contumacy by, or refusa l to obey a 

subpena served upon, any person referre d to in this subsection, the dis trict court 

of the United States for any dis trict in which such person is found or resides 

or transa cts business, upon application by the Secretary, shall have jurisdiction 

to issue an order requiring such person to a ppear and give testimony or to app ear 

and produce documents, or bo th ; and any fail ure to obev such order of the 

cou rt may be punished by such co urt as a contem pt thereof.

(2) The production of a person’s books, records, or other documentary 

evidence shall not be required at any place other tha n the place where such 

person usually keeps them, if, prior to the return date specified in the regulations, subpena, or other document issued with respect thereto, such person 

furnished the Secretary with a true copy of such books, records, or other documentary evidence (certified by such person under oath to be a tru e and correct 

copy) or enters into a stipulation with the Secretary as to the information contained in such books, records, or other documentary evidence. Witnesses shall 

be paid the same fees and mileage th at are paid witnesses in the courts of the 

United States.

(c) Any person who willfully perforins any act prohibited or willfully fails 

to perform any act required by subsection (b) above, o r regulation issued thereunder, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $500.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other Federal agencies charged 

with responsibilities under section 201, after consultation with the persons or 

persons concerned in weather modification activities or research, shall conduct a 

thorough study of the need for the regu lation of weather modification research, 

development and operational activities, and report to Congress not lat er than one 

year after the enactment of this Act recommendations for additional legislation 

concerning such regulation including enforcement of such regulation.

TIT LE II I—FEDERAL COORDINATION AND PLANNING

THE PRESIDENT

Sec. 301. In order to achieve the objectives of his Act, the President is authorized to—

(1) direct the planning and supervision of the weather modification program authoriz ed by thi s A ct;

(2) esta blish the goals to be achieved by such program;

(3) establish prio ritie s and resolve conflicts between agencies engaged in 

such program so that the activities of one agency conducted und er this Act 

will not conflict with or impede activities of any other agency conducted 

und er th is A ct ;

(4) coordinate the activities of each agency engaged in such program 

in ord er to insu re an effective and balanced effort and to avoid waste and 

duplication :

(5) consult w ith the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy 

of Engineering, private scientific and educational orga nizations and individuals on scientific and technological developments and new opportunities 

for the beneficial application of weather modification; and
(6) conduct a thorough study and investigation, in cooperation with all 

Federal agencies engaged in such program, including the National Science 

Foundation, of the need for new national facilities for weather modification 

research, including a consideration of the adaptability of existing Federal 

facilities and shall include in the report under section 402 such recommendations for such additional legislation as he deems advisable.

IN TER N A TIO N A L CO OPERAT ION

Sec. 302. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to cooperate in any inte rnational activities relating to weather modification consistent with the provisions 

of this Act. The authority to cooperate in international weather modification 

activities shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary of State 

to assure tha t such authority is exercised in a manner consistent with the foreign 

policy objectives of the United States. Subject to the provisions of this section, 

if negotiation with foreign countries or agencies thereof becomes necessary, 

such negotiations shall be carried on by the Secretary of State.

IN VEST IG A TI O NS

Sec. 303. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretaries 

of Agriculture, Interior, and Health. Education, and Welfare, the Attorney General, and the National Science Foundation, shall conduct a thorough study and 

investigation to determine under what circumstances the United States and 

private parties should be liable for damages attributable to weather modification activities, including indemnification and insurance of contractors and 

grantees of the United States engaged in such activities, and report to the Congress not later than one year after the enactment of this Act recommendations 

for addiitonal legislation concerning such liability.

(b) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, Health. Education, and Welfare, and the National Science 

Foundation, shall conduct a thorough study and investigation into the social 

and economic effects, both deliberate and inadvertent, of weather modification 

activities and report the results of such study to the Congress not later than 

two years a fter the enactment of this Act.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the National Science 

Foundation, shall conduct a thorough study and investigation of the biological 

and ecological effects of weather mollification and report the results of such 

study to the Congress not late r than two years a fter the enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV—GENERAL

A M EN D M EN TS TO NATIO NAL SC IE N CE FO UNDA TI ON AC T OF 1 9 5 0

Sec. 401. (a) Section 3( a) (2 ) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 

(42 U.S.C. 1862 (a) (2)) is amended by adding “atmospheric,” immediately after 

“engineering,”.

(b) Section 3( a) (7 ) of such Act is amended by adding “and” afte r the semicolon at the end thereof.

(c) Section 3(a ) (8) of such Act is amended by striking out the semicolon at 

the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a period.

(d) Section 3 (a) (9) and section 14 of such Act are repealed.

REPO RTS

Sec. 402. The President shall transmit to the Congress in January of each 

year a report which shall include (1) a comprehensive and detailed description 

of the activities and accomplishments of each Federal agency under the provisions of this Act during the preceding fiscal y ea r; (2) an evalution of such activities and accomplishments in terms of obtaining the objectives of this Act; (3) 

an analysis of recommended expenditures for all weather modification activities 

authorized by this Act for the succeeding fiscal year; (4) a description of nonFederal weather modification activities; (5) a description of weather modification 

activities carried out by foreign countries; and (6) any recommendations for 

additional legislation which the President may consider necessary or desirable.
6

RECORDS A ND AU DIT

Sec. 403. (a) Each recipient of a con trac t g rant or party with whom a cooperativ e agreement is entered into under thi s Act shall keep such records as the 

head of the appro priate Federal agency shall prescribe, including records which 

fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received und er the grant 

or cooperative agreement, the total cost of the project or un dertaking in connection 

with which the con tract or gra nt was made or cooperative agreement entered 

into, and the amount and natur e of th at portion of the cost of the project or 

und erta king supplied by o ther sources, and such other records as will fac ilitate 

an effective audit.

(b) The head of each Federal agency charg ed with responsibilities under 

section 201 and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their 

duly authorize d representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and 

exam ination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recip ient of 

the gra nt or party of the cooperative agreement that are pertinent to the gra nt 

received or cooperative agreement entered into, under thi s Act.

APPR OP RIA TIO NS

Sec. 404. There are hereby a uthorized to be a ppropriated such a mou nts as may 

be needed for the purposes of this Act.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget,

Washington, D.C., November H, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the 

Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 9212, a bill “To auth orize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in the held of wea ther modification, 

and for o ther purposes.”

The proposed legislation would declare it to be the policy of the United States 

to develop, encourage, and maintain a comprehensive and coordinated program 

in weather modification. The need for such a program has been recognized in 

stud ies by the National Science Foundation, the Natio nal Academy of Sciences, 

and others.

In his weather modification message of February 18, 1966. Preside nt .Johnson 

sta ted th at “Two sets of problems face us, and both are difficult. One consists of 

finding out how to modify the w eather and climate. The second consists of dete rmining how best to utilize this knowledge for the benefit of mankind once it is 

achieved.” We believe that the programs and special studies authorized by H.R. 

9212 will make a sub stantial contribution to the solution of both of these problems. Furthermo re, as weather modification programs progress, it is important 

th at the Congress and the public be fully informed of developments in this very 

significant scientific endeavor. This legislation will contribute to th at end.

For these reasons the Bureau of the Budget strongly recommends the enactment of II. R. 9212.

Sincerely yours,

"Wilfred H. Rommel.

Assista nt Director for Legislative Reference.

General Counsel of the Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C., June 20,1967.

Hon. II ari.ey O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This letter is in reply to your requ est for the views of

this Dep artm ent with respect to H.R. 9212, a bill “To authorize the Secretary 

of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather 

modification, and for other purposes.”

This bill would enable the United States to develop, encourage, and maintain 

a comprehensive and coordinated program in weathe r modification, fully con-
sidering the close relationship between weather modification, the atmospheric 

sciences, and the weather service. It authorizes the Department of Commerce 

and other designated Federal departments and agencies to carry out functions 

in the held of weather modification, and prescribes ancillary administrative 

powers and the power to hold hearings. The bill also authorizes the Secretary 

of Commerce to issue regulations on activities that conflict with Federal weather 

modification programs conducted under the bill, and transfers to him certain 

weather modification functions of the National Science Foundation. Additional 

provisions of the bill cover weather modification coordination, studies and 

planning, cooperation in international weather modification activities, and 

annual reports from the President to the Congress.

The Department strongly supports this bill and its recognition of weather 

modification as a new and highly important field in which we may be able to 

harness modern science and technology to bring new benefits to mankind. Successful modification of precipitation, and the moderation of damaging storms, 

would bring immense economic benefits to the Nation, as well as contributing 

importantly to the safety and well-being of the American people. Significant 

progress has occurred over the past two decades—the period of modern weather 

modification—but much more remains to be accomplished if our Nation is to 

realize the full benefits which now appear possible.

The Department of Commerce strongly believes tha t the time is at hand for 

the Nation to move vigorously ahead in weather modification and take full advantage of the opportunities now presented. The provisions of II.R. 9212 are a 

clear expression of this same view, and, if enacted, would provide strong impetus 

for the significant national program tha t is now warranted. For this reason the 

Department favors the bill’s enactment.

The prospects for significant achievement if H.R. 9212 is enacted are quite 

encouraging. There has been an explosive growth in the technology needed to 

carry out necessary atmospheric measurements and analyses. Thus we now have 

technology for determining with precision the kinds of weather modification 

which are feasible, and the optimum techniques for achieving maximum benefits. 

The development of gian t electronic computers enables the simulation of weather 

events on both worldwide and local scales, resulting in increased understanding 

of na tura l weather mechanisms. These computers will also furnish the means for 

carrying out simulated modification experiments in the laboratory, thus reducing 

the time required for field experiments. Weather satellites, advances in rad ar 

and other probing devices, and highly improved ai rcraft instruments, are other 

examples of the new tools now available for weather modification research and 

development. The Department of Commerce has develoj)ed competency in many 

of these technologies in carrying out its programs in weather forecasting, climatology, the atmospheric sciences, and meteorological services.

The Department is aware of the adverse consequences that could flow from 

indiscriminate use or misuse of weather modification techniques tha t have been 

developed under the legislation or otherwise. Uncoordinated or conflicting weather 

modification operations could lead to unforeseen and possibly destructive side 

effects. It seems likely tha t some form of regulation over private and public use 

of weather modification techniques will be needed to prevent the occurrence of 

adverse consequences and to provide for an appropriate decision-making process. 

However, at this time we have insufficient knowledge and understanding of the 

situation and are unable to make specific recommendations. H.R. 9212 would 

authorize a thorough study of the need for national and international regulation 

of weather modification activities, and would enable the executive branch to 

acquire the information needed for sound recommendations on this significant 

subject

We wish to call particular attention to Sec. 201(a) of H.R. 9212 which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to ca rry out a “comprehensive program” in the 

field of weather modification, and upon request, to furnish technical assistance 

and information in tha t field to other Federal departments and agencies. The 

Department views this subsection (a) (1) as authorizing the Secretary to mount 

a broad program to advance the science and technology of weather modification 

tha t is common to the various aspects in which other Federal departments and 

agencies are interested, such as dissipation of hurricanes and other severe storms, 

the augmentation and redistribution of precipitation, the suppression of hail, the 

suppression of lightning, and the dissipation of fog. This approach is consistent 

with Sec. 101(b) (2), which calls for the weather modification activities of the 

United States to be conducted with full consideration of “the mutual dependence
8

of weather modification, weather forecasting, climatology, and other aspects of 

atmospheric sciences and meteorological services.”

We also wish to note that Sec. 201(d), which authorizes the Secretary of 

Health, Education, and Welfare to carry out a weather modification program relating to the control of air pollution and related similar problems, would not 

alter the traditional roles and relationships tha t now exist between the Departments of Commerce and Health, Education, and Welfare in this area.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint of the 

Administration’s program.

Sincerely,

Burt W. Roper

(For Robert E. Giles,

General Counsel).

Department of Agriculture,

W ashington, D.C., June 15, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : In reply to your request of May 1, 19G7, this is our report 

on H.R. 9212. to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, and for other purposes.

This bill would declare the policy of Congress with respect to a weather modification program and the guidelines for weather modification activities. It would 

define the functions of several Federal agencies engaged in specific aspects of the 

program, including: Commerce; Interio r; Agriculture; Health, Education and 

We lfare; Federal Aviation Agency ; and National Science Foundation. The President would be authorized to direct Federal coordination and planning. Provisions for international cooperation and investigations of social and economic 

effects, including indemnification relevant to weather modification activities, 

would be enacted. Specific investigations are prescribed under leadership of Commerce, involving this Department with other agencies in a cooperative role.

Under Title II, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out a 

research and development program in such aspects of weather modification as 

relate to the control of lightning and hail, and to the protection of vegetation 

from the effects of other weather phenomena. This provision seems entirely 

appropriate to our interests. The specific authorizations for other agencies included under this title seem apropos, if acceptable to them.

The provisions of Public Law 85-510 and Executive Order 10521 have provided a framewTork under which the National Science Foundation has given 

effective leadership and coordination to such research. The proposed H.R. 9212 

would more specifically delineate the role of this and other executive agencies and 

could expedite the development of a coordinated weather modification program.

The Bureau of the Budget advises tha t there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Orville L. Freeman, Secretary.

Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., October 30,1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Staggers : Your Committee has requested a report on H.R. 9212, 

a bill “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive 

program in the field of weather modification, and for other purposes.”

We have no objection to the enactment of this bill if it is amended as herein 

recommended.

Title I of the bill establishes a general national policy tha t favors a comprehensive and coordinated program of weather modification, fully considering 

the interdependence of programs affecting management of this resource and 

the need for close cooperation with all agencies which are involved in it.
9

Titl e II of the bill establishes basic responsibilities in the Secreta ry of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, 

including a specific program designed to control or modify tornadoes, hur rica nes, 

and other severe storm s. It also assigns certain responsibilities in weather modification to the heads of other departm ents, specifically the Secretari es of In ­

terior, Agriculture, and Health, Education and W elfare, the Administrator of the 

Fed eral Aviation Agency, and the Nation al Science Foundation. All of these 

agencies are given responsibilities for research and development allied with the 

basic missions of the agencies they represen t, and are authorized to tak e app ropriat e actio ns to carry out their responsibilities. All Federal agencies which are 

assigned specific responsibilities in weather modification und er the Act are 

authorized to hold hearing s and to obtain testim ony and documentation where 

app ropriate to car ry out the provisions of the Act. This portion of the bill also 

provides that any information developed und er the program of weather modification shall be made ava ilab le for public inspection, except information au thorized or required by statute to be with held and information classified by law in 

order to protect the national security. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to issue regulation s “governing the weather modification activities of 

any person or persons not engaging in such activities pursua nt to c ontract, lease, 

cooperative agreement, grant, or other transa ction with agencies of the Federal 

Government, [and] which conflict with or impede any activities conducted under 

the Act * * *”. A succeeding clause within this portion of the Act authorizes 

the Secretary of Commerce to “encourage compliance with such regulations by 

such business concerns.” With respect to non-Federal operations in the field of 

weather modification, the Act furth er gra nts broad investig atory powers to the 

Secretary of Commerce, including issuance of regulations and the power to 

requ ire both personal testim ony or production of documents through subpena. 

Recourse to U.S. District Courts for enforcement of these investigatory powers 

is provided for, with the exception th at autho rity shall not be exercised where 

adequa te and autho ritati ve data is available from any Fed eral agency. Within 

1 year af ter enactment of the Act the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation 

with the S ecretaries of Sta te and Defense and other Federal agencies performing 

func tions under the Act, is instruc ted to report back to the Congress on any 

need for add itio nal legislation concerning regulatory functions and their 

enforcement.

Title II I of the bill authorizes the President to direct the planning and 

supervision of the weather modification program contemplated by the Act, to 

coordinate activities, conduct consultations and studies, and establish goals for 

realiza tion und er the total program. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized 

to particip ate in any intern ational activities relating to weather modification 

which are consistent with the provisions of the Act, subject to app ropriate 

approval of the Secreta ry of Sta te in order to assure consistency with general 

foreig n policy objectives of the Nation. This portion of the Act also authorizes 

the Secretary of Commerce, in collaboration with oth er specified agencies, to 

engage in a study program to determine the extent to which the United States 

should be liable for damages att rib uta ble to weather modification programs, 

including indemnification of contractors and gran tees, and requires a report to 

the Congress not later tha n 1 year from the date of enactmen t of the Act on 

any recommendations for add itional legislation. The Secretary of Commerce is 

fu rth er instructed, in cooperation with other agencies, to conduct studies and 

investigations regard ing the social, economic, biological and ecological effects, 

deliberate and inadve rtent, of weather modification activities and to report on 

those studies to the Congress with in 2 yea rs following enac tment of the Act.

Title IV amends the National Science Foundation Act by withdrawing from 

National Science Fou ndation certain resp onsibilities for research and development of weather modification techniques. It furth er provides that the Pre sident 

shall transm it annual reports to the Congress on Fed eral activities in connection 

with weather modification during each preceding year. The Pre sidential reports 

are to include proposals for futur e actions while describing what has alread y 

taken place during the preceding year. Pre sidential recommendations for additional legislation are to be included. The bill requ ires th at each recipient of a 

con trac t or gran t engaging in weather modification activities must ma intain 

records of the costs of each such project, and must provide access to intern al 

records and books of account to the Comptroller General or to any of the Fed eral 

agencies responsible for the program.
10

We feel that H.R. 9212 adequately recognizes and endorses the general principle tha t it is in the long-range national interest to authorize mission agencies 

of the Federal Government to continue and subsequently expand their respective 

activities in research, development, and operational programs in weather modification. In certain significant respects, however, we feel tha t the bill could be 

substantially improved. We therefore recommend the following amendments:

(1) Subsection 201(a )(2) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to furnish 

technical assistance and information in the field of weather modification to any 

other Federal agency requesting such assistance or information. We feel that 

this subsection should be broadened to authorize all agencies that are assigned 

responsibilities by the Act to furnish technical assistance and information to 

each other. We therefore recommend tha t subsection 201(a) (2) be deleted and 

that the following new subsection (g) be inserted in its place :

“ (g) Each Federal agency granted authorities by this section may furnish 

technical assistance and information in the field of weather modification to any 

other Federal agency requesting such assistance or information.’’

(2) Amend subsection 205(d) to provide th at the Secretary of Commerce will 

submit his report to the President for transmission to the Congress. This seems 

appropriate since several Federal agencies will be involved in the study. An 

appropriate amendment would be :

On page 10, line 23, after “to” insert “the President for transmission to the”.

(S) Amend subsection 302 to permit any Secretary or agency head engaged 

in weather modification activities, as authorized by section 201, to cooperate 

ifi appropriate international activities, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State. It seems appropriate to permit agencies which have developed specific 

expertise in any given area to participa te as appropriate in international activities related to their separate missions. The following amendment is therefore 

recommended:

On page 12, line 12, delete “ Secretary of Commerce” and substitute “head of 

any agency charged with responsibilities under section 201”.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the 

presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Ken ne th Holum,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Department of H ealth, Education, and Welfare,

Washington, D.C., June 16, 1667.

Hon . Haslet O. Staggers.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairm an : This letter is in response to your request of May 1, 1967, 

for a report on H.R. 9212, a bill “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to 

carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, and for 

other purposes.”

The bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, including a specific program 

for control or modification of tornadoes, hurricanes, and other severe storms, and 

to provide technical assistance to other agencies upon request. The Secretaries 

of Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare, the Administrator 

of the Federal Aviation Agency, and the National Science Foundation would be 

authorized to carry out programs of weather modification relating to other matters within the spheres of competence of their respective agencies. This Department would be authorized to carry out a program in the aspects of weather 

modification relating to the control of air pollution and other similar deterious 

effects of urbanization upon the composition of the atmosphere. The President 

would have overall authority for coordination and planning of Federal Government weather modification activities.

The bill also would require the President to trans mit a written report to the 

Congress in January of each year giving a description of each Federal Agency’s 

activities and accomplishments in weather modification during the preceding 

fiscal year, an analysis of recommended expenditures for all authorized weather 

modification activities during the succeeding fiscal year, a description of nonFederal weather modification activities and those carried out by foreign coun-
11

trie s, and any recommendations the Pre sident may have for add itio nal legislation.

The bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations governing n on-F ederal w eather modification activities which conflict with or impede any 

Feder al activities, and to encourage compliance with these regulations, but no 

sanctions would be provided for noncompliance.

However, the bill would provide for a study of the need for regu lation of 

weather modification activities, and for a report to the Congress within a year 

after enactment of the bill giving recommendations for additional legislation 

concerning such regulation a nd its enforcement.

As f ar as thi s Depar tment is concerned, we read thi s bill as not requiring any 

prog ram of we ather modification on o ur pa rt except as it may become necessary 

or desirable in the context of our broad responsibilities in the prevention and 

control of air pollution und er the Clean A ir Act.

From the point of view of the Departm ent, then, we would have no objection 

to enac tment of this bill. On the other aspects of H.R. 9212, we defer to the 

judg men t of those agencies more directly concerned.

We are advised by the Burea u of the Budget th at there is no objection to the 

presentation of thi s rep ort from the standp oint of the Adm inistration’s program.

Sincerely,

Wilbur J. Cohen,

Under Secretary.

U.S. Department of J ustice, 

Washington, D.G.,July 18,1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, House In ter sta te and Foreign Commerce Committee,

U.S. House of Repre sentatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the 

Department of Jus tice on H.R. 9212 to be known as the “We ather Modification 

Act of 1967.”

Based on a Congressional finding that it is the policy of the United States to 

develop, encourage, and ma intain a comprehensive and coordinated program of 

weather modification, H.R. 9212 would authorize the Secretaries of Commerce, 

Interio r, Agricultu re, Health , Education, and Welfare, the Admin istrator of 

the Federal Aviation Agency and the Nation al Science Foundation to conduct 

activities in the field of weather modification, including measures to control or 

modify tornadoes, hurrica nes, and other severe storms. The President would be 

charged w ith direc tion an d coordination of the program.

In nonfederal operation s, the Secretary of Commerce would be vested with 

rule-m aking power. The Secreta ry would also be authorized to obtain info rmation 

by regulation or subpoena, to requ ire the keeping of records and furnishing reports, and to make inspection of writings and premises of any person he deems 

app ropriate to carry out the studies and inve stigations authorized by the Act. 

Willful violators of these provisions would be s ubject to a fine up to $500. Court 

orde rs may be obtained to require the giving of testim ony and the productio n of 

documents.

Authority to cooperate in inte rna tional activities would be vested in the Secretary of Commerce with approval of the Secretary of State, and any negotiations 

with foreign countrie s would be the responsibility of the latte r official. The President would be required to t ran sm it to Congress a comprehensive and detaile d description of the activities of Fed eral agencies under provisions of the Act in 

Janu ary of each year.

Section 204 of th e bill provides for public access to information developed by an 

agency in the performance of its functions, except “ (1) information authorized 

or required by statute to be withheld and (2) information classified in accordance 

with law to protect the national secu rity.” It is assumed th at the language of 

phrase (1) would make applicable any releva nt statute governing the release or 

withholding of official information , including the recently enacted Pu blic Info rmation provisions of section 552 of title 5, U.S.C. (Public Law 90-23; formerly 

Public Law 89-4S7). Section 552 of title 5 authorizes withholding certain kinds 

of inform ation “specifically exempted from disclosure by st atute” and info rmation 

specifically requ ired by Executive order to be kept secret in the int ere st of the 

“nation al defense or foreign policy.” In addition, phrase (2) in section 204 would
12

except information classified to protect the national security, irrespective of 

whether it involves national defense or foreign policy secrets. Such provisions appear to be consistent with the Congressional policy expressed in the legislative history of section 552 of title 5.

Section 205(a) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations governing certain weather modification activities of “any person or persons not engaging in such activities pursuant to contract, lease, cooperative agreement, grant, 

or other transaction.” Use of the word “not” confuses the meaning of the phrase. 

Also, the use of the words “such business concerns” at the end of the section 

should be changed to “such person or persons” to conform to the earlier usage in 

the section. We suggest rephrasing the section as follows:

Section 205. (a) The Secretary of Commerce is authorized, afte r notice 

and opportunity for a hearing, to issue regulations governing the weather 

modification activities of any person or persons engaging in such activities 

otherwise than pursuant to contract, lease, cooperative agreement, grant, or 

other transaction with agencies of the Federal Government, which conflict 

with or impede any activities conducted under this Act and to encourage compliance by such person or persons with the regulations.

It may be noted tha t section 205(a) in conferring rulemaking authority upon 

the Secretary of Commerce requires “notice and opportunity for a hearing.” This 

goes beyond the pertinent provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, now 

contained among the provisions of sections 553(c) of title 5 U.S.C. which state 

that “After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral 

presentation.”

The Department of Justice has no objection to enactment of this legislation 

with the changes suggested, but defers on the policy considerations to the agencies 

charged with the implementation of the bill.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised tha t there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark. 

Attorney General.

Department of State. 

Washington, D.C., July 17,1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairma n : The Department of State has reviewed H.R. 9212, the 

proposed “Weather Modification Act of 1967”, which would establish a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification.

The Department is keenly interested in the field of weather modification as a 

possible area for fruitful international cooperation. Our comments are designed 

to make the bill a more effective vehicle in advancing those purposes. To this 

end, we would propose the following changes in the bill:

1. That a subsection (g) be added to section 201 of the bill so as to provide 

that “whenever the interests of foreign countries might be affected by any of 

the activities authorized by this act the Secretary of State shall be consulted 

before such activities are understaken”. Such a provision in the bill is desirable 

so as to ensure that proper consideration is given to possible international 

aspects of domestic weather modification activities, particularly those conducted 

close to the borders of other countries.

2. That the first clause of the third sentence of section 302 which reads “subject to the provisions of this section, if negotiation with foreign countries or 

agencies thereof becomes necessary, such negotiation shall be carried on by 

the Secretary of State”, be deleted. Inasmuch as section 302 does not seem to 

impose any limits on the authority of the Secretary of State to carry out the 

Government’s negotiations with foreign countries or agencies, the clause “subject 

to the provisions of this section” is confusing and unnecessary.

With respect to section 302, which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

to cooperate in international activities relating to weather modification with 

the approval of the Secretary of State, the Department of State assumes that 

this grant of authority is not meant to exclude those agencies of the Government 

which have primary responsibility in the field of foreign affairs from undertak-
ing and continuing cooperative international activities relating to weather modification. We have in mind, particularly, assistance which the Agency for Inte rnational Development might render other countries in dealing with weather problems, and international guidelines concerning weather modification activities 

that the Department of State might wish to cooperate in establishing. Such 

activities would, of course, be carried on with full consultation with all interested 

agencies.

Subject to the above, the Department of State is pleased to support the proposed bill.

The Bureau of the Budget advises th at from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

WTlliam B. Macomber, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

Department of the Air Force,

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, D.C., June 19,1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of 

Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H.R. 9212, 

90th Congress, a bill to provide for a weather modification program to be carried 

out by the Secretary of Commerce. The Department of the Air Force has been 

designated to express the views of the Department of Defense.

The proposed legislation would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to ca rry 

out a comprehensive program in weather modification and to furnish technical 

assistance and information in weather modification to any other Federal agency 

requesting such. It would also authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to carry out research and 

development programs in weather modification related to their functional areas. 

It would permit the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operational 

activities related to its own research and development program and would 

authorize the National Science Foundation to initiate and support basic and 

applied research and programs of education and training in those sciences 

related to weather and climate modification. Further, the bill would provide for 

Federal planning, coordinating, reporting, regulating, and international cooperation concerning certain weather modification activities.

In establishing Federal agency responsibility for carrying out the various programs of weather modification, the proposed legislation does not specifically 

allocate a particular program to the Department of Defense. However, H.R. 

9212 recognizes the D epartment’s programs in weather modification developments 

since i t provides for the Secretary of Defense’s participation in a study to determine the need for the regulation of commercial weather modification programs. 

The Department of Defense, therefore, interprets H.R. 9212 as containing no 

restrictions on its responsibilities and functions in weather modification research, development, and operational activities, subject only to the coordination 

process of section 301 to avoid duplication of efforts.

It is noted tha t in providing for various “Administrative Powers” section 

202(5) of H.R. 9212 enables the agencies covered to utilize the services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of other Federal agencies. Although the bill states 

such utilization will be on a cousent basis, it goes on to state t hat “each de partment and agency of the Federal Government shall cooperate fully in making its 

services, equipment, personnel, and facilities available . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 

The Department of Defense intends to cooperate fully with the agencies designated to carry out their respective programs, but must emphasize tha t such 

cooperation should be on a consent basis so as to insure the availability of 

resources and facilities within the Department to meet its primary responsibilities.

Subject to the above, the Department of Defense defers to the Federal agencies 

primarily concerned with H.R. 9212.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

87-936—6! 2
14

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for 

the consideration of the Committee.

Sincerely,

Alexander H. Flax,

Ass ista nt Secretary, Research and Development.

Office of the Secretary of Transportation,

Washington, D.C., October 30, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Int ersta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : We would like to volunteer views on H.R. 9212, a bill 

“To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program 

in the field of weather mollification, and for other purposes.”

The bill establishes general policy with respect to the development of a comprehensive program in weather modification and authorizes various Federal departments and agencies to carry out weather modification activities in specific 

areas. In the case of the Federal Aviation Agency (now Administration), the 

bill authorizes the conduct of a program for the effective dispersal of fog and 

cloud cover interfering with airport operations or air transportation in the 

United States. The Department has no objection to enactment of this legislation, 

if amended as set forth below.

The authority to conduct research and development in fog and cloud dispersal, 

which section 201(e)(1) of H.R. 9212 would assign to the FA A, involves the 

areas of weather modification that currently hold the most promise for some 

benefit to aviation safety. Since fog and other weather conditions can adversely 

affect the safe and efficient use of ground and water transportation fully as much 

as it does air transportation, we recommend tha t the authority under section 

201(e) be vested in the Secretary of Transportation. We think tha t limiting 

DOT to fog and cloud dispersal activities, as section 201(e) would do, is too 

restrictive. Because of the broader implications of weather on transportation, we 

would recommend that section 201(e) be amended to read :

“The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to—

“ (1) carry out a program for the effective and beneficial dispersal of fog

and cloud cover interfering with air, ground, or water transportation.

“ (2) conduct operational weather modification activities that the Secretar y considers desirable in the interest of safety in transportation.”

DOT would, of course, not attempt to undertake any far reaching weather 

modification without full and proper coordination within the executive branch as 

provided in Title II I of the bill, or any weather modification that is not directly 

related to transportation safety.

We also recommend deletion of the reference to the United States in section 

201(e)(1). Particularly if that term were interpreted to include only the fifty 

states, we believe that section 201(e) (1) would be too restrictive.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no 

objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely,

John L. Sweeney,

Assistan t Secre tary for Public Affairs.

Comptroller General of the United States,

Washington, D.C., May 5, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : By le tter dated May 1, 1967, you requested our report 

on H.R. 9212, 96th Congress.

The bill would assign responsibility for specific aspects of weather modification activities to the Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of the Interio r; the 

Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfar e; the
15

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency ; and the National Science Foundation. Overall responsibility for directing the planning and coordinating the 

activities of the various agencies would be vested with the PresidentWhile the desirability of the proposed legislation involves a matter of policy 

for determination by the Congress, and we therefore make no recommendation 

as to its merits, we are pleased to note tha t section 403 of H.R. 9212 includes a 

records and audits provision relating to recipients of Federal funds under g rants 

and cooperative agreements.

Sincerely yours,

Frank H. Weitzel,

Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.

National Science F oundation,

Office of the Director,

Washington, D.C., August 9, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in furthe r reply to your request of May 1, 1967 

for comments on H.R. 9212, a Bill “to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to 

carry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, and for 

other purposes.”

The Foundation endorses H.R. 9212 and urges its swift enactment. Its provisions for a Federal Government approach to weather modification should improve 

the overall effort and create a situation in which the Foundation can continue to 

contribute to the field. We believe tha t the proposed transfer of the basic Federal 

authority in weather modification from the National Science Foundation to the 

Commerce Department is desirable and is satisfactorily accomplished by the Bill.

We regard H.R. 9212 as an improvement over other previous and contemporary 

versions of the Bill. In particular, set out below, are comparisons w ith S. 373, 

which we believe is less adequate than H.R. 9212:

1. H.R. 9212 differs from S. 373 in several respects. The title of Section 205 

has been changed from “Commercial Operations” to “Non-Federal Operations.’ 

This is a desirable change since it now covers State and Municipal projects which 

may not have been covered under the old title.

2. The tex t of Section 205 has been expanded by two additional parts, (b) and 

(c). Pa rt 205(b) provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce to obtain 

records, testimony, etc., from field operators in the same context as the National 

Science Foundation is now authorized to do under the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 as amended. This a uthority is necessary if the Secretary of Commerce is to assume the National Science Foundation’s role of maintaining cognizance and records of all current weather modification activities. It will enable 

Commerce to issue a regulation on reporting similar to the present National 

Science Foundation regulation 45 CFR 635. 1-635.7. Pa rt 205(c) of H.R. 9212 

provides a $500 penalty for failure to report or provide information. This penalty 

was missing from S. 373, and constituted a weakness of the Senate Bill which 

has now been rectified. We wonder, however, whether Section 205(a) should not 

be strengthened; at present it only permits the Secretary of Commerce to 

encourage compliance with regulations promulgated under 205(a). A penalty 

for noncompliance would serve to make such regulations really effective.

3. Part 362(b) of S. 373 under the title “International Cooperation” has been 

deleted in H.R. 9212. This removes the blanket authority for the Secretary of 

Commerce to represent the U.S.A. in international meetings involving weather or 

climate modification. This change seems desirable in tha t it increases flexibility 

in this area, without loss of any necessary authorizations to participate in international activities.

4. The entire Section 303 “Conduct of Federal Operational Activities” of the 

original S. 373 has been deleted in H.R. 9212. This is a great improvement, since 

the old Section 303 would inhibit any research affecting the atmosphere beyond 

150 miles (eliminating severe storm research) and would require tha t a public 

law be enacted each time an agency desired to put a weather modification technique into operational practice. This section was objectionable to most agencies 

who discussed it at the Eighth Interagency Conference on Weather Modification 

in October 1966 at Big Meadows.
16

5. The last change to be noted here is the deletion in Section 404 of H.R. 9212 

(“Appropriations” ) of any target appropriation figures such as appeared in S. 373. 

In our view, this deletion is preferable since it is hoped that the Bill, if enacted 

into law, will be in effect beyond FY 1969.

As a final comment we question whether the definition of “operational activities” should be retained in Section 102(b) of H.R. 9212, since it now apepars to 

refer only to fog or cloud cover dispersal activities conducted by the Administrator of the FAA as they appear in Section 201(e) (2). In other versions of the 

Bill “operational activities” was used more widely and there were doubtless 

desirable reasons for a formal definition. With the elimination of these other 

uses of the phrase, the continued presence of the definition becomes confusing. 

In this connection, we see no reason why Section 201(e) (2) could not be eliminated since it seems merely duplicative of Section 201(e) (1).

The Bureau of the Budget has advised us tha t it has no objection to the 

submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Lel an d J . H a w o rth, Director.

Nati onal Aer onau ti cs an d Spa ce Ad m in is tr a tio n,

Washington, D.C., June 19, 1991.

H o n . H ar le y O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r Mr. C h a ir m a n : This replies further to your request for the comments 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the bill H.R. 9212, 

“To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a comprehensive program 

in the field of weather modification, and for other purposes.”

The bill contains a declaration of policy tha t the United S tates should develop 

a comprehensive and coordinated program in weather modification in order to 

better protect life and property, maintain adequate water resources and enhance 

commerce, transportation, agriculture and other particular concerns. To achieve 

these objectives it would direct that full consideration be given to a strong 

program in the atmospheric sciences, to the relationship of weather modification 

to weather forecasting and other areas of meteorological science, to the full 

utilization of applicable scientific and engineering resources, to the effective 

cooperation and coordination of all agencies and organizations involved, to the 

full exploitation of all scientific and engineering disciplines tha t can contribute 

to weather modification, to the production of trained manpower to participate 

in this effort, and to the international cooperation by the United States. The 

President would have authority to tran sfer functions within the Executive 

Branch to carry out the provisions of the bill, such transfer to be carried out 

under the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949.

Section 201 would provide for programs of weather modification to be conducted by the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Health, Education 

and Welfare, and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. Only the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency would be permitted to engage in 

operational activities in weather modification. The National Science Foundation 

would be authorized to engage in and support research and education in the 

weather modification field.

Section 203 would authorize the head of any agency charged with responsibilities under the bill to hold hearings and administer oaths or affirmations for the 

purpose of performing his functions under the bill.

Section 205(a) would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue non-binding 

regulations governing the weather modification activities of persons not engaging 

in such activities pursuant to contract, lease, cooperative agreement, grant, or 

other transaction with agencies of the Federal Government, which interfere 

with activities which would be authorized by the bill. Section 205(b) would 

authorize the Secretary of Commerce to obtain appropriate information by 

subj>ena, inspect records, and to apply to any appropriate district court of the 

United States, where necessary, for an order requiring testimony or the production of documents. Section 205(c) would provide criminal penalties for failure to 

perform any required act or performance of any prohibited act under subsection 

205(b).

The President would be authorized to maintain overall control of the program, 

establish goals and priorities, coordinate activities, consult with the National
Academy of Sciences and other similar organizations and conduct a study of the 

need for new facilities for weather modification research. He would report to 

Congress annually any recommendations for new legislation.

The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with certain designated agencies, 

would be authorized to conduct a study to determine under what circumstances 

the United States and private parties should be liable for damages attrib utab le to 

weather modification activities, and to study the social and economic effects and 

the biological and ecological effects of weather modification.

The authority of the National Science Foundation would be adjusted by repealing Sections 3(a) (9) and 14 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 

which would have the effect of removing the present detailed authority of the 

Foundation in this area. However, the bill would retain NSF’s authority to in itiate and support basic research in the atmospheric sciences.

NASA has in the past cooperated with the National Science Foundation, 

the Department of Commerce, and other agencies engaged in weather research. 

NASA would expect to continue to cooperate with responsible Federal agencies 

working in this field.

This legislation would not affect NASA’s authority to engage in weather 

modification research and development utilizing space technology; therefore, 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration interposes no objection 

to its enactment

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the 

Administration’s program, there is no objection to the submission of this report 

to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

Robert F. Ali.nutt,

Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs.

(The bill, H .J. Res. 688, and departmental reports thereon, follo w:)

[I I. J. Res . 688, 90 th Cong., fi rs t se ss.]

JO IN T RE SO LU TI ON To pr ov ide fo r an ex pa nd ed an d inte ns ifie d ef fo rt to in cr ea se th e 

ac cu ra cy an d ex te nd th e tim e ra ng e of w ea th er pr ed ic tion s an d to re qu es t th e P re si dent 

to ta ke ac tion so th a t th e pe op les of th e U ni te d S ta te s de riv e, a t th e earl ie st possi ble 

tim e, th e social an d econom ic be ne fit s th a t wo uld ac cr ue fro m ac hi ev em en t of th is new 

lev el of ca pab ility i n w ea th er p re dic tion s

Whereas the Congress finds tha t unprecedented scientific opportunities and 

technological possibilities exist to improve the weather services for the United 

States by increasing the accuracy and extending the time range of weather 

prediction:

Whereas substantial improvements in the weather services of the United 

States would enhance the protection of life and property against severe storms 

and other hazards, would further the safety and efficiency of air and marine 

transportation, and would assist the growth of agriculture, commerce, and 

industry, thereby yielding social and economic benefits of great magnitude to 

the peoples of the United States;

Whereas the increased capability in weather prediction and weather services 

to the people of the United States will require the development and operation 

of a system for the acquisition, communication, and processing of weather d ata 

from over the entire globe, and the conduct of a systematic program of research 

to broaden the scientific understanding of global atmospheric processes;

Whereas the global weather system and the research program—the world 

weather program—can be more effectively and economically carried out through 

a cooperative effort by the nations of the world which have already demonstrated in international forums a genuine interest and desire to cooperate and 

participate in the required effo rt;

Whereas the World Meteorological Organization has taken action on an initial 

implementation program for the World Weather Watch System and the International Council of Scientific Unions in concert with the World Meteorological 

Organization has begun to move forward with the planning of the research 

programs :

Resolved by the Senate and the Hoitse of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That it is the policy of the United States to 

participate in and give full support to the world weather program which includes 

(1) a world weather watch—the development and operation of an international 

system for the observation of the global atmosphere and the rapid and efficient 

communication, processing, and analysis of worldwide weather data, and (2) the
18

co nd uc t of a co mpr eh en sive pr og ra m of re se ar ch fo r th e de ve lopm en t of a 

ca pa bility in long -ran ge w eath er pre di ct io n an d fo r th e th eo re tica l st ud y an d 

ev al uat io n of in advert ent cl im at e m od ificatio ns an d th e fe as ib ility of in te ntional 

cl im at e m od ific at io n;

Sec. 2. T h at in fu rt hera nce of th is po lic y th e Co ng ress re ques ts th e P re si den t 

to co op er at e w ith ot he r nati ons in (1 ) a pr og ra m , utilizi ng pr ov en tec hn olo gy , 

pr oc ed ur es , an d tech ni qu es , fo r th e im m ed ia te im pr ov em en t of th e ca pa bility 

of th e ex is ting in te rn ati onal w eat her sy stem to ob serv e th e glo bal at m os ph er e 

an d to co mmun icate, proc ess, an d an al yze w or ldw ide w eath er d a ta : (2 ) a pr o­ gr am to de ve lop new tech no logy , pr oc ed ur es , an d tech ni qu es fo r th e ob se rv ation 

of th e glob al atm os ph er e an d fo r the co mm un ication, proc es sin g, an d an al ysi s of 

w or ld w id e w eath er dat a, so th a t th e ne ed s of ope ra tion al w eath er fo re ca st in g 

may be ad eq ua te ly served ; (3 ) a pr og ra m of r es ea rc h on th e glob al win d sy stem s 

of th e at m os ph er e an d on th e in te ra cti ons be tw ee n th e at m os ph er e an d th e 

un de rlyi ng eart h an d oc ea ns , in cl ud in g th e colle cti on of th e data th a t ma y be 

re qu ired fo r th es e re se ar ch acti v it ie s; (4 ) a pro gr am fo r th e tr ain in g an d 

ed uc at io n of sc ie nt ists, en gine er s, an d tech ni ca l pe rson ne l fo r th e develop ment, 

op er at io n, an d co nd uc t of any sy stem or pr og ra m in which th e Pre si dent is 

au th or iz ed to part ic ip ate by th is su bs ec tion : an d (5 ) a pro gr am to prov id e 

appro pri ate tech ni ca l an d tr ain in g ass is ta nce an d fa cil it ie s to ot her na tion s 

an d to in te rn ati onal or ga niz at io ns so th a t th ey may effecti ve ly part ic ip ate in an 

in te rn ati o n al syste m fo r th e ob se rv at io n of th e glo bal at m os ph er e an d th e ra pi d 

an d eff icient co mmun ication, pr oc es sing , an d an al ysi s of w or ld w id e w ea th er da ta 

an d so th a t th ey may fu lly utilize th e data , ch ar ts , an al ys es , an d oth er in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by such a syste m.

Sec. 3. T h at on or be fo re M ar ch 1 of each ye ar , th e Pre si dent sh all tr an sm it 

to th e Con gress a plan se tt in g fo rt h th e prop osed part ic ip ati on of th e United 

S ta te s fo r th e nex t fisc al y ear in in te rn ati onal pr og ra m s in mete orolog y. Th e plan 

sh al l co nta in a st at em en t of th e ac ti vit ie s to be co nd uc ted an d sh al l specify th e 

dep art m ent or ag en cy of th e G ov er nm en t which sh al l co nd uc t th e act iv ity and 

which s hal l seek a ppro pri at io ns t her ef or.

E xecut ive Off ic e of th e P res ide nt,

Bureau of th e B udget,

Washington, D.C., Aug ust 17,1967. Ho n. H arley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha irman : T hi s is in re sp on se to you r re ques t of Ju ly 10, 1907, fo r

th e vi ew s of th e B ure au of th e B ud get on H .J. Re s. 688, re gar din g U nite d Sta te s 

p art ic ip ati on in, an d su ppo rt fo r, th e wor ld w eath er pr og ra m .

The B ure au of th e Bud ge t reco mmen ds fa vora ble c on si de ra tion of th a t re so lu ­

tio n, e na ct m en t of wh ich wou ld be c onsi st en t w ith t he A dm in is tr at io n’s objectiv es.

Si nc er ely yo urs,

W n.F R E D H. R om me l,

Assistan t Director for Legislative Reference.

Genera l Cou ns el of th e Depa rtme nt of C omm erce,

Washington, D.C., Augu st 23,1967. Ho n. H arle y O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Int erstate and Foreign Commerce,

House o f Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ear Mr. Cha irman : T hi s is in resp on se to your le tt e r re ques ting th e view s 

of th e D epart m ent of Co mm erc e on H .J. Re s. 688, a jo in t re so lu tion “T o prov id e 

fo r an ex pa nd ed an d inte ns ified effort, to in cr ea se th e ac cu ra cy an d ex te nd th e 

tim e ra nge of w eath er pr ed ic tion s and to re qu es t th e P re si dent to ta ke ac tion so 

th a t th e pe op les of th e U nited S ta te s de rive , a t th e earl ie st po ss ible tim e, th e 

socia l an d econo mic be ne fit s th a t wou ld ac cr ue from ac hi ev em en t of th is ne w 

lev el o f c apab ility in w eath er p re di ct io ns .”

T his jo in t re so lu tion de cl ar es it to be th e po licy of th e U ni te d S ta te s to p a rti cip ate in and giv e fu ll su pport to th e W or ld W eath er Pro gra m , a co op er ative 

in te rn ati o n al pr og ra m de sign ed to pr ov id e fo r: m on itoring th e glob al atm os-
19

phere; collecting, analyzing and disseminating worldwide weather information; developing a long-range weather prediction capability; and studying and 

evaluating the causes and effects of inadvertent climate modification and the 

feasibility of international climate modification.

In furtherance of the above policy, the resolution requests the President to cooperate with other nations in specific programs aimed at: immediate improvement of the existing international weather system through optimum application 

of present technology; development of new technology; research on the global 

wind systems and the interaction of the atmosphere with the land and se a; 

training of personnel; and provision of technical and training assistance and 

facilities to other nations and international organizations. The resolution also 

directs the President to transmit to Congress annually a plan showing proposed 

United States participation in the World Weather Program for the next fiscal 

year.

The Department of Commerce strongly urges tha t this Joint Resolution be 

acted upon favorably.

Successful execution of the World Weather Program is of great importance to 

the United States. The United States needs to develop the capability to make 

long-range weather predictions, to improve the accuracy of predictions, and to determine the feasibility of modifying major weather patterns. It can do so only 

through this program.

It is propitious to undertake this program now. As a result of the progress that 

has been made in the la st decade in furthering our understanding of the physics 

of the atmosphere, we now have a firm basis, for the first time, for intensive 

development of methods of predicting weather for extended periods of up to two 

weeks. The largest obstacle at this time is the lack of global weather data. But, 

technologically it appears possible to obtain these global data with further development of new tools such as the meteorological satellite.

Development of the ability to make long-range and more accurate forecasts 

would have a profound impact on our economy and society. I t would permit us to 

provide greater protection of life and property from the ravages of storms and 

floods. It would increase the safety and efficiency of air and marine transportation. It would allow us to utilize our national fuel and energy resources more 

efficiently. It would permit more effective planning of construction and other 

industrial activities. It also would allow our farmers to receive vital guidance 

for the planning of such activities as planting, spraying, irrigation, harvesting, 

storing, and marketing.

The resolution would have a significant impact on the Department’s Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) which was designated by President Johnson—In his statement on the occasion of World Meteorological Day, 

March 23, 1966,—as the focal point for coordinating this nation’s efforts in the 

World Weather Program. In addition to the coordinating and planning functions 

as reflected above, ESSA has a large share of implementing the U.S. portion of 

the World Weather Program plan. The total plan was recently approved by the 

World Meteorological Organization Congress V.

Within the U.S. effort on the World Weather Program, ESSA is charged with 

implementing those aspects of the global observing system, the global communications system and the global processing system for which the United States will 

have responsibility, with conducting basic research on the dynamics of global 

wind systems and the interactions between the atmosphere and the land and sea, 

and with cooperating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

in the development, testing, and operation of environmental satellite technology.

The direct dollar benefits to Agriculture, Commerce, and Industry and the 

increased protection of life and property tha t will accrue to the peoples of the 

United States are factors that weigh heavily in favor of this joint resolution. The 

United States has been a leader in developing the concept of the World Weather 

Program, and the other nations look to the United States for continued leadership. 

H. J. Res. 688, if enacted, would provide the other nations of the world with a 

clear statement of the United States’ intent to participate and cooperate in this 

mutually advantageous program.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget tha t there would be no 

objection to the submission of this report and tha t enactment of this legislation 

would be consistent with the Administration’s objectives.

Sincerely,

J a m es L. P arris ,

Acting General Counsel.
20

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C., Aug ust 17, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Comm ittee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce,

House o f Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request of July 10, 1967, for 

a report on H.J. Res. 688, to provide for an expanded and intensified effort to 

increase the accuracy and extend the time range of weather predictions and to 

request the President to take action so that the peoples of the United States 

derive, at the e arliest possible time, the social and economic benefits th at would 

accrue from achievement of this new level of capability in weather predictions.

This joint resolution would declare the policy of the United States to participate in and give full support to the world weather program which includes (1) 

a world weather watch for observation of the global atmosphere and communication of weather data, and (2) a comprehensive program of research relating 

to long-range weather prediction and climate modification. It would request 

the President to cooperate with other nations with respect to five programs : 

international weather observation and data exchange; development of new 

procedures for weather forcasting; research on wind systems and interactions 

between atmosphere and ea rth; training of scientists and engineers for authorized programs; and technical assistance to other nations and international 

organizations. To implement these provisions, the President would trans mit a 

plan to Congress each year setting forth programs and activities to be conducted, 

and designating agencies to conduct the activities and seek appropriations thereof.

The interests of agriculture are implicit to the objectives of this resolution. 

We would lie most vitally concerned with the program of research on the interactions between the atmosphere and the underlying earth, including the collection of the date that may be required for these research activities. We would 

be equally concerned with the program for th e training and education of scientists, 

engineers, and technical personnel for the development, operation, and conduct 

of any system or program interrelating weather with the growth and production 

of crops, forests, and livestock or the social and economic implications to rural 

areas in general.

Our research programs and those of the cooperating land-grant colleges and 

State agricultural experiment stations include significant effort in the field of 

meteorology. The experiment stations and their branches have a long history 

of weather data collection and analysis with relation to plant growth and 

development. Regional and interregional cooperation has been effected and 

networks of sites for phenological observations to aid in studying the response 

of plants to the environment have been established in cooperation with the 

Weather Bureau.

The National Program of Research for Agriculture recognizes the need for 

research to manage air and climate as essential elements in conserving and 

using our soil, land, water, timber, range and recreation resources. The proposed 

H.J. Res. 688 could expedite research in agriculture directed to weather effects, 

probabilities and agricultural decision making, and enhance agriculture and 

forestry here as well as abroad.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation 

of this report in that enactment of this legislation would be consistent with the 

Administration’s objectives.

Sincerely yours,

John A. Schnittker,

Acting Secretary.

Department of the Interior.

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., October SO, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Rep resentatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Staggers : Your Committee has requested a report on H.J. Res. 688,

a joint resolution “To provide for an expanded and intensified effort to increase 

the accuracy and extend the time range of weather predictions and to request 

the President to take action so t hat the peoples of the United States derive, at
21

the earliest possible time, the social and economic benefits th at would accru e 

from achievement of this new level of capability in weather predictions.”

We recommend th at the resolution be enacted.

H.J. Res. 688 would provide f or supp ort of a worldwide system of observation, 

communication, processing, and analysis of weathe r data, and a research program 

utilizin g these data for the development of a capa bility in long-range weather 

prediction. It would also provide for studies and evaluation of inadve rtent climate modification and the feasibility of intentional climate modification. It 

would provide for the traini ng and education of scientists, engineers, and technical personnel for the development, operation, and conduct of any system in 

which the President is authorized to participate. It would provide for technical 

and traini ng assistance and facilities to other nations o r to intern ationa l organizations in order to assure the ir effective participation in such a program. Under 

provisions of the resolution the President is to subm it a plan to the Congress 

before March 1 of each year setting forth the proposed partici pation of the 

United States for the nex t fiscal year, a statem ent of the activities to be conducted, and the departm ent or agency which is to conduct the activities and 

which shall seek app ropriations therefor.

Enactm ent of the resolution would promote a significant improvement in longrange forecasting, which in turn would result in ma terial benefit to this De partment’s reclamation program generally, and to the Atmospheric Wa ter Resources 

Pro gram in partic ula r. The broad language of the resolution does not perm it any 

estimate of the cost of supp ort and partici pation in the proposed program. The 

costs would be determined by the kind and number of observations, which in 

turn would be determined to a great extent by the application and results of 

da ta obtained from prior observations. The implementation of the program would 

nece ssarily demand a str ict review of the data requ irem ents of each particip ant 

to avoid duplication, and also to assure th at all participants have the benefit 

of res ults obtain ed from all studies.

The results gained from the worldwide program would be of ma terial value 

in adva ncing our Atmospheric Wate r Resources Rese arch Program. With more 

detaile d and reliable short-range and long-range weather predictions, we would 

be able to conduct field operations and expe riments with a gre ate r degree of 

accuracy. Furthermo re, the results of such operations and experiments could 

be determined more precisely.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at ther e is no objection to the prese ntat ion of this report from the stan dpoin t of the Admin istratio n’s program, and 

th at enac tment of this legislation would be co nsistent with the Adm inistration’s 

objectives.

Sincerely yours,

K e n n e t h H o lu m , 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Office of th e Secretary of Transportation,

Washington, D.C., September 25, 1967.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Staggers: This lette r is in reply to your request of Jul y 11. 1967, 

for the views of thi s Dep artm ent with respect to H .J. Res. 688, a join t resolution 

“To provide for an expanded and intensified effort to increase the accu racy and 

entend the time range of weather predictions and to requ est the President to take 

action so th at the people of the United Sta tes derive, a t the earliest possible time, 

the social and economic benefits t hat would accrue from achievement of th is new 

level of capability in w eather predictions.”

The joint resolution would decla re it to be the policy of the United States to 

partic ipa te in and give full supp ort to the World Weather Program. Additionally, 

the joint resolution would request the President to cooperate with other nations 

in specific programs implementing the overall World We ather Program. The 

Dep artm ent recommends adoption of such a national policy.

Cooperation with other nation s in the overall World Weathe r Program would 

include a program to communicate, process, and analyze world-wide weather 

d a ta ; a program to develop new technology procedures and techniques for the
22

ob se rv at io n of g loba l atm o sp h ere ; a pro gr am o f re se ar ch on glob al w ind sy st em s; 

a pr og ra m fo r th e tr ain in g an d ed uc at io n of appro pri ate pe rson ne l to part ic ip ate 

in th e W orld W eath er P ro g ra m ; an d a pro gr am to p ro vi de a ppro pri ate te ch ni ca l 

an d tr ain in g a ss is ta nce a nd f acil it ie s t o o th er nati ons an d t o in te rn ati onal org an iza tion s to ena ble th e ir p art ic ip ati on i n the ove ra ll pr og ram.

The em ph as is in di ca te d, part ic ula rl y w ith re gard to c oll ec tio n of w ea th er data , 

wo uld un do ub te dl y cre ate im pa ct on some cu rr en t Coa st G ua rd mission s an d op ­

er at io ns . T he ne ed fo r oc ea n- stat io n ve ss els wou ld be re in fo rc ed . Dev elo pm en t 

of nat io nal an d in te rn ati o n al d ata bu oy net w ork s wou ld prob ab ly be a cc el er at ed .

Ob vio us be ne fit s wou ld ac cr ue to tr an sp o rt ati o n syste ms, p art ic u la rl y a ir an d 

m ar in e tr an sp o rt ati o n . The W or ld W eath er Pro gra m is a fo rw ar d- lo ok in g plan 

which sh ou ld contr ib ute gre at ly to th e social and eco nomic be ne fit of a ll na tion s.

The B ure au o f th e Bud ge t ad vi se s th a t from th e st andpoin t of th e A dm in is tr ati on’s pr og ra m th ere is no ob jection to th e su bm ission of th is re port fo r th e consi der at io n of th e Com m itt ee in th a t en ac tm en t of th is legi slat io n wo uld be co nsi st ent w ith A dm in is tr at io n ob jec tiv es.

Sinc erely ,

J oh n L. Swee ne y,

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

Depar tm ent of th e Air F orce,

Off ic e of th e Secretary,

Washington, D.C., September 20, 1967.

Ho n. H arley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : Referen ce is mad e to yo ur re qu es t to th e Sec re ta ry 

of Defen se fo r th e vie ws of th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se w ith resi>ect to II .J . Re s. 

688, 90 th Co ng res s, to pr ov id e fo r ex pa nd ed and intens ified ef fo rt to in cr ea se 

th e ac cu ra cy an d ex te nd th e tim e ra ng e of w eath er pre di ct io ns an d fo r oth er 

pu rpos es. Th e D epar tm en t of th e A ir Fo rc e has been de sign at ed to ex pr es s th e 

view s of t he D epar tm en t of De fen se.

H .J. Res. 688 wou ld es ta bl is h th a t it is th e policy of th e U nited S ta te s to 

part ic ip ate in an d giv e fu ll su pport to cert ain w or ld w ea th er pr og ra m s. In 

fu rt hera nce of th is po lic y th e Co ng ress wou ld re ques t th e P re si dent to co op er at e 

w ith ot her na tions in w eat her pr og ra m s. A dd iti on al ly , th e re so lu tion wou ld 

re quir e th a t th e P re si den t tr an sm it to th e Con gress be fo re M arch 1 of ea ch 

yea r a pla n se tt in g fo rt h th e prop os ed part ic ip ati on of th e United S ta te s fo r 

th e next fiscal year in in te rn ati onal pr ogra m s in me teo rology .

Any in te rn ati onal pro gr am wh ich co nt ri but es to more co mplete an d efficient 

ob se rv atio n, co mmun ication, proc es sing an d an aly si s of world-w ide w ea th er d ata 

an d which may lead to th e de ve lopm en t of ca pab ilitie s fo r long -ran ge w eath er 

pr ed ic tion or la rg e- sc al e clim at e mo dific ati on wou ld ob vio usly be of in te re st 

and b en efit to th e D epar tm en t of Defe nse. In fa ct, th is D ep ar tm en t is co nst an tly 

see king , th ro ugh re se ar ch an d de ve lopm en t an d da y-to-day op er at io ns , to im ­

pr ov e the unders ta ndin g of th e ge ne ra l cir cu la tion of th e atm os ph er e as well 

as to ex te nd an d im pr ov e it s fo re ca st ca pa bility. Th es e efforts , al th ou gh underta ken in resp on se to th e spec ializ ed ne eds of th e D ep ar tm en t of Defen se, ca n 

mak e an effecti ve co ntr ib ut io n to a w or ld w eath er pr og ram. F or ex am ple, th e 

A utom ated W ea th er N etw ork ; th e M ilitar y Itoc ke tson de N etw o rk : th e A er ia l 

W ea th er Rec on na issa nc e P ro gra m ; an d th e Sol ar Observing an d Fore ca st in g 

Networ k, to m en tio n but a few , are pr og ra m s pion ee re d by th e D ep ar tm en t of 

Defen se which m ig ht co mplem en t a wor ld w eath er pr og ra m. Li ke wise , ne w 

eq ui pm en ts develoi>ed by th e D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se to m ee t ri gi d te ch ni ca l 

re qui re m en ts may be effecti ve in ac co m plishing fu tu re im pr ov em en ts in a w or ld 

w eat her w at ch sy stem , as ha s fr eq ue nt ly bee n th e ca se in th e past w ith ci vi lian 

w eath er service s.

How ev er, be ca us e of th e spec ializ ed n atu re of D epar tm en t of Defen se m et eo ro ­

logica l re qu irem en ts, an d be ca us e a prop os ed w or ld w ea th er p ro gr am is a who lly 

civil un der ta kin g, it is not co ns idered des irab le th a t an y of thes e pur el y m il it ary 

pr og ra m s become an in te gra l p a rt of an in te rn ati o n al sy ste m ; no r ca n th e 

D ep ar tm en t of D ef en se beco me de pe nd en t up on an in te rn ati onal civil co op er at iv e 

pr og ra m in fu lfilling its m eteo rologica l re qu irem en ts. The D ep ar tm en t o f Defen se, 

th er ef or e, in te rp re ts H .J. Res. 688 as co nt ai nin g no re st ri ct io ns on it s resp on si-
23

bilities and functions in meteorological research, development, and operational 

activities.

In view of the above, the Department of Defense defers to those Federal agencies primarily concerned with such a program.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the 

consideration of the Committee, and tha t enactment of this legislation would be 

consistent with Administration objectives.

Sincerely,

Alexander II. Flax,

Assistant Secretary, Research and Development.

Department of State, 

Washington, D.C., August 21, 1967. Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of 

July 10, 1907, enclosing for comment a copy of House Jo int Resolution OSS which 

calls for United States participation in expanded world weather programs which 

include a world weather watch and a comprehensive program of research for the 

development of a capability in long-range weather prediction and the study and 

evaluation of climate modification programs.

In the opinion of the Department of State active United States participation in 

these programs is in the interest of the United States. The World Weather Watch 

will provide an expanded international system for the observation of the atmosphere over the entire globe and for the rapid communication and processing of 

global weather data. The proposed research program will provide a better scientific understanding of the physical processes of the atmosphere essential to 

developing a capability for long-range weather prediction.

The 128 Members of the World Meteorological Organization are joining together in the cooperative implementation of these expanded world weather 

programs

The United States is in the forefront of scientific and technological advances in 

this field. The other 127 Members of the World Meteorological Organization will 

be looking to us for continued leadership. With our leadership and active 

participation in these programs, the other Members of the Organization are much 

more likely to contribute significantly to the success of these programs. The 

United States will benefit substantially by the ir participation in these programs 

because we need their input for a meaningful weather program in this country.

The programs of the World Meteorological Organization are an extraordinary 

example of international cooperation substantially benefiting every one of the 

128 Members of the Organization. The global atmosphere is an indivisible whole. 

The principal obstacles to long-range weather prediction and a determination 

of the feasibility of large-scale weather modification are the lack of adequate 

global data and an understanding of the physical processes of the atmosphere.

Expanded United States participation in these programs will contribute significantly to meeting these obstacles.

The Department of State accordingly supports the approval of House Joint 

Resolution 688.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report and tha t enactment of this legislation would be consistent 

with the Administration’s objectives.

Sincerely,

William B. Macomber, J r., 

Assistant Secretary far Congressional Relations.
24

Nationa l Scien ce F oundation,

Off ic e of th e D irector,

Washington, D.C., October 21,1961.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in further reply to your request of August 2, 1067 

for comments on H.J. Res. 688, “To provide for an expanded and intensified effort 

to increase the accuracy and extend the time range of weather predictions and 

to request the President to take action so tha t the peoples of the United States 

derive, at the earliest possible time, the social and economic benefits tha t would 

accrue from achievement of this new level of capability in weather predictions.”

The National Science Foundation strongly endorses H.J. Res. 688 and hopes 

tha t the Congress will act favorably upon it.

The world weather program is a truly cooperative project coordinated domestically by the National Academy of Sciences and interagency committees, 

and internationally by the International Council of Scientific Unions and the 

World Meteorological Organization. The National Science Foundation lias participated in the design of the program.

We feel tha t not only will the world weather program aid in the development 

of long-range weather prediction, but also tha t the associated theoretical studies 

will provide the necessary tools to evaluate the phenomenon of inadvertent 

climate modification and the feasibility of intentional climate modification. 

Adoption of II. J. Res. 688 will aid in the realization of these goals, and the plan 

to be submitted annually to the Congress under Section 3 should provide useful 

information.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised us tha t it has no objection to the submission of this report and tha t enactment of this legislation would be consistent 

with the Administration’s objectives.

Sincerely yours,

Leland J. Haworth,

Director.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Washington, D.C., August 21, 1961.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in furth er reply to your letter of July 10, 1967, 

requesting comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

on H.J. Res. 688, “To provide for an expanded and intensified effort to increase 

the accuracy and extend the time range of weather predictions and to request 

the President to take action so that the peoples of the United States derive, at 

the earliest possible time, the social and economic benefits tha t would accrue 

from achievement of this new level of capability in weather predictions.”

II.J. Res. 688 would declare it to be the policy of the United States to participate in and give full support to the world weather program. It would request the President to cooperate with other nations in programs for (1) improving the existing international weather system; (2) developing new technology, 

procedures and techniques for observing and communicating world-wide weather 

inform ation; (3) cooperating in research on global wind systems and the interaction between atmosphere and earth and oceans; (4) training scientists, engineers and technicians in weather technology; and (5) providing technical training and assistance to other nations and to international organizations so that 

they can effectively participate in the international system. The bill would require 

the President, or or before March 1st of each year, to trans mit to the Congress 

plans setting forth the participation of the United States for the next fiscal 

year in international programs on meteorology.

The Interagency Committee on International Meteorological Programs, which 

is chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and in which NASA and 

other agencies of the Federal Government with interests in the meteorological 

programs have representation, has reviewed the bill in the light of pending programs and has concluded tha t it represents an appropriate recognition of the 

role tha t should be played by the United States in meteorological research and
25

operations. The proposal would support current and planned National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs in the meteorological area.

In view of the foregoing, the National Aeronautics and space Administration 

interposes no objection to the enactment of H.J. Res. 688.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress, and tha t enactment of the legislation 

would be consistent with the Administration’s objectives.

Sincerely yours,

R obert F. All nu tt,

Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Macdonald. I understand that the experts and spokesmen from 

the concerned executive departments and agencies are with us this 

morning. We look forward with interest to receiving their testimony 

on this important matter and our first witness will be Dr. Robert M. 

White. Administrator, the Environmental Science Services 

Administration, Department of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WH ITE , ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRON ­

MENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT B. ELLERT, ASSISTANT

GENERAL COUNSEL; W. FERGUSON HALL, STAFF SCIENTIST, OFFICE OF PLANS AND PROGRAMS; AND DR. RICHARD HALLGREN,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORLD WEATHER SYSTEMS

Dr. White. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to introduce 

my colleagues. This is Mr. Ferguson Hall of our Office of Plans and 

Programs; Mr. Robert E llert, from our General Counsel’s Office; and 

Dr. Richard Hallgren.

It is a particular pleasure for me to testify before this committee 

which has shown longstanding and continuing interest in weather 

modification.

The committee’s early interest in weather modification was demonstrated in March 1948, when less than 2 years after Dr. Irv ing Langmuir and Dr. Vincent J . Schaefer made the first successful demonstration of cloud modification, the committee was considering legislation 

to authorize the Weather Bureau to conduct experiments in cloud 

seeding. In A pril of this year, almost two decades later, Mr. Staggers, 

the chairman of this committee, introduced H.R. 9212, a bill on which 

we are commenting today.

I believe tha t the committee’s demonstrated interest in weather modification follows natu rally from its deep and long-term concern with 

weather prediction and the activities of the Weather Bureau. In my 

opinion, weather prediction and weather modification are reciprocal 

in many ways.

The committee was also responsible for the enactment of the first 

law relating specifically to weather modification. This was Public Law 

83-256 of August 13, 1953, which created the Advisory Committee on 

Weather Control. The purpose of this law was to make a complete 

study and evaluation of public and private experiments in weather 

modification.

Significant progress in weather modification has been made in the 

past 20 years. Today I am here to present the views of the Department 

of Commerce on weather modification and to voice our strong support
26

of H.R. 9212, a bill to establish a comprehensive weather modification 

program.

H.R. 9212 authorizes a broad national program in weather modification. The bill recognizes the importance and relationship of weather 

modification to the missions of various Federal agencies. For example, 

the Department of Commerce is authorized to conduct a comprehensive program in weather modification including control of severe 

storms; the Department of the Interior, to conduct a program aimed 

to augmenting our water resources; the Department of Agriculture, 

to explore means for combating lightning and hail; the Department 

of H ealth, Education, and Welfare, to adapt weather modification to 

relieve pollution of our air; and the Federal Aviation Administration, 

to expand programs in fog dispersal at airports. In addition, the N ational Science Foundation would continue to support basic research 

in the atmospheric sciences, including research tha t will aid in the 

understand ing of w eather modification. The past work of the Foundation has proved to be invaluable in increasing our understanding in 

this area.

The bill wmuld also provide administrative authority necessary to 

the accomplishment of the function in weather modification which 

it authorizes. In addition, the bill looks beyond delegation of functions and administrative authority and provides for consideration of 

the various types of problems tha t could arise in the conduct of a 

large Federal weather modification program. Thus, interagency studies of social, economic, ecological, biological, legal, and regulatorv 

questions in the field of w’eather modification would be authorized, 

and the results of these studies would be reported to the Congress.

The bill would also authorize the development of limited regulations to protect federally sponsored weather modification activities 

from contamination by other wTeather modification activities, although compliance with these regulations would be voluntary. The bill also 

authorizes coordination of the agencies’ activities in weather modification by the President and contains adequate authority fo r the international cooperation wdiich the President has recommended.

This bill will enable the United States to accomplish the objectives 

wdiich President Johnson recently set forth in transmitting the annual 

w’eather modification report to the Congress:

To develop the full potential of weather modification, we must continue our 

research and experimentation. We must bring to the effort our best skills 

and our most advanced technologies. We must better organize our efforts in 

this area.

And w’e must join with other nations in the search for solutions, for the 

weather respects no national boundary.

This bill is also responsive to the recommendations of two recent 

reports on weather modification which call for an expanded, integrated 

national program. The first report summarizes 2 years’ work of a National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather Modification. The 

second report is the result of an inquiry by a Special Commission on 

Weather Modification of the National Science Foundation.

In its summary of these reports to the President and Congress, the 

National Science Foundation said tha t they “mark a milestone in the 

history of weather modification. Assessing the progress of the atmospheric sciences and of w’eather modification over the past 20 years, 

they state tha t for the first time there is a scientific basis for cau-
27

tio us optim ism about the fu ture of we ath er modification .” Thi s “c autious o pti mi sm ” is based on the ma ny rec ent advances th at have been 

occurring in o ur un de rstand ing of the weather.

We hav e develop ed knowledge of the fund am en tal mechanics of 

weath er. We h ave m ade c ons iderable pro gre ss in the use o f comp ute rs 

to stu dy an d sim ula te hem ispheric we ath er pa tte rns. Sa tellites have 

been lau nched to make we ath er obs erv ations on a glo bal basis. The 

wo rld we ath er prog ram, which I will discuss in detai l in a separat e 

sta tem ent, will pro vid e us wi th an ad ditio na l wealth of inform ation 

on the ea rth’s pat te rn of we ather.

Bo th the NA S an d N SF repo rts po int ou t th at the Uni ted State s 

presently lacks a broad, system atic , an d com preh ensive pr og ram to 

ext end an d explo it avail able scientific know ledg e. In the pa st, our 

efforts h ave been frag m en ta ry and sub cri tic al— fa r below the size and 

qu ality neede d fo r effective work .

Th e repo rts urge p ro m pt a nd th orou gh s tud y of ways a nd m eans o f 

im prov ing th e U.S. efforts in we ath er modificati on, and the Dep ar tme nt of Commerce agrees that the se effo rts must be impro ved an d exten ded, so th at we ma y t ak e full ad va nta ge o f o ur c apabilitie s to make 

signif ica nt scientific an d technical adva nces. Th e task we must beg in 

is to organiz e the necessa ry scientific and technical resources to lea rn 

wha t c an be done and how best to do it a nd to assess th e consequences. 

We believe th at H.R. 921 2 will prov ide the com prehensive prog ram 

needed if the United State s is to make a signif ica nt br ea kthrou gh in 

we ath er mod ifica tion.

We mu st no t delay in seeking the adva nta ge s of we ath er modification. Th e po ten tia l benefits to our c ountr y and ma nkind in general are 

enormous. Control of severe storms alon e could save ou r country 

hu nd reds of lives and billions of dolla rs annuall y. Positive control of 

pr ec ipita tio n w ould be nefit agriculture and the economy immensely.

In seeking the enormo us benefits th at can flow from w eathe r m odification, we mu st no t lose sig ht of its relati on to we ath er pre dic tio n. 

Modification and pr edict ion o f th e w eather use s im ila r d ata an d e quipme nt, inclu din g satellites, rada r, ocean an d land observations, and 

balloo n soun dings. F urthermor e, to de ter mi ne the effect of a par ticu la r 

modification techn iqu e, we must be able to p red ict w hat wou ld happen 

un de r giv en con dition s if the techniqu e wer e not used.

In short , we face inefficiency in th e use of facil ities and possible 

ineffectiv eness in researc h if we atte m pt to divorce we ath er modification fro m th e balanc e o f meteoro logical science. Th e En vironm en tal 

Science Services Ad minist ratio n is, of course, the Nation’s pr incipa l 

agency in meteorolo gica l science, and is at the fo re fron t of we ath er 

predictio n an d th e ga ining of new un de rstand ing and in sigh t into 

we ath er processes. O n the basis of thi s b roa d e xperience in meteorolo gy 

ESS A is alr eady eng aged in an act ive research pr og ram in we ath er 

modific ation.

Pr esen t E SSA fac ilities pro vid e a valua ble nucleus fo r expa nd ing 

our Na tio n’s program . E SSA ’s Atmo spheric Physics and Ch em istry 

La bo ratory at Bo uld er, Colo., is equ ipped for labo ratory stu die s and 

field exp erime nts. Other spec ialized lab orato rie s of the In st itut es fo r 

En viromen tal Research pa rti cipa te in we ath er modification studies 

and exp eriments. These include th e Na tio nal Hur rica ne Research 

La bo ratory at Miam i, Fla .; the Na tio na l Severe Storm s La bo rato ry
28

at Norman, Okla.; the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory here 

in Washington, D.C.; and the Air Resources Laboratory, also in 

Washington. Flight support is provided by the ESS A Research 

Flight Facility based in Miami.

ESSA will continue to place strong emphasis on cloud and storm 

exploration, field experimentation, and simulation of weather on electronic computers. Advances in the design and statistical evaluation of 

tests will be sought. The study of the possibility of inadvertent 

weather modification, now underway, will be intensified. Supporting 

laboratory research into cloud and precipitation physics will be 

strengthened. Ground and aircraft facilities, adequately instrumented, 

will be provided for both our own program and those carried out in 

collaboration with other agencies and research groups.

We wish to call partic ular attention to section 201(a) of H.R. 9212 

which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a “comprehensive program” in the field of weather modification, and upon request, to furnish technical assistance and information in tha t field to 

other Federal departments and agencies.

The Department views this subsection (a) (1) as authorizing the 

Secretary to mount a broad program to advance the science and 

technology of weather modification th at supports the various aspects 

in which other Federal departments and agencies are interested, such 

as the augmentation and redistribution of precipitation, the suppression of hail, the suppression of lightning, and the dissipation of fog.

This approach is consistent with section 101(b) (2) , which calls for 

the weather modification activities of the United States to be conducted with full consideration of “the mutual dependence of weather 

modification, weather forecasting, climatology, and other aspects of 

atmospheric sciences and meteorological services.”

I would now like to review briefly a number of our current activities 

and our plans for the future.

PR EC IPITAT IO N MO DIF ICA TIO N

First of all, I would like to discuss precipitation modification. In 

broader perspective this includes the ability to increase, decrease, or 

redistribute rain and snowfall. Success in this area remains one of the 

high-priority goals of weather modification. I t would provide significant benefits today in view of our dwindling water resources, and 

would be of even greater benefit in the future when water supply may 

become critical. Although we must not expect rain-increasing projects 

to solve all problems—since we still must depend upon nature to 

supply the clouds—nevertheless, modification techniques could become an important factor in our overall water resources development 

effort.

The current situation in rainfa ll stimulation is confused. I t appears 

tha t weather modification efforts could result in increases in snowpack 

on our western mountain ranges, although fu rther tests are necessary. 

Several commercial projects appear to have been successful in other 

parts o f the Nation. Carefully conducted projects in Israel and India 

seem to have defintely established success in those areas. Similar success has been reported in Australia.

On the other side of the ledger, however, a number of well-designed 

experiments, including some carried out in our own country and in
29

Canada, have shown no effects. One of the first tasks to be undertaken 

must be to reconcile these conflicting results, and determine when, 

where, and how increased rainfa ll can be produced.

Two basic steps are required: First, w’e must make detailed explorations of the internal structure of clouds under differing climatic and 

regional regimes, to assess the efficiency of natural precipitation mechanisms, and the extent to which artificial intervention is possible.

Second, we must determine the proper seeding techniques to employ 

in each situation. Differences, both in cloud structure and seeding 

methods, may have accounted for the variable success so far achieved. 

Further, we must determine the effects of modifying precipitation on 

the intensity and circulation of storm systems, to make certain tha t 

unwanted changes do not occur.

Some of ESS A’s current projects in this field include:

The Great Lakes project, a study of the possibility of moderating the 

severe snowstorms occurring in early winter along the southern shores 

of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 

Pennsylvania State University, and the State University of New York 

are the particip ating research groups.

The Northeast project, aimed to determining precipitation modification potential in the full spectrum of cloud and storm systems occurring in tha t area. Detailed design of the experimental approach is 

being prepared by New York University.

The cumulus precipitation project, to be carried out in southern 

Florida, now in the planning phase. Seeding of maritime cumulus 

clouds over the ocean by the U.S. Navy and ESS A appears to have 

caused substantial buildup of the clouds. These experiments will now 

be repeated over land, where the effects on precipitation can be 

measured.

Incidentally, behind this chart, Mr. Chairman, I have “before and 

after” pictures of one of these seeding attempts, if you care to see them.

These experiments were conducted jointly with the Navy over the 

ocean. The objective was to determine the effect of seeding on certain 

kinds of cumulus clouds. This is an actual photograph o f what happened in a seeding attempt. We call this the “explosive” growth of a 

cloud.

You see the cloud before seeding on the left and the difference after 

seeding on the right. I t seems rather clearly related to the actual seeding operations that were conducted.

Computer modeling of precipitation processes, now being carried out 

by Allied Research Associates, Inc., will perm it initial experimentation 

on the computer, and will assist greatly in analyzing the results of field 

experiments.

Future plans include expansion of the field program to other parts 

of the Nation, including our Norman, Okla., site, and locations in 

the Midwest and w’est coast.

HURRICANES

The possibility of artificially moderating the destructive aspects of 

tropical storms and hurricanes remains a major goal of ES SA ’s 

weather modification program. Experiments begun in 1961 are being 

continued through Project Stormfury, a joint project of the U.S. Navy
30

and ESS A, wi th Air Force assista nce, w hich emp loys specia lly in stru ­

mented ai rc ra ft fo r ca rryi ng ou t clou d-se edin g experim ents and collec tin g research data.

The proje ct involves t he ma ssiv e s eeding of superc ooled cloud s, near 

the sto rm ’s “eye wall”—and I have a ch art here whi ch will show’ the 

“eve w all” to yo u?

 Mr. C hairm an.

When you ge t i nto the eye o f t he hu rri cane , th e w all of w hite clouds 

you see the re is called the “eye w all.” W e int rod uce silv er iodide in the 

eye wall of the hu rri cane , the reb y releas ing heat, an d affecting the 

sto rm ’s he at bala nce.

Th e project also involves seeding in the “r ain bands” wh ich spiral 

towa rd the eye. Unseeded storms are mo nitore d to prov ide da ta for 

com parison with the e xperime nta l hurrican es.

Tw’o experim ents c arrie d o ut th us far are enc ourag ing, since ch anges 

in eye w all str uc ture and red uctio n of win d speeds followe d the seeding. How ever, many ad ditio na l tests will be re quired t o v erify w het her 

the se eding was, in fac t, th e ca usa tive fa cto r.

Pa ra lle lin g this experim ental a ctivity , ex panded p rogram s o f h urr icane explor ati on a nd com puter simu lation w ill be cond ucted un de r the 

spo nso rship of the Na tio nal Hur ric an e Research La bo ratory. The 

high ly succe ssful ph otog raph y fro m the NA SA A TS-B syn chrono us 

satellite opens up new app roa ches to hu rri cane o bservation .

In ad dit ion , how ever, it w ill be nec essa ry to view the h urric an e m uch 

more extensivel y fro m with in an d fro m below. Th is will req uir e up ­

gr ad in g of the ai rc ra ft of ou r research flight facility. And I believe 

I hav e a photo of one of ou r ai rc ra ft. Th is is a hea vy ai rc ra ft fligh t 

facility designed specifically to explo re hu rricanes and severe storms. 

Th e ai rc ra ft are ins tru me nte d an d designed spec ifically fo r this 

purpose.

Inc rea sed measurem ents of the int era ction betw een the ai r and sea 

surfa ce in hurricanes a re r equir ed, calling for ra dically new meas uring 

tech niqu es.

The new da ta th us acqu ired will pro vid e the i np ut necessary for the 

construction of more rea listic ma the ma tical models of hu rri ca ne circulation f or use with high-spee d com puters to perm it sim ula ted ex periments to be carr ied out in th e laborat ory.

thunde rst orm s, tornadoes, hail, lightn in g

Th e sp ring a nd sum mer thun de rstorm s occurrin g over much of the 

Na tio n are prime sources of mo isture fo r agric ulture, and thus constitut e an im po rta nt natio nal asset. On the othe r ha nd , when overdeveloped the y br ing tornad oes , damag ing hail, and severe lig ht ning 

storms to m any areas. A very im po rta nt a rea of we ath er modifica tion 

will be a se arch fo r ways to mo derate the se ver ity of thes e storms and 

still p res erv e th ei r indispensable precipita tio n.

Our N ational Severe Storms La bo ratory is ex pa nd ing i ts inv estig atio ns into the causes and na ture of tornadoes and othe r severe local 

storms. Po ssibilitie s a re being so ug ht f or re du cin g the e nergy in pu t to 

thes e storms, or d iss ipating the energ y in less ha rm fu l pa ths. We believe th at con tinued explo rat ion a nd analysis, theoret ica l m odeling and 

sim ula tion wi th com puters, and fu tu re field experim ents will contrib ut e t o the fu lle r u nd erstan ding of these storm and lead the way to 

th ei r successful modification.
31

Hail suppression appears to be one of the more tractable of the several modification possibilities associated with severe local storms. A 

national hail modification research plan, now being formulated by an 

interagency group, will provide a focus for a major effort in this area. 

A broad attack will be necessary, involving theoretical, numerical, and 

laboratory studies, as well as field exploration and preliminary experiments, before we will be ready for a full-scale field project. It is encouraging, however, tha t many of the tools for storm analysis and 

storm seeding are in sight. These include specialized radar, infrared 

and microwave sensors, improved seeding techniques, and the capability for analysis of storms from airborne measurements.

Favorable results in th e reduction of hail damage by heavily seeding 

incipient storms at critical stages in their development have been 

reported in the Soviet Union. These reports are being carefully studied, 

and should lead to a repetition of the experiments here.

ESSA and the U.S. Army are conducting a joint experiment to 

moderate lightning near Flagstaff, Ariz., by distributing chaff— 

metalized threads—in thunderstorms in an effort to “short circuit'’ the 

electrical charges before they reach lightning intensity. Results will be 

compared with those of experiments conducted by the U.S. Forest 

Service near Missoula, Mont., using another technique.

Future research will emphasize isolation of the cause of thun derstorm electricity, and means for preventing its development. Effects 

of lightning suppression on precipitation will be carefully evaluated.

In case of fog and low stratus clouds, these create hazards to aviation, and in the case of fog, to other transportation. Marked success 

has been achieved in clearing airport approach zones and runways 

in cases where the fog or cloud is supercooled, and the technique has 

become operational at a number of airports. The dispersal of “ warm” 

fog represents different problems. Several possible approaches are 

being considered by ESSA and by other Federal agencies.

Fog and cloud dispersal may have important application for highways and harbors, for relieving air pollution, and for local climate 

control. Interagency plans for further research and engineering are 

in preparation, and will assist in the development of an expanded 

national program in this area.

Turning now to quite a different aspect of weather modification— 

tha t of the effects we may be producing inadvertently throu gh air 

pollution—the first requisite is a network of “benchmark” stations for 

measuring changes in the chemical content of the atmosphere taking 

place over the years. This is now being done at our observatory on 

Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

I have a picture of this observatory. It is interesting from the following point of view, Mr. Chairman. Here is the only long-term record 

tha t we have in the world of the increasing content of carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere, and there is a need for other such stations.

A second station will soon be in operation near Boulder, Colo. In 

addition, we look toward a global network, initially involving a sampling line from the Arctic to the South Pole along the Americas, and 

later including other continents. First, attention will be given to the 

concentration of carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of coal 

and oil, which may be affecting the atmosphere's radiation balance.
32

The possibility of deliberate changes in climate is also receiving 

attention, although the chances for success seem remote at present. 

Drought relief is one aspect of great interest, but major relief would 

require interference with hemispheric flow patterns—a step not within 

our reach at present.

All aspects of large-scale climate modification must of necessity be 

studied theoretically through the development of a comprehensive 

theory of atmospheric circulation, and through complete simulation 

by computer of the effects of possible human intervention. This work 

is advancing at ESS A’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory 

and at a number of university centers.

Many other important aspects of weather modification will receive 

increasing attention and will support the full achievement of weather 

modification potentialities. In the interest of brevity, I will merely 

outline several of these research are as:

Physics and chemistry of precipitation: To overcome our present 

rudimentary knowledge in this Held, and establish a firm scientific 

basis for precipitation modification.

Cloud nucleation studies: To resolve recent questions regarding 

the effectiveness of present seeding methods, and establish sound 

standards.

Numerical modeling: To capitalize on present ability to predict 

cloud-seeding effects, and extend such techniques to other forms of 

weather modification.

Temporarv inhibition of precipitation: To shift precipitation to 

areas where it can be better utilized.

Boundary layer effects: To further investigate sea-air and land-air 

interactions, and the possibilities for deliberate alteration.

Radiation control: To consider techniques and effects of altering 

the atmosphere’s heat balance, as a weather modification tool.

Water and energy budgets: To analyze the overall air-sea-earth 

system in terms of the budgets of storms and cloud systems.

Instrument and system development: To improve present instrumentation and search for advanced methods. To seek new approaches 

in modification delivery systems. To consider future operational deployment systems.

In addition to the foregoing will, of course, be the social, economic, 

ecological, and legal studies, as specified in II.R. 9212, to be carried out 

in cooperation w ith other agencies.

Carrying out a program of this size and complexity will require 

additional resources of some magnitude. The most immediate need 

is for modern airc raft with improved performance and greater economy of operation. The success of most of the work described above will 

depend upon adequate aerial support. Provision must also be made 

for equipping the several field experimental sites with adequate facilities. In addition, improved laboratory and cloud-simulation equipment 

will be needed.

Weather is an international phenomenon and knows no boundary 

lines, and I wish to point out the importance of international cooperation in the field of weather modification. The recent successes in Israel, 

Australia, India, and the Soviet Union illustrate the impact tha t foreign research could have on our own program of weather modification. 

II.R. 9212 recognizes the importance of international cooperation, and 

provides sufficient authority for our present needs.
33

Gentlemen, rec ent studie s have ind ica ted th at we are at a tu rn in g 

po int in th e histor y of we ath er modification. We have before us the 

op po rtun ity to make significant advances towa rd modification , an d 

ultim ately con trol of one of our m ost signific ant a nd larg ely u nt ap pe d 

resources, the atm osp here. H.R. 9212 would au tho riz e a major pro gram 

in the field of w eather modification.

Th e Dep artm en t o f C omm erce str on gly supp orts t his legislation and 

the prog ram which it w ould autho rize. Th e benefits whi ch could come 

to the United St ates an d to th is wo rld fro m the prog ram are alm ost 

limitless. We mu st n ot fai l to seek them.

Mr. Ch airm an , I would be ha pp y to ans wer any questio ns on H.R . 

9212, or, if you desire, I can give my sta tem ent on the joint resolu tion 

on the w orld we ather p rogram and a nsw er any questions later .

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. W hit e, we ce rta inly a pp recia te yo ur te stim ony. 

I kno w th at m embers of th e c ommittee will have some question s. I was 

wo nderi ng if you cou ld subm it y ou r stat em ent in s up po rt of th e wo rld 

we ath er prog ram f or t he rec ord , w here it will a pp ea r as read , and so rt 

of summ arize it fo r us, and pe rhap s we ca n a sk you questions and cover 

both.

Mr. "Whit e. I would be g lad to.

The wo rld we ath er prog ram, Mr. Ch airm an , is, in my view, as the 

person respon sible fo r th e we ath er services of this Na tio n, one of the 

most i m po rtan t a cti vit ies wh ich th is cou ntr y can u ndert ake.

Ev ery na tio n need s every othe r na tio n’s we ath er da ta. To day we 

receive weathe r data from all of t he natio ns of the world, ro uti nely an d 

reg ularly. Our m ajor ob stacle in seeking to imp rove the acc ura cy an d 

extend the time rang e of ou r we ath er foreca sts, which would have 

enormous economic consequences, is th at t od ay we only h ave up pe r-air 

we ath er ob servat ion s from about 20 perce nt of the w orld .

Our scientists now tell us, based upon theoret ica l calculation s th at 

if we could a cqu ire the ad ditio na l observat ion s i t wou ld be possib le fo r 

us to extend ou r w eather foreca sts for 2 weeks.

To obtain the require d obs erv ations it is necessary fo r us to wo rk 

coo perativ ely wi th othe r nations of th e wo rld in estab lishin g the 

prop er kind s of glo bal observation networks, glo bal com mu nicatio ns 

systems, and glo bal data- pro cessi ng systems.

At the last Congress of the W orld Meteorolog ical Or ga nizatio n, a 

specialized a gency of the U nited Na tions, which is respon sible for th e 

coord ina tion of in tern ationa l we ath er matters , th e cou ntries of th e 

wo rld reache d firm de cisions on mo vin ig a head wi th this p rogram .

Th e attit ud es of the other natio ns of the wo rld were almost un an imou s in iden tif yi ng th e wo rld weather pr og ram as the most im po rtan t 

we ath er activ ity , no t only in the inter ests of each individu al na tio n, 

but f or the globe as a whole.

The vario us natio ns of the world ind ica ted at the W orld Me teo rological Or ga niza tio n Con gress an d subsequen tly th at the y are pr epa re d to move a head with th ei r own reso urces to pu t in the necessary 

obs ervatio ns fo r wh ich the y would be resp ons ible , and to put in the 

nece ssary com mu nicatio ns systems fo r which the y wou ld be resp on ­

sible. It is im po rta nt th at thi s co un try also move ahead wi th the m, 

because the economic benefits t o this co un try will be very, very sig nif ican t.
34

A second part of this program deals with the research that would be 

required to achieve a capability to make long-range weather forecasts. 

This is called the global atmospheric research program.

This program visualizes a series of field experiments in which successively we would begin to bring various parts of the atmosphere 

under observation using the new technology which is now available 

to us.

One thing that now makes this world weather program feasible and 

timely is the development of the satellite, which now places us in a 

position to acquire weather observations over the entire world.

When this is wedded to our communications and high-speed computers, we are now in a position, if we can solve some of the technological problems so th at we can get the required observations, to 

move ahead in the research area and develop the techniques which will 

yield us the kind of long-range forecasting capability we need.

If we are ever to consider in any serious way the possibility of 

modifying weather and climate on a large scale, it will be necessary 

for us to have a rational basis on which to make decisions. We will have 

to understand the consequences of what we propose to do. The only 

way in which we will be able to do this will be to have the capability 

to forecast for longer periods in advance than presently. Hence the 

world weather program is vital for two reasons.

One, to generate a capability for long-range weather forecasts, up 

to about 2 weeks, with its own economic benefits, and second, to establish a basis where we can rationally think about the problem of largescale climate and weather control.

This is a brief summary of my statement, and I will submit it for 

the record.

Mr. Macdonald. Without object ion, your entire statement will be 

put in the record.

(Mr. White's prepared statement on IT..T. Res. 688 follows:)

Statement op Robert M. White, Administrator, Environmental Science

Services Administration, Department of Commerce, on II.J. Res. 688

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased also to have 

the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Commerce on House 

Joint Resolution 688 and to strongly recommend its enactment.

This joint resolution declares it to be the policy of the United States to participate in and give full support to the World Weather Program, a cooperative 

international program which includes (1) a World Weather Watch—the development and operation of a global weather observing, communication, and processing system and (2) the Global Atmospheric Research Program—a comprehensive 

program of research on the global wind systems of the atmosphere.

In furtherance of the above policy, the resolution requests the President to 

cooperate with other nations’ efforts to: make immediate improvement in the 

existing international weather system; develop new technology; carry out 

research directed toward improved methods of predicting atmospheric conditions including the collection of additional data tha t may be requ ired; train 

personnel; and provide technical and training assistance and facilities to other 

nations and international organizations. The resolution also directs the President 

to transm it to Congress annually a plan showing proposed United States participation in the World Weather Program for the next fiscal year.

On April 3 of this year President Johnson stressed the need for the World 

Weather Program when he said, “For centuries man’s inability to predict weather 

far enough ahead has caused incalculable human suffering. . . . The proposed 

system will, through international cooperation, lead to improved weather forecasting and protection of life and property, and deserves the wholehearted support of the American people.’’
35

T he U ni te d S ta te s has bee n a le ad er in th e pre para ti on of th e pla ns fo r the 

W or ld W ea th er Pro gra m . I t w as a speech on the pe ac eful use s of oute r sp ac e 

by P re si dent Ken ne dy , be fore th e U ni te d N at io ns in 1961, which sti rr e d th e 

in te rn ati o n al ac ti vit y th a t has led to th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am . The U ni ted 

N at io ns pa ss ed re so lu tion s in 1961 and 1962 ca llin g upon th e nat io ns of th e 

w or ld and th e ap p ro p ri ate in te rn ati onal in st it uti ons to deve lop a pl an to captu re tli e unpara ll ele d opp ort unitie s which th en co uld be fo rese en fo r im pr ov in g 

th e w eath er se rv ices of al l nat io ns of th e world. Thi s ca ll has bee n heeded.

Th e Con gress of th e W or ld M eteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n he ld it s fifth qua dre nnia l m ee ting in A pr il of th is ye ar . P re si dent Jo hn so n in st ru cte d th e U ni te d 

S ta te s re pre se nta ti ves to th a t m ee ting to “p ledg e th e fu ll an d co nt in ui ng partici pat io n of th e U nite d S ta te s in th is im p o rt an t en de av or .” At th is mee tin g, the 

W or ld M eteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n Con gress del in ea te d spe cific ac ti vit ie s to be 

pu rs ue d by th e nati ons of th e w or ld ov er th e nex t fo ur ye ar s, re co gn izing th a t 

it wou ld ta k e a t le ast a de ca de to est ab li sh th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am fully . 

Th e W or ld M eteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n pla n is in ac co rd w ith U ni ted S ta te s 

vie ws.

The W or ld W eath er Pro gra m is of g re at im po rtan ce to th e peop le of the 

U ni te d Sta te s. It is only th ro ugh th is pr og ra m th a t we c an deve lop th e c ap ab ility 

to m ak e us ef ul long -ran ge w eath er pre dic tions fo r pe riod s of up to tw o we ek s, to 

in cr ea se th e ac cu ra cy of w eat her pre dic tions sign ifi ca ntly , an d to ex pl or e sy ste m at ic al ly th e pos si bi lities an d li m it ati ons of larg e- sc al e w eath er mod ifi ca tio n 

an d cl im at e mo dific ati on .

T he U ni te d S ta te s ca n ac hiev e su bst anti al eco nomic be ne fits from su cc es sful 

ex ec ut ion of th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am . The se be ne fits wou ld flow from po sitive us e of long -ran ge w eath er fo re cast s in th e pl an nin g of w ea th er -s en si tive 

ac tivi ties , a s op po sed to our pre se nt m er e de fe ns iv e re ac tion to th e w eath er in 

th e co nd uc t of th es e ac tivi ties . As an ex am pl e, co ns id er ag ri cult ure . F arm ers 

wou ld be ab le to sche du le ir ri gati on, sp ra yi ng , pl an ting , and harv est in g more 

eff iciently and ec on om icall y if long -ran ge fo re cast s were av ai la ble . Or, co ns id er 

th e c on st ru ct io n in du st ry . Thr ou gh appro pri ate s ch ed ul ing fa r en ou gh in ad va nc e, 

bu ilde rs wo uld be ab le to av oid mu ch of th e m at er ie l spoilage which now fr e ­

qu en tly re su lts from un ex pe cted ad ver se w eath er and pe rm it mor e efficient us e 

of th e la bor force. The fu el in dust ry could pr og ra m th e dis tr ib uti on o f fu el s 

mor e efficiently. T ra nsp ort ati on co uld bec ome mor e efficient an d sa fe r. O th er 

ac ti vit ie s which will be pr of ou nd ly affected are m er ch an di sing , re cr ea tion , comm er ci al fishin g, and w ate r man ag em en t. Alth ou gh q u an ti ta ti v e es ti m ate s of th e 

be ne fit s th a t m ig ht re su lt to ea ch of th es e are as a re no t av ai la ble , I be lie ve th a t 

th e retu rn to o ur n at io n wi ll f a r exceed th e in ve st m en t re qu ired .

The W or ld W eath er Pro gr am ca n am el io ra te su bst anti all y th e en or m ou s to ll 

an nual ly of liv es an d pr ope rt y in th e U ni te d S ta te s an d th ro ughout th e w or ld 

ca us ed by w eath er h azard s su ch as hurr ic anes, floo ds, to rn ad oes an d snow 

stor ms. In 1966 fo r ex am ple, th e U nite d S ta te s lo st ap pro xim at el y a th ousa nd 

liv es and ov er on e billi on do llar s fr om pro per ty da m ag e du e to w eath er hazard s 

an d cat ast ro phes .

If th ro ugh th e d ata prov id ed by th e W or ld W ea th er P ro gra m larg e- sc al e 

w eath er mod ifi ca tio n is foun d to be pr ac tica ble , si gn ic an tly g re ate r be ne fits 

co uld ac cr ue to th e U ni te d St at es . Slight but sy st em at ic in cr ea se s in to ta l ra in ­

fa ll or sm all ch an ge s in av er ag e te m pera tu re s fo r ce rt ain are as of th e U ni ted 

S ta te s wou ld m ak e agri cult ure po ssible w he re no ne ex is ts now . B ut I w ant to 

em ph as ize th at, a t th is tim e, we do no t kn ow w het her la rg e- sc al e w eath er 

mod ifi ca tio n is fe as ib le as opposed to th e sm al le r scale mod ifi ca tio n whi ch I ha ve 

pr ev io us ly disc us se d. W e do kn ow th a t w ith th e W or ld W ea th er P ro gra m we ca n 

carr y out a so un d an d re liab le appra is al of it s th eo re ti ca l fe as ib ility.

W e ca nnot de ri ve th es e benefits, ho wev er, by ou rselve s. An in te rn ati o n al pro ­

gr am is re qu ir ed . W eath er is a glob al ph en om en on , no t loca l or only nat io nal . 

A tm os ph er ic dis tu rb ances do no t re sp ec t pol itic al bo un da ries . Cha ng es occ urr in g 

in an y one plac e ha ve an eff ect on th e enti re fa ce of our pla net , in a m a tt e r of 

da ys . The re fo re , no sin gle nat io n ca n de al w ith th e w or ld ’s w eath er alon e, or 

ev en pre dic t it s own w eat her fo r an y ex te nd ed pe riod of tim e w ithout th e coop er at io n of o th er na tion s.

A cc ur at e pr ed ic tion of U ni ted S ta te s w eath er one or tw o day s in ad van ce re ­

qu ir es ob se rv ed w eath er d ata fr om N or th Am er ic a an d m os t of th e Pa cific an d 

A tlan tic O ce an s; pre di ct io ns fo r th re e or fo u r da ys in ad van ce re quir e a t le ast 

he m isph er ic d ata : pre di ct io ns fo r a we ek or mor e in ad va nc e re quir e d a ta fr om 

th e en ti re globe. To da y we ob ta in ad eq uat e obs er va tio ns from on ly 20 per ce nt
36

of th e wo rld . And m an y of th es e are so de laye d or ga rb le d in tr an sm is si on th a t 

th ey are of li tt le va lu e in pr od uc in g fo re ca sts. Yet th es e d ata are es se nt ia l if we 

are to pro du ce a ccu ra te lo ng -ran ge fo re ca st s fo r th is co un try.

I t is cle ar th a t now is th e tim e to jo in w ith th e nat io ns of th e wor ld in seeking 

th e be ne fits th a t will flow fro m a su cc es sful W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am . In te rn ation al ly , th e nati ons of th e world ha ve ex pr es se d a ge nu ine in te re st in mo vin g 

fo rw ard w ith th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am . Sc ient ifically an d tec hn olog ica lly , 

we are now in a po si tion to carr y out th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gra m eff ectiv ely , 

th anks to re ce nt de ve lopm en ts in man y di ve rs e fie lds from co m pu te rs to ob se rvat io na l tec hn olog y. The th eo re tica l ba sis fo r mod ern w ea th er fo re ca st in g wa s 

we ll es ta bl is he d pri or to th e sec ond W orld W ar . By th e la te 1940’s, m ea ns we re 

av ai la bl e to en ab le sc ie ntist s to ta ck le a p a rt of th e pro blem , such as solving 

sim plified m at hem at ic al eq ua tion s fo r de sc ribi ng th e at m os ph er e an d th e proc ­

esses th a t co lle ctively mak e ou r w ea th er . B ut a t th a t tim e th e tec hn olog y re ­

qu ir ed fo r ta kin g ad eq uat e glo bal ob se rv at io ns w as no t even on th e ho riz on , 

no r were co m pu te rs fa st en ou gh to car ry out mor e so phis tica te d sim ula tions of 

th e glo ba l atm os ph er e. To da y, th e co m pu te rs are fa st an d la rg e en ou gh to all ow 

us to begin su ch si m ul at io ns , an d we ha ve w or ki ng at m os ph er ic mo dels. To da y, 

th e meteo rologica l sa te ll it e is ob ta in in g glob al clou d co ve r d ata an d has th e 

pote nti al of obta in in g man y of th e oth er re quir ed glo ba l obse rv at io ns more efficien tly an d econ om ica lly . O ur ex pe rien ce w ith ESS A’s ope ra tional meteo ro lo gica l sa te ll it e sy stem —th e w or ld ’s firs t oper at io nal sa te ll it e sy stem —le ad s us to 

th e co nc lusio n th a t w ith fu rt h er de ve lopm en t th e fu tu re glo ba l w eath er ob se rv atio n sy stem will cente r ar ou nd su ch sa te ll it e sy ste ms. Thu s, sc ientifi ca lly , tech no ­

logica lly , an d in te rn at io nal ly , re ce nt ly es ta bl is hed ca pa bilitie s giv e us th e opport unit y to mo ve f orw ard to va stly im prov ed w eath er service s.

Now, I wo uld lik e to tu rn to a mor e det ai le d de sc ript io n of th e m aj or elem en ts 

of th e W orld W eath er Pro gr am . As I po in te d o u t ea rl ie r, th e pro gr am co ns ists 

of tw o m aj or line s of effort.

The firs t m ajo r line is to desig n and im plem en t th e W orld W ea th er W atch , a 

ne w in te rn ati onal sy stem comb ining ro utine obs er va tio n of th e at m os ph er e ov er 

th e enti re glo be w ith ra pid a nd efficient co mm un ication, proc essin g, an d an al ysi s 

of th e re su ltin g w or ld w id e w ea th er data . The W orld W ea th er W at ch duri ng th e 

pe riod 1968-1971 de al s w ith t hre e br oa d ar ea s.

F ir st , th e in te rn ati o n al pl an id en tif ies 131 up pe r a ir ob se rv in g la nd st ati ons 

which will be eit h er ne wly es ta blish ed or up gr ad ed to obt ai n th e fu ll ra ng e of 

d ata re qu ired . T he re sjions ibili ty fo r th e im pl em en ta tion o f th re e of th es e st at io ns 

wou ld fa ll to th e U ni te d Sta te s. T he oth ers wo uld be im plem en ted by oth er 

na tion s. Ove r th e oc eans, th e pl an is to eq uip 100 m er ch an t sh ip s to ta k e both 

su rf ac e an d uppe r a ir ob se rv ations . T hirty -t w o of th es e sh ip s are pr oj ec te d fo r 

im pl em en ta tion by th e U ni ted Sta te s. In ad ditio n, th e cu rr en t meteo rologica l 

sa te ll it e sy st em s of th e U ni ted S ta te s an d th e So viet Un ion are to be co nt in ue d 

and im prov ed.

Sec ond , th e pl an de al s with an al ysi s an d proc es sing of meteo rologica l dat a. 

The W orld Meteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n pla n ca lls fo r ex pa nd in g th e scope of 

th e an al ys es an d ex te nd in g th e us e of high -spe ed co m pu te rs a t th e th re e ex is ting 

W or ld M eteo rologica l Cen ters—one a t W as hi ng to n, one a t Moscow, an d one at 

Melb ou rne. The se cen te rs pre par e la rg e- sc al e atm os ph er ic and glob al chart s, 

an al yse s and fo re cast s fo r use by th e var io us N at io na l M eteo rologica l C en te rs 

th ro ughout th e world.

T hi rd , th e pl an incl ud es th e in st all ati on of an effecti ve glob al co mm un ications 

ne tw or k wh ich , as I sa id ea rlie r, is also of vit al im po rtan ce to th e U ni te d Sta te s 

w eath er service s. The United S ta te s an d th e Fed er al Rep ub lic of G er m an y ha ve 

al re ady im plem en ted a co mm un ications lin k be tw ee n W as hi ng ton an d Offenbac h. 

The co st is sh ar ed by th e tw o co un tries. Sim ilar ly , we are neg ot ia ting fo r the 

in sta ll ati on of link s between W as hi ng to n and B ra si lia an d betw ee n W as hi ng ton 

an d Tokyo . O th er lin ks , such as Moscow to Of fen bach. Moscow to New Delhi 

to Melb ou rne, an d To ky o to Melbo urne—are eit h er in use , or are in th e ad va nc ed 

pl an nin g sta ge s.

To th e max im um exte nt po ssible, th e im pr ov em en ts ca lle d fo r in th e th re e 

are as se t ou t ab ov e will be ca rr ie d ou t by th e in di vi du al na tio ns . How ev er, th e 

de ve loping nati ons will mo st lik ely ne ed tech no lo gica l an d fin an cial as si st an ce 

to im plem en t some of th e fa ci li ti es which are ca lle d fo r in th e plan , an d wh ich 

are es se nt ia l to th e su ccess of th e W orld W ea th er W atc h. T his as si st ance will 

be pr ov ided , as fa r as po ssible, by th e U ni ted Natio ns De ve lopm en t Fu nd . In 

ad di tion , th e W or ld Mete orolo gical O rg an iz at io n has es ta blish ed a V olu nta ry
37

Assis ta nc e Pro gr am , th ro ugh wh ich th e ad va nc ed nat io ns may exte nd ass is ta nce 

fo r selected W or ld W eath er W atch p ro je ct s in t he dev elo ping nat io ns .

Now , le t me tu rn to th e sec ond m ajo r lin e of ef fo rt of th e W or ld W eath er 

Pro gra m which is th e co mpr eh en sive Gl ob al A tm os ph er ic R es ea rc h Pro gra m — 

or GA RP , as it is be comi ng know n in th is da y of ac rony ms. GARP is de sign ed 

to give us th e ba sic sc ientifi c under st andin g of th e at m osp he re ’s gl ob al wind 

sy stem s th a t we also ne ed, if we a re to im prov e th e ac cu ra cy and ex te nd th e 

tim e r an ge of w eath er pr ed ictio ns .

An im port ant st ep in th e pla nn in g of GARP was ta ke n in St oc kh olm earl y 

th is su mmer. A t th a t tim e, at m os ph er ic sc ie ntist s from ar ound th e w or ld , 

unde r th e jo in t au sp ic es of th e In te rn ati o n al Co un cil of Sc ien tif ic Union s an d 

th e W orld M eterolog ical O rg an iz at io n, met and deve lope d th e gen er al pla n of 

th e re se ar ch p ro gr am . The p ro gr am w ill c on sist o f two part s.

Th e fi rs t p a rt will fo cu s on th e de ve lopm en t of th e m at hem at ic al mod els of 

th e at m os ph er e re quir ed fo r long -ran ge w ea th er pr ed ic tion s. The se m ath em ati cal 

mo dels are us ed w ith el ec tron ic co m pu te rs to pre dic t at m os ph er ic proc es ses. A 

gre at de al of pr og re ss has been m ad e in th e la st de cade, so th a t toda y, co m pute r 

pr og ra m s ba se d on su ch mo dels are us ed ro ut in el y by ov er a dozen nati ons to 

pr od uc e w eath er fo re ca st s fo r on e to th re e da ys in to th e fu tu re . Some re ce nt 

ex pe rim en ts, us in g co mplex an d so phi st ic at ed re se ar ch mo del s, ha ve de m on ­

str ate d th a t us ef ul pr ed ic tion s fo r a t le ast a week in ad va nc e ca n be made. In 

oth er ex per im en ts it h as been show n th a t th e ba sic chara cte r of th e at m osp he re 

is su ch th at, in pr in cipl e, us ef ul pr ed ic tion s sh ou ld be po ssible fo r pe riod s of up 

to tw o wee ks in ad va nc e if giv en a co mpl ete se t of glob al dat a. How ev er, th ere 

are st ill m ajo r im pr ov em en ts th a t m ust be mad e in th e at m os ph er ic mo dels. F or 

ex am ple, we m ust in co rp ora te , am on g oth er th in gs , th e tr opic al cir cu la tion of 

wh ich li tt le is kn ow n, and th e m an ner in which en er gy is put in to an d ta k en 

ou t of th e at m os ph er e by th e sea an d la nd s ur fa ce s.

The second p a rt of GARP is a se ri es of field ex pe rim en ts to pr ov id e th e 

d ata ne ed ed fo r th e im pr ov em en t of th e m at hem at ic al mo del s. T hre e ki nds of 

data gat heri ng ex pe ri m en ts we re reco mmen de d a t th e GA RP c on fe re nc e in Sto ck ­

ho lm f or fu rn is hin g t hes e su pp le m en ta l dat a.

F ir st a re th os e of a lo ca liz ed natu re , in cl ud in g oc ea n- at m os ph er e an d la nd - 

at in os ph er e in te ra cti on stud ies. A nu m be r of nat io ns— United Ki ng do m, So viet 

Union, Ja p an , and th e U ni ted S ta te s— are in di vid ual ly pla nn in g su ch exper im en ts in vari ous re gi on s of th e world. The U ni ted S ta te s’ ex per im en t is ca lled 

th e B ar bad os O ce an og ra ph ic an d M eteo rologica l Exp er im en t. I t is sc he du led 

fo r th e su m m er of 1969. It s pla nn in g on an in te ra ge nc y ba sis has bee n in pr oc es s 

fo r a num ber of ye ar s. It is re sp on sive to re co m men da tio ns fo r are a st udie s 

by th e N at io na l Acade my of Sciences . W ithi n ES SA , as th e l ea d ag en cy o n beh al f 

of th e go ve rn m en t a pro je ct office has been es ta blish ed to pr ov id e a cen tr al 

fo cu s fo r th e co ord in at io n of th e o ve ra ll p ro je ct.

The seco nd ty pe of ex pe rim en t reco mmen de d is re gi on al in n atu re , such as 

th e Tro pi ca l M eteo rologica l Exp er im en t. T hi s ex pe rim en t is be ing pla nn ed fo r 

th e pe riod 197 2-7 3 and is de sign ed to pr ov id e a ph ys ic al de sc ript io n of tr opic al 

ci rc ul at io ns.

The th ir d ty pe of ex pe rim en t reco mmen de d de al s w ith th e enit re globe. T his 

ex per im en t wou ld pr ov id e a co mplete se t of glob al d ata fo r us e in th e re se ar ch 

on im pr ov in g th e m at hem at ic al mo dels of th e a tm os ph er e.

To ac hi ev e glob al ob se rv at io nal ca pab ility fo r th e W or ld W eath er W at ch 

an d GAR P w ithin re as ona ble costs, ne w obs er vat io nal tools w ill hav e to be 

develop ed. Mu ch of th is de ve lopm en t w ill ce nt er on th e en vir onm en ta l sa te llite. 

The sa te ll it e is a uni qu e pla tf orm fo r re m ote se ns in g of the at m os ph er e, fo r 

co lle ctio n of d a ta fr om oth er ob serv ing pla tf orm s, an d fo r ra pid co m m un ic at io n 

of w ea th er d ata o ve r g loba l di stan ce s.

Rem ote se ns or s, to be mou nted on a sa te llite, ca n be de velop ed fo r ob se rv in g 

th e at m os ph er e’s vert ic al st ru ctu re of te m pera tu re an d hu m id ity. D ev elop m en t 

of such se ns or s is und er w ay in th is co un try, in th e U ni ted Kingd om , and in th e 

So viet Un ion .

The sa te ll it e also pr ov id es a un ique mea ns of lo ca ting an d co lle ctin g m et eo ro ­

logi ca l d ata fr om a v ari ety of pla tf orm s sc att ere d ov er th e glo be; th ere are se vera l su ch sy st em s no w unde r de ve lopm en t in th is co unt ry an d Fra nce . In s tr u ­

m en ted ba llo on s whi ch w ill flo at a t fix ed lev els , oc ean bu oy s, auto m ati c la nd 

st at io ns , an d m er chant sh ip s a re am on g th e pla tf orm s whi ch can wor k in co nju ncti on w ith a sa te ll it e d ata loca tio n an d co lle ction syste m.

The de ve lopm en t of th es e an d oth er ne w obs er va tio n te ch niq ue s w ill be th e 

w or k of m an y ye ar s. B u t th is w or k is im port an t. I t is im port ant fo r th e n e a r
38

fut ure so th at the World We ather Watch and large-scale data gathering experiments may proceed more effectively and economically. And i t is certainly important for the more dista nt future , when we have a fully implemented World 

We ather Program.

Natio nally, a gre at deal of planning has been carried out both within and outside the government. Our National Academy of Sciences has recommended that 

the United States move ahead vigorously with the World Weather Program. The 

White House Conference on Intern ati onal Cooperation also recommended th at 

the United States supp ort this program fully and exercise a role of leadership in 

its execution. Within the Executive Bran ch, the form ulation of the United States 

portion of the World Weather Program has been carried out on a multiagency 

basis. The agencies with prim ary responsibilities in the World Weathe r Pro ­

gram ar e the Department of State, the Nation al Science Foundatio n, the National Aeronautics and Space Adm inistration, and the Departme nt of Commerce.

The Dep artm ent of Sta te is responsible for coordinating relatio ns with international meteorological organiz ations; assisting the less developed natio ns in 

improving the ir national weather services, and developing the app rop riate bilat ­

eral and multilateral arra ngemen ts requ ired for the World We ather Program.

The National Science Foundation is responsible for stim ulating and intensifying researc h rela ted to GARP and for the education and traini ng of scientists. 

This is an extremely imp ortant activ ity. Achievements of the objectives of the 

program can only be accomplished with the full partici pation of the scien tists 

at our universities.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in relation to its responsibilities under existing a uthority, is responsible f or the development of the space 

technology requ ired for an economical global weather system. Much has been accomplished to date by NASA thro ugh the TIROS and NIMBUS satellites. As I 

mentioned earlier, this is vita l work for the World Weather Prog ram. We have 

ju st begun to tap the potential of the meteorological satellite. The developments 

underway in NASA for remotely sensing the atmosphere and for the collection 

of meteorological data from surface platform s and balloons in the atomsphere 

will form key elements in the full W orld W eath er Program.

The Departm ent of Commerce has been given responsibility by the Preside nt 

for coordinating the United States’ effort on the program. In addition, the Departm ent of Commerce, through the Environmental Science Services Adm inistration, is responsible for implementing the United Sta tes’ portion of the World 

We ather Watch, for pursuing the development of new technology within its 

existing au thority , and fo r supporting GARP activities.

Within this framework, we plan to implement the initial World We ather Watch 

improvements mentioned earlier as United States responsibilities in the world 

meteorological plan. We are planning to contin ue the development of improved 

equipm ent fo r merchant ships, of horizontal sounding balloons a nd of ocean buoys 

as requ ired by the World Weather Prog ram. In addition, ESSA will continue to 

cooperate with NASA in the development of technology for remote sensing from a 

satelli te and for s atellite interrogation -location of the observation platforms. We 

plan to acce lerate and expand our resea rch in atmospheric modeling. Finally, we 

plan to partic ipa te in the air-sea interactio n project planned for 1969 in the 

vicinity of Barbados.

This, then, is th e World We ather Pro gram—its purposes, its plans, its management structure , its hopes, and its problems. To the meteorologist it is an absolute 

necessity if he is to perform his job sub stan tially better in the future. To the 

people of the United S tate s i t will mean enormous benefits—socially and economically—an d if I may go beyond, I believe th at this program can do much in furthering understanding between nations and make a sub stantial contribution to our 

highest goal—peace among nations.

Again, I want to urge enactmen t of this resolution. I believe it is essential 

for a prog ram of such importance, of such scope, and of such complexity th at the 

intent of Congress be indicated. It would provide the Congress with an annu al 

rep ort which describes th e specific contributions of the F ede ral agencies involved 

in the program , thereby permittin g decisions which will maintain the coherency 

of the effort. It would give positive assura nce to the other par ticipa ting natio ns 

th at the people of this country will support this program which our representatives st arted and helped develop, a nd which cann ot be accomplished withou t their 

assistance. It would mean th at w ithin the next decade the people of the United 

States would enjoy a vastly improved weather service.

I tha nk you.
39

Mr. Macdonald. Sir, some years ago, some of us went to Antarctica. 

As a m atter of fact, the late Dr. Harry Wexler, I think, was repre ­

senting the National Science Foundation, and it opened up a whole 

new world to me that I d idn’t comprehend before.

At tha t time, there were five or six countries which had several 

stations down in Antarctica : the Russians, Australians, New Zealanders, the Japanese, I believe, and of course ourselves.

We were told at that time, if I recall correctly, and I think I do, 

tha t because of those stations, this so-called long-range weather 

prophecy could be made because most of the world’s weather is made 

up down there, which is something I didn’t know before.

In your statements, I have seen no mention of that. I was wondering, 

were they wrong at that time, because they easily could have been back 

in 1957, and, of course, things have changed a good deal. But they 

placed great emphasis on the fact of what was being done during the 

Geophysical Year, and I thought it was very important, and I see no 

mention of it in either one of your statements. I was wondering if you 

would care to comment on it?

.Mr. White. I think the statement made to you by Dr. Wexler is 

correct. I haven’t mentioned Antarctica specifically, but I have mentioned the fact tha t only 20 percent of the world’s surface is covered 

with adequate upper air observations.

One of the greatest areas of deficiency is in the Southern Hemisphere. We have found th at weather systems propagate over vast areas 

rapidly.

Tha t means, if you were going to forecast for the United States, the 

North Atlantic and the North Pacific for 4 days in advance, you need 

data from the entire Northern Hemisphere. To extend the predictions 

beyond 4 days, you need weather da ta from the entire globe.

Therefore, the data we receive from A ntarctica is extremely critical. 

What we now know, based upon our calculations since 1957, is that we 

are going to need the observations from the remaining 80 percent 

of the earth, including the oceans.

Mr. Macdonald. Do I understand that you think it is impo rtant we 

maintain our stations in Antarctica?

Mr. White. I think it is essential, sir, from a weather point of view.

Mr. Macdonald. My second question deals with th e satellite. When 

you talk about a satellite, are you talking about an international or 

domestic satellite ?

Mr. White. I am talking meteorological satellites. One such 

satellite, the NASA ATS-1, is presently stationed over the Pacific. I 

have a photograph here showing the kind of weather information th at 

one can gain from such a synchronous satellite.

From a single satellite, we can get weather information covering the 

entire Pacific area.

Mr. Macdonald. A synchronous satellite—we are all laymen here— 

merely means that it keeps pace with the earth ’s orbit ?

Mr. White. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Macdonald. Where is it again ?

Mr. White. It is over the Pacific at the present time. I t is an experimental NASA satellite.

Mr. Macdonald. We have Telstar and Ea rly Bird.
40

Mr. White. Those are communicat ions satellites.

Mr. Macdonald. I would think this satellite would have to be a 

communications one, too, or else you wouldn’t get any information 

from it, would you ?

Mr. White. This satellite is a general-purpose test bed. NASA is 

conducting communications experiments with the satellite, in addition 

to meteorological experiments, at the present time.

This, however, is a research and development activity at the present 

time. As you know, we have an operational weather satellite system 

which is operated by the Department of Commerce to serve all national 

interests, which now gives us complete global cloud cover on a routine 

basis.

Mr. Macdonald. Could you expand on that point just a little more?

Mr. White. The earth-orbiting satellite gives you a platform which 

is unique for weather purposes. One could conceive of a variety of 

different kinds of weather satellites. At present, we have brought to 

operational utility a polar-orbiting satellite which essentially takes 

photographs of the world’s cloud cover once each day. This is now 

an operational system being used routinely in our daily weather forecasting activities.

Mr. Macdonald. I s it used just by the United States, or by all other 

countries as well?

Mr. White. The present satellite is used by all countries of the 

world. It has on board what is called an automatic picture transmission system, which enables any country to receive, very inexpensively, 

the pictures from the satellite. There are over 250 of these installations 

in various countries of the world today.

Mr. Macdonald. So it is put up by us ?

Mr.W hite. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. Put up by the U.S. Government, but it is being 

used by all the countries of the world ?

Mr. White. I t is being used by all the countries of the world todayThe free exchange of weather information has been a tradition in 

meteorology.

Mr. Macdonald. It is a great concept. I am not knocking it. I am 

just curious. Is there any other country that has a similar satellite 

up?

Mr. W hite. Yes. The Soviet Union has a weather satellite system 

in being, and we exchange satellite information with the Soviet Union 

on a routine basis each day. They send us their weather satellite data, 

and we send them ours.

Mr. Macdonald. There is no cold war going on in the weather field, 

I take it.

Mr. W hite. The weather business has a very, very traditional cooperative spirit internationally, because everybody literally needs 

everybody else.

Mr. Macdonald. If the committee will indulge me just one more 

question for my own inform ation: What is the difference between 

warm fog and cold fog?

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, a cold fog is a fog which is below freezing, and a warm fog is one where the droplets are above freezing.

Mr. Macdonald. At what point do you gage the temperature of the 

fog?
41

Mr. W hite. It is the temperature of the water droplets. When the 

water droplets are supercooled, we can use techniques like seeding 

to dissipate the fog. When the temperature of the fog droplets is 

above freezing, these techniques do not work.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you.

Mr. Broyhill ?

Mr. Broyhill. H.R. 9212 contains what we call an open-end authorization. Do you have any information that you could provide to 

the committee on the amount of money that would be requested in the 

next 3 to 5 years on this program ?

Mr. White. I can merely give you at the present time, Mr. Congressman, information of a very general nature, because, of course, 

the amount of money that would be devoted to the program would 

depend on the budgetary situation each year.

However, the Commission of the National Science Foundation and 

the Panel of the National Academy of Sciences have recommended 

an increase to the order of about $20 to $30 million annually over the 

next 5 years.

Mr. Broyhill. Wh at you are going to do is to provide the committee 

with the amount of authorization that you would request for the next 

3 years; is that correct ?

Mr. White. I was going to provide the committee with the recommended level of expenditure for the weather modification program 

which would be carried out by all the agencies of the Government 

as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and by the 

Commission of the National Science Foundation, where they have 

assessed the present state of our weather modification program, and 

have made recommendations as to the level of magnitude of the program they think would be necessary.

(The following inform ation was subsequently submitted:)

D ep a rtm en t op Comm er ce, 

E nvir o n m ental Sci en ce Ser vic es Ad m in is tr a tio n,

Rockville, Md., November 16, 1!>67.

Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : In response to the request of your subcommittee during 

the hearings on H.R. 9212 relating to weather modification, and on H.J.R. 688 

relating to the World Weather Program, held on October 31, 1967, I am happy 

to submit the attached statement on current and projected funding levels for 

several of the Federal agencies involved in weather modification research. As 

mentioned in the statement, the figures for fiscal years 1969 and 1970 have been 

prepared for planning purposes only, and do not r<>present a commitment by the 

Executive Branch.

Sincerely yours,

R obe rt M. W h it e , Administrator.

The following table provides an estimate of weather modification research and 

development funding for the c urrent fiscal year, and the level of funding required 

during fiscal years 1968-70 to support the programs of most of the interested 

agencies. The 1969-70 figures have been prepared by the agencies for planning 

use, and do not represent commitments by the Administration. All such funding would necessarily be developed in the course of the regular budgetary process 

of the Executive Branch.
42

FEDERAL WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS— ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS, 

FISCAL YEARS 1968-70 

[In millions of dollars]

Agency

Department of Agriculture....................................

Department of Commerce.....................................

Department of the In te rior..................................

National Science Foundation................................

Federal Aviation Administration.........................

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Total............................................................

Fiscal years

1968 1969 1970

0.18 (>) (*) 1.5 2.5 5.0

5.1 10.0 15.0

3.5 3.5 5.0

.030 .4 1.25

.24 .2 5 .25

10. 55 16. 65 26. 50

1

 The weather modification program of the Department of Agriculture and proposed funding levels for fiscal years 1969-70 

are currently being reviewed in the Department and are not yet available.

NOTES

The interest of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare lies primarily in pollutio n abatement, including that 

required to prevent unwanted modification of weather and climate. Funding for weather modification is not separately 

identified.

Department o f Defense funding in weather modification, currently at a level of $2,000,000 and expected to rise to about 

$3,000,000 by fiscal year 1972, is omitted from the table, since the Department’s program is not included under H.R. 9212

Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration,

Rockville, Md., November 16,1667. Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communication and Power, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, House o f Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : In response to a fur the r request from your subcommittee, 

estimates of the number of new positions in grades GS-16 and above that would 

be required by the interested agencies in carrying out weather modification 

programs under H.R. 9212 are presented in the following table. As in the case 

of funding, Department of Agriculture estimates for 1969 and 1970 are deferred 

pending completion of its program review.

FEDERAL WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-ESTIMATED NEW POSITIONS. 

GS-16 AND ABOVE, FISCAL YEARS 1968-70

Agency 1968 1969 1970

Department of Ag ric ulture...................................................................... .

Department of Commerce........................ ......................................................

Department of the Interio r..............................................................................

National Science Foundation...........................................................................

Federal Aviation Administration..................................... ...............................

National Aeronautics and Space Adminis tration..........................................

0 ........................................

0 0 2

0 2 3

0 0 1

0 0 1

0 0 0

T o ta l. ..................................................................................................... 0 2 7

Please let me know if we can assist in any further way.

Sincerely yours,

Robert M. White, Administrator.

Mr. Brotiiill. Does H.R. 9212 give the Secretary of Commerce 

or any other agency of the U.S. Government any legislative authority 

tha t it does not have a t present?

Mr. White. Yes, it does. It provides certain legislative authority 

to the Department of Commerce which it does not presently have. 

The present legislative authority which runs to the National Science 

Foundation would, as a result of this bill, in certain ways be tran sferred to the Department of Commerce.
43

Mr. Broyhill. In othe r words, the leg islative au th or ity in this 

field at present is being exercised by th e Na tio nal Science F ou nd ation?

Mr. W hit e. Ce rta in aspects of the au th or ity in th is bill are presently being exercised by the Na tional Science Fo un datio n.

Mr. Broy iiill. The reason I asked th at que stio n is th at you wa nt 

to do more of th is work, and I was wo ndering i f the bill really gave 

you any ad ditio na l or broa de r au th or ity th an you have now.

Mr. W hi te . I t does in ce rta in wavs. T he re are provisions for ce rta in 

studie s, leg islative au th or ity fo r holding certa in kin ds of heari ng s 

th at t he Dep artm en t of Commerce does not prese ntly have.

Mr. Broy iiill. W ha t abo ut the Se cretary of Agriculture? He has 

legisla tive au th or ity alread y to conduct certa in exp erim ents. Is this 

not correct ?

Mr. W hi te. Th e vario us de pa rtm en ts of the Fe de ral Government 

have leg islative au th or ity to ca rry out R. & D. wor k in su pp or t of 

th ei r par ticu la r mission s as they pre sentl y sta nd , an d so the a gencies 

are conducting we ath er modification activ ities in confo rm ity wi th 

th ei r autho riz ati ons.

Mr. Brotzman. W ill the gentlem an yield?

Mr. Broy iiill. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. Brotzman. I t is my un de rst an ding . Dr . W hit e, th at t he re is a 

coordina tin g agency among the vario us governm ental agencies concerned w ith w eathe r ?

Mr. W hi te. Yes, it is coord ina ted by the In terd ep ar tm en tal Com ­

mi ttee fo r At mo spheric Sciences at the presen t time.

Mr. B rotzman. So th at th ese e fforts are c oordinated und er one he ading , thou gh th ere m ight be dif fer ent a utho rit ies g rant ed to t he various 

agencies ?

Mr. W hi te . T hat is correc t.

Mr. Broyhill. I t is br ou gh t to my attention th at S. 2916, which 

came ou t of th e Senate com mittee last ye ar in the 89th Congres s, au ­

thorized ce rta in figures fo r the fiscal ye ars 1967, 1968, a nd 1969.

Are these figu res s im ila r to those you will be a sking f or in the nex t 

3 fiscal yea rs?

Mr. W hi te . I believe the levels will be som ewhat lower. Th is would 

have to be co ord ina ted among the agencies, a nd, of course, checked w ith 

the Bu reau of the Bu dget. I t is no t possible at this tim e to make an 

exa ct pro jec tio n of th e authorization t h at w e w ould seek in subsequent 

bu dg etary years.

Mr. Broyhill. Does House J oin t Resol ution 688 give the Pr esiden t 

any ad ditio na l au th or ity th at he does no t hav e at the prese nt tim e? 

As I understood yo ur testim ony on House Jo in t Resolution 688, the 

Pr esiden t is alr eady coop era tin g wi th othe r countrie s in exc han ge of 

we ath er inform ati on . Does t his bil l giv e t he Pr es iden t any ad ditio na l 

au thor ity th at he does n ot have at the p resent time ?

Mr. Whit e. No ; it does not, Mr. Con gressm an. Th e res olu tio n endorses a pro gram wh ich is go ing to t ak e p lace over a p eri od of t he ne xt 

10 years a nd is going to req uir e extensive intern ationa l collaboration . 

Va rio us countries of th e wo rld have sign ified th ei r intention to p artic ipate in an d s up po rt th is p rogra m.

Mr. Broyhill. If the Pr esiden t alr eady has th is au th or ity , wh at is 

the pu rpose of the passage of t his jo int res olu tion ?
44

Mr. W hite. We feel it is very important to indicate to the other 

nations of the world (he importance which this country attaches to the 

program, and the fact that the Nation is planning to move ahead with 

the other nations in furthering it.

Mr. Broyhill. In House Joint Resolution 688, section 3, the President will be transm itting a plan to the Congress, it says, which will 

set forth the proposed participation of the United States for the next 

fiscal year in any international program.

It also states that the plans will give a statement of activities conducted, and specify the agency or department of Government which 

shall conduct the activity, and which departments shall seek appropriations therefor.

Can you also furnish the committee figures on how much these agencies will be requiring for the next 3 years to carry out this program ?

Mr. White. We can attempt to do this, Mr. Congressman. This will 

take some time, sir.

(The informat ion requested follows:)

D ep artm en t of Commer ce . E nv ir onmen ta l Scie nce Services Ad m in is tra tio n,

Rockville, Md., November 8, 1967. Hon. T orbebt Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington,

n.c.

Dear Mr. Macdonald: P urs uant to you r re qu es t of Octo be r 31, 1967, T am 

su bm itting he re w ith an es tim at e of th e fu nds th a t wo uld be re quir ed du ring 

th e ne xt th re e ye ar s fo r United Sta te s par ticip ati on in th is W orld W ea th er P ro ­

gra m refe rr ed to in Ho use J o in t Res olut ion 6S8.

Sinc erely yo urs,

W er ne r A. Baum

(F or Robert M. W hite , A dm in is trat or ).

Estimated U.S. Costs of th e W orld Weathe r P rogram for FY 196 8-70

At th e hear in g on Oc tob er 31, 1967, of th e Su bc om mittee on Com mun ications 

an d Po wer of th e Co mm ittee on In te rs ta te an d Fo re ig n Co mm erc e on H. J. Re solu tion 688, th e Cha irm an of th e Su bc om mittee re qu es ted add itio nal in fo rm at io n 

w ith re sp ec t to th e costs of th e United S ta te s part ic ip at io n in th e W orld W ea th er 

Pr og ra m fo r th e ne xt th re e fiscal ye ar s. It sh ou ld be no ted th a t H. J. Res olut ion 

68S do es not c on ta in an a uth or iz at io n f or ap pr op riat io ns . Th e follo wing co sts , fu rnish ed in resp on se to th e requ es t, are es tim at es an d are no t to be co ns idered 

ap prov ed o r au th or iz ed by th e A dm in is trat io n fo r th e pe rio d bey ond FY 68. Fund s 

fo r FY 68 h av e been au th or ized th ro ug h th e re gula r bud ge ta ry proc ess. All fu nd s 

fo r th is pr og ra m fo r the pe rio d bey ond FY 68 are su bj ec t to th e nor m al ap pro pri ­

atio n proc esses of t he Exe cu tiv e Bra nc h, includ ing B ure au of th e B ud ge t rev iew . 

Th ese es tim at ed co sts ref lec t t h e am oun t re qui re d fo r United S ta te s par tici pat io n 

in th e W or ld W ea th er Pro gr am in ac co rd an ce w ith th e pl an s an d sc he du les th a t 

ha ve been develop ed in te rn at io nal ly .

Th e pri m ar y o bjec tiv es o f t he W orld W eath er Pro gra m (W W P) are t o in cr ea se 

th e ac cu ra cy an d ex tend th e tim e ra nge of w ea th er fo re ca sts. The se ob jec tiv es 

are th e same as th e ob jec tiv es of th e United Sta te s ag en cies co nc erne d with 

meteo rologica l ac tivi ties . Th e ad va nt ag e, ho wev er, in th e W W P is th a t ta rg ets 

are es ta bl ishe d which ca ll fo r ac ce le ra te d ef fo rts on th e p art of al l nat io ns in 

ac hiev ing ou r. as well as th eir goals . Thu s, in effect, th e ac ce le ra te d effo rt of 

th e United S ta te s is m ul tip lie d th ro ugh co rr es po nd ing ac tion s of m an y na tion s. 

Th e es tim at ed co sts iden tif ied below are th os e ad ditio nal co sts re quired by the 

Un ite d S ta te s to m eet the in te rn ati onall y est ab lish ed sche du les .

As in di ca te d in th e testim on y of Dr. R ob er t M. W hi te on II. J. Res olut ion 688, 

th e th re e la rg est ac tivi ties duri ng th e in it ia l th re e yea r pe riod on th e W W P ar e 

(1 ) th e W orld W ea th er W atch . (2) th e Gl obal Atm os ph eric Res ea rc h Pro gr am , 

an d (3) de ve lopm en t of ne w tec hn olog y.
45

In FY 1968 th e U nited S ta te s pla ns to in it ia te im pl em en ta tion of it s sh are o f 

th e im pr ov em en ts to be mad e in th e W or ld W ea th er W ate li (W W W ) in ac co rd ­

an ce w ith th e in te rn ati onall y ag re ed plan , de ve lope d an d ap pr ov ed by th e mem ­

be rs of th e W or ld Meteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n, a sp ec ializ ed ag en cy of th e 

U ni ted N at io ns . U nder th is pl an th e U nited S ta te s is to im plem en t co m m un ication s links (W as hin gto n to Ger man y, W as hi ng to n to Ja pan, W as hi ng to n to 

B ra si li a) th ro ugh jo in t sh ar in g of co sts w ith th e co un try at th e oth er en d of 

th e lin k. T he U ni te d S ta te s is re sp on sibl e fo r im plem en tin g th re e up pe r a ir 

ob se rv in g st ati o n s in th e Pa cif ic T ru st T err it ori es, th e upgr ad in g of 13 m er ch an t 

sh ip s an d th e eq ui pp in g of 17 addit io nal m er ch an t sh ip s to ta ke up pe r a ir 

ob se rv at io ns . The U nited S ta te s will co ntr ib ute to th e V ol un tary A ss ista nc e 

Pro gra m es ta bl is hed by th e W or ld Meteo rologica l O rg an ization. In ad di tion , th e 

U ni ted S ta te s will de ve lop det ai le d pla ns an d de sign s fo r fu rt h er im pl em en ta tion 

of it s po rtio n of th e WWW. Cos ts o f th es e ac ti vit ie s duri ng th e nex t th re e fiscal 

years a re sho wn in t he tab le below.

W ithin th e Globa l A tm os ph er ic R es ea rc h Pro gra m (G ARP) duri ng th e n e x t 

th re e ye ar s, th e U nited S ta te s pla ns to ex pa nd it s re se ar ch on lon g ra nge 

w eath er pr ed ic tion te ch ni qu es , an d to carr y out a sign ifi ca nt field ex pe rim en t 

co nc er ni ng th e in te ra cti ons be tw ee n th e oc ea n an d th e at m os ph er e which is 

re qui re d fo r long ra nge w eath er pre di ct io ns . We pla n also to move fo rw ar d w ith 

th e de sign of ex pe ri m en ts pla nn ed beyo nd th e pe riod 1970. The se co sts are also 

show n in t h e ta bl e below .

Dev elop men t of ne w tech no lo gy is nec es sa ry to m ee t th e re qu irem en ts of th e 

W WW a nd th e G ARP data -g ath eri ng e xp er im en ts . T he United S ta te s al re ad y h as 

a size ab le re se ar ch an d de ve lopm en t ef fo rt in th is are a, mu ch of which focu se s 

aro und th e m et eo ro lo gica l sa te llite. In ad di tion , fu rth e r ac ce le ra tion is re quired 

in th e de ve lo pm en t of hor iz ont al so un din g ba llo on s, buoys, an d au to m at ic la nd 

and m er chant sh ip eq ui pm en t. The co st of th e bu oy de ve lopm en t has no t bee n 

in cl ud ed in th e fo llow in g ta ble be ca us e th es e de ve lopm en ts ar e pr oc ee ding und er 

our U.S. m ar in e acti vit ie s pr og ra m s.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED U.S. COSTS FOR WORLD WEATHER PROGRAM FOR PERIOD FISCAL YEAR 1968-70 

|ln thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 Fiscal year 1970

WWW implementation:

U.S. national:

Observing................................................................. 700

Communications................... ....... ........................... ............ 200 475 500

Pro ce ssi ng............................................................. ............ 200 200 600

Systems design..................................................................... 0 100 400

Voluntary assistance program....................................... ............ 0 2,000 2,000

GARP:

Research on weather prediction techniqu es.............. ............. 315 1,215 2,215

Ocean-atmosphere field experim ent______________ ............ 725 1,790 1,100

Planning tropical and global experim ents._________ ............ 110 260 1,000

Technology develop ment:1

Horizontal sounding balloons. .................... ................______ 0 300 800

Automatic observing equ ipm en t............................................... 0 70 500

Annual to ta l. 1,550 6,410 9,815

1

 If the technology development progresses rapidly, additional funding w ill be required for the procurement o f a satellite 

and launch vehicle for GARP. The funding required is estimated to be $4,000,000 in fiscal year 1970.

Mr. Macdonald. I just have one question before I recognize Mr. 

Harvey, and t ha t deals also with a money matter that was brought up 

by Mr. Broyliill.

In this seeding—say tha t a hurricane is headed toward the U nited 

States. We don't want it, obviously, and we seed it and it goes off 

somewhere else, and hits, say, H aiti, or Santo Domingo or some place 

in the Caribbean and does a good deal of damage to those countries.

Are we internationally liable for the cost tha t the people of those 

countries are put to because the hurricane was diverted the ir way ? I 

should say, should we be?

87-936— 68- -4
46

Mr. White. I can ask Mr. Ellert to answer this question, but I believe the bill requires a study of the legal problems tha t are going to 

be encountered. The work we are going to be doing on hurricanes is 

basic research.

Before one would want to go operational with a technique for modifying hurricanes, the question you raise would have to be resolved.

Mr. Ellert. In the program we have now, we are very careful about 

picking a hurricane which we seed. We have certain very rigid restrictions. We pick one which would not go close to land as far as we 

can determine.

However, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, certainly I think 

tha t if it were proven tha t there was a causal relationship between 

our seeding a hurricane and the movement of this hurricane over a 

foreign land, and the foreign government of tha t land could show 

tha t the hurricane would not have come there except for the act of the 

United States in seeding the hurricane, we would be subject to an 

international claim for damages.

However, the state of the art at this time is not so developed, we 

think, that the causal connection could be proven. This is something 

we are still trying to find out, how to modify the hurricane. In conducting our experiments, we choose one that is out of the shiplanes and 

away from land, as near as we can determine.

Mr. Macdonald. But isn’t that a grave danger as far as monetary 

considerations are concerned ? Mr. Broyhill was asking about the cost 

of the bill, but I was thinking, as he asked the question, of not ju st the 

initial cost of the program, but how about any ensuing costs?

Air. Ellert. Actually the restrictions are very rigid. Fo r instance, 

during this past hurricane season, my recollection is that we didn’t 

have any we could seed—tha t met our criteria.

Would that be right, Mr. White ?

Mr. AVhite. That is right. Wh at we are presently doing in hurricane 

modification is basic research. I t is our strong belief that nothing we 

are presently doing in a hurricane could cause any significant longterm change in the direction or intensity of the hurricane.

Mr. Macdonald. Then why bother to spend the money to seed it ?

Mr. W hite. Because we wish to test to see whether we can bring 

about at the present time certain kinds of changes in the hurricane.

The kinds of changes we are seeking now are small-scale changes. 

If one is able to achieve small-scale changes in the hurricane, one can 

then ask what one might do about larger scale effects.

Before one would operationally attemp t to modify hurricanes, there 

would be a host of problems that would have to be solved.

Air. Macdonald. Mr. Harvey ?

Air. H arvey. I didn’t get the conclusion to Air. Broyhill’s question 

on cost.

Is it correct tha t with regard to House Joi nt Resolution 688 tha t 

the requested authorization for that would be unknown until the 

President comes in and requests whatever will be necessary, or will 

you come back and resubmit figures on that, or what is the status?

Mr. AVhite. I am going to attemp t to get some estimates of what the 

program might entail over the next few years.

Air. Harvey. AVith regard to weather modification programs gen-
47

erally tha t you testified on, are the costs of tha t comparable to the 

cost in S. 2916?

Mr. White. I thin k the costs listed in S. 2916 are close to the costs 

recommended by the National Science Foundation-----

Mr. Harvey. Th at wasn't my question. Are the authorizations you 

are requesting comparable to those? Do you wish to change those at 

this time, or are you going to submit additional figures ?

Mr. White. We will attem pt to submit additional figures.

Mr. H arvey. In conclusion, you cannot tell the committee what the 

cost is at this time?

Mr. White. We can give you inform ation about what we are 

presently spending and what our agency would want to get in future 

years. We cannot, of course, give you figures for the other agencies.

Mr. H arvey. I thin k we have to have that. This is one of the functions of this committee.

Mr. White. We will attemp t to secure the information.

(See letter dated Nov. 8,1967, p. 44.)

Mr. Harvey. House Joint Resolution 688 envisages a certain 

amount of cooperation between the Communist world and our world, 

vhich I think most Americans would look on with a great deal of favor.

There are a lot of questions which I don’t know the answers on, 

and perhaps you would have the information.

What information do we presently get from the Soviet Union, or 

Communist Cuba ?

Mr. White. We receive extensive information from Russia, Cuba, 

and other nations of the world.

In fact, the weather data today we are receiving from the Soviet 

Union is very much greater than that we transmit to them, because 

they cover so much more territo ry than we do.

Mr. H arvey. How is t hat exchanged ?

Mr. White. We have an international agreement. The data is 

exchanged every 6 hours.

Mr. Harvey. Where do you send your information ?

Mr. White. Our information goes two ways. The first way is a 

direct line which we have between Washington and Moscow, and the 

second wav is by transmission of data from here to West Germany, 

from which point it is transmitted to the Soviet Union.

Mr. H arvey. I s there any lack of cooperation a t any time ? Are you 

. completely satisfied ?

Mr. White. The cooperation with the Soviet Union in weather matters has been very good.

Mr. Harvey. I am anticipating questions tha t might well come up on 

the floor.

Is there any chance of our ever being misled by inform ation fu rnished to us in this regard ?

Mr. White. I rath er doubt it, Mr. Congressman, because it is possible 

to detect erroneous data by comparing it with other nearby data.

Mr. Kornegay. Will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. H arvey. Yes.

Mr. Kornegay. In regard to the information the Soviet Union sends 

out and makes available to us and other nations of the free world, 

is it all weather information relative to the Soviet Union—th at is,
48

over the entire area of the Soviet Union—or is it only about the conditions over areas that can affect our weather ?

Would they make us aware of all information, or would they transmit only that information which -would have some bearing on our 

weather ?

Mr. White. They transmit all weather information. There is an 

agreed-upon international network, and all nations transm it information from this network.

Mr. Kornegay. I assume we do the same thing. The conditions over 

Kansas, the movement of air masses and so forth, tha t goes out ?

Mr. White. Yes, sir.

Mr. H arvey. I assume the military concurs in this joint resolution?

Mr. White. I believe they do.

Mr. H arvey. Are they called upon to approve it in advance of your 

coming here ?

Mr. Whitt:. I believe there is no question about the fact tha t the 

Department of Defense supports this. We have an interagency committee which deals with international meteorological programs in 

which the Department of Defense has been represented, and they have 

been fully participa ting with us.

Mr. Harvey. Can you tell us without qualification tha t they do 

approve it?

Mr. White. I believe I can tell you that without qualification they do 

approve it.

Mr. H arvey. In section 2 of the resolution, it is said, “That in furtherance of this policy the Congress requests the President to cooperate with other nations,” and then one is in programs utilizing procedures and techniques fo r the immediate improvement of the capability of th e existing facilities in international weather systems.

How do we go about determining how much of our technology we 

give, and how much the Soviets give ?

Mr. White. There is an agreed-upon international plan, which was 

agreed to in the World Meteorological Organization, which sets forth 

what the various nations should do on this weather program.

Secondly, we are familiar with the technological activities of the 

Soviet Union, as they are of ours, from normal scientific meetings and 

exchange of information.

We feel we are getting a very good exchange in the technological 

developments.

Mr. Harvey. You have no qualms about the sharing of our technology with the Soviets?

Mr. White. I have no qualms about sharing the kind of technology 

we are talking about in this program.

Mr. Harvey. Down in the paragraph of th at same section 2, it provides for—

* * * a program for the traini ng and education of scientists, engineers, and 

technica l personnel for the development, operation, and conduct of any system or 

program in which the President is auth orized to partic ipa te by this subsection : 

and (5) a program to provide a pprop riate technical and training assistance and 

facilities to other natio ns and to intern ational orga nizations so th at they may 

effectively particip ate in an intern ational system for the observation of the 

global atmosphere and the rapid and efficient communication, processing, and 

analysis of worldwide weather data and so t ha t they may fully utilize the data, 

cha rts, analyses, and other information provided by such a system.
49

Does tha t mean we will have some of the Soviet personnel over 

here, and some of ours over there ?

Mr. White. There are a number of aspects of the program. If we 

are going to obtain the global observations, we are going to have to get 

them from countries that are underdeveloped.

There are training schools for technicians, not only in th is country, 

but other countries also, where people from the underdeveloped countries come for training. We have trained a number and other countries 

train them also.

There is also provided by the World Meteorological O rganization 

facilities for train ing people from these countries.

(The following information was subsequently submitted:)

Depa rtme nt of Comm erce Sta teme nt on U.S . P ar tic ipa tio n in th e W orld

Meteorological Org an iza tio n’s Volu nta ry Assista nc e P rogram

Th e V ol un ta ry A ss is ta nc e Pro gra m fo r th e W or ld W eath er Pro gra m w as 

de ve lope d and ap pr ov ed a t th e F if th W or ld Meteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n Co ngr es s in April 1967. At th is Co ng res s, it w as reco gn ized th a t th e less de ve lope d 

co unt ri es wou ld re quir e as si st an ce in carr yin g ou t th eir p a rt of th e W or ld 

W ea th er W at ch im pl em en ta tion plan . In ge ne ra l, th is ass is ta nce wou ld be fo r 

w eat her ob se rv at io n an d co mm un ication eq uipm en t, an d tr ain in g of pe rson ne l. 

The less de ve lope d co untr ie s wou ld prov id e, on a co nt in ui ng ba sis, th e oth er 

fa cil it ie s re quir ed and th e pe rs on ne l to opera te th e eq uipm en t.

In v iew o f t he dir ect U ni te d Sta te s ne ed to o bta in d ata f ro m th e W or ld W eath er 

W at ch , th e U ni te d S ta te s pla ns to part ic ip ate fu lly an d effecti ve ly in th e Vo lun - 

ta ry A ss is ta nc e Pro gr am .

Th e ru le s which go ve rn th e V ol unt ar y A ss ista nc e Pro gra m re quir e th a t all 

pro je cts be a p a rt of th e ap pr ov ed W or ld Meteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n’s W or ld 

W ea th er W at ch plan . Eac h co un try pr ov id in g eq ui pm en t an d se rv ices can se le ct 

thos e pro je ct s fo r whi ch th e ass is ta nce will be utili ze d. The re fo re , th e U ni te d 

S ta te s ca n se le ct thos e pro je ct s which w ill re su lt in th e max im um be ne fit to it ­

self .

Th e ass is ta nce pr ov id ed by th e U nite d S ta te s will be th ro ugh th e W or ld 

M eteo rologica l O rg an iz at io n, a sp ec ializ ed ag en cy of th e U nited Nations . Bud geting an d se cu ri ng of fu nds fo r th e U ni te d S ta te s co nt ri bution to th is ac ti vit y 

is t he re sp on si bi lity of t he D ep ar tm en t of Sta te .

Mr. Harvey. Does the World Meteorological Organization have o ffices anyw her e ?

Mr. White. It has offices in Geneva, which is its headquarters. It 

is the agency whereby various training facilities are established in 

various pa rts of the world as p art of the U nited Nations development 

program.

It also coordinates the training activities internationally. If there 

are people from Africa or South America who wish to be tra ined in 

other countries, it provides the coordination of that.

Mr. Harvey. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. I would like to add tha t I was very amazed in 1957, 

when the relationships between the Soviets and ourselves were not at 

an alltime high as far as friendship was concerned, that, in the Anta rctic there were two Russians working directly with our scientists, and 

we had two American working over at the Russian base, and, frankly, 

I never quite understood it. But it was the fact.

I would like to ask you this question. You have mentioned Cuba 

and the Soviet Union giving us weather information. How about 

China ?
50

Mr. W hi te. We receive we ath er inform ation from main lan d Chi na 

th ro ug h internati on al co mm unications channels. I t is rel aye d to Tokyo. 

Th e Ja pa ne se pic k it up from radio broadcasts.

Mr. Macdonald. In othe r words, ou r people in South Vietn am and 

Guam who are abo ut to bomb the coast near Ch ina can dep end on 

Chinese w eather inf orma tio n?

Mr. W hit e. I believe the Dep artm en t of Defense also uses the da ta 

receive d th ro ug h inter na tio na l channels.

Mr. Macdonald. Tha t wa sn’t my question. My que stio n is, Do the 

Chinese give us the kind of inform ati on on what the w eathe r is going 

to be like on th eir bo rder in North Vietn am th at we are about to 

bomb? T hat rea lly stretches my imagina tio n.

Mr. W hit e. These we ath er da ta are broadcast intern ationa lly , and 

we receive them, and on the basis o f th is d at a we m ake forecasts.

Mr. Macdonald. Th en Ch ina actua lly helps us form ula te pla ns for 

bom bing, or wh eth er no t to bomb, close to th ei r borde r?

Mr. W hit e. I would no t pu t it th at way, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. Macdonald. We ll, I am pu ttin g it th at way.

Mr. W hit e. They are b roadcasti ng w eat her i nformation from th ei r 

we ath er sta tio ns, which is picked up , and we receive it. We use them 

to make we ath er foreca sts.

Mr. Macdonald. Th an k you.

Mr. Ot tin ge r?

Mr. Otting er. I have no questions.

Mr. M acdonald. Mr. Ko rnegay ?

Mr. Kornegay. No questions.

Mr. M acdonald. Mr. Brotz ma n?

Mr. Brotzman. Th an k you, Air. Ch airma n.

I wou ld like to welcome you to the comm ittee, Dr . W hite, and your 

colleagues also.

As I said at the o utse t, some of thes e concepts are sta gg ering to the 

im agina tio n. Sinc e we ha ve the E SS A f aci liti es in Bo uld er, I ha ve had 

an o pp or tunity to witness some of the w ork th at you are doing. T don ’t 

know if it is exa ctly my prerog ati ve at this point , but I certa inly believe—and I t hi nk I e xpre ssed this thou gh t to you, and T will express 

it to the res t of the mem bers of the subcomm ittee—I think it would 

be a very beneficial th in g fo r all of u s to sha re some of thi s scientific 

inform ation .

I think it is im po rta nt fo r Membe rs of Cong ress, and I will add, 

pa rtic ul ar ly the members of this subcom mittee, because this is under 

ou r juris diction, to know as much as we possibly can abo ut what I 

con sider to be a trem end ously im po rtan t subject.

I wou ld hope, Mr. Ch air man, th at at some time in the not-too -dista nt fu ture , th at p ar tic ul ar ly the members of this subcommittee would 

hav e a n op po rtu nity to visit th e insta lla tio n at Bould er, Colo., or some 

of the oth ers, because it has certa inly helped me a gr ea t deal.

I t seems to me t hat there is need fo r hi gh er a nd be tte r coo rdination 

of t he whole we ath er modification prog rams th at the Gover nment is 

eng aged in, and if I u nd erstan d correctly, you, among othe r agencies, 

come before us because you wa nt us to be advised o f w hat yo u a re d oing . 

Would th at be a fa ir stat em ent?

Mr. W hit e. T hat is corr ect, Mr. Con gressman.
51

Mr. Brotzman. I listened to your testimony and your examination 

by my colleague from North Carolina. I t wasn’t too clear th at the main 

reason you are coming here is tha t you want to advise us of what you 

are doing, because you know that we share the responsibility with you. 

Is th at correct ?

Mr. White. Tha t is correct, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Brotzman. Bo I understand you are talking about a 10-year 

program rig ht now, Doctor ?

Mr. White. The world weather program is visualized as a program 

extending at least 10 years, and possibly 15.

Mr. Brotzman. It is probably going to be in perpetuity, I would 

think.

Mr. White. Yes, once we have the system established.

Mr. Brotzman. What we are talking about now, though, is something 10 years in the future?

Mr. White. That is correct.

Mr. Brotzman. You know, this is a very big thing. Of course, out 

in Colorado and a lot of places we have an unusual weather formation 

out there. We like those Rocky Mountains, but it also produced floods, 

and I was out there last weekend to participate in the start of a dam 

to prevent the recurrence of something like what we had in 1965. We 

lost many lives and a lot of dollars.

But I understand tha t within your scientific spectrum, you would 

believe at some time you might be able to predict the occurrence of a 

tremendous thunderstorm, and possibly even do something about it to 

stop tha t from occurring. That is what I understand the thrust of your 

testimony to be.

Mr. White. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Brotzman. How’ far away are we ?

Mr. White. When you speak about a thunderstorm, Mr. Congressman, you are talking about a relatively small scale phenomenon. We 

require additional observations on a small scale. We need improved 

rad ar facilities for this kind of thing.

Mr. Brotzman. Right there I am going to ask you this question: Do 

you have a rad ar now that would pick up a thunderstorm?

Mr. White. It will pick up the thunderstorm once it starts precipitating.

Mr. Brotzman. On aircraft, is the development in the state of the 

art to a point where the pilot can pick up a thunderstorm in advance?

Mr. White. Not at the present time, to my knowledge. The rad ar 

return is reflected from the raindrops, th at is how we detect a thunderstorm.

Mr. Brotzman. I interrupted your answer. How long would it take 

to develop these techniques ?

Mr. White. As far as the long-range forecasting techniques are concerned, we believe in 15 years, if we can acquire the global observations, we will have a good chance of doing it.

Mr. Brotzman. I have had an opportunity to read this bill in its 

entirety, but just so I understand the distribution of information that 

would be developed, would you provide information to the Federal 

aviation authorities?
52

Mr. White. As we do now. Yes, sir, we provide the weather services 

for the air traffic control system, and for all general aviation.

Mr. Brotzman. Some questions were asked relative to the matters 

of defense. You were talkin g generally, I think, about a peaceful 

approach to this. We can’t overlook the military significance of the 

weather data.

Do you provide information to the Department of Defense?

Mr. White. Yes; the weather service of the United States is a completely integrated service. By this, I mean all the observations taken 

by the civilian agencies and the military agencies are available to all. 

So it is a completely integrated weather service, and this is coordinated on a routine basis through the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services.

Mr. Brotzman. When you talk about money, and this is our responsibility and also yours, do I understand that the attempt you are 

going to make on a monetary projection will include all of the various 

agencies that are coordinated under this particular bill ?

Mr. White. We will make an attempt to get information as to what 

the projection would be for incremental costs of the program over and 

above those we have today for the next 3 or 4 years.

Mr. Brotzman. Would there be a greatly increased expenditure necessary in, say, the first year?

Mr. White. There is going to be an initial requirement for some 

increase in funding. It will be relatively modest, and I believe the 

program will grow by relatively small increments over the period 

of years.

Mr. Brotzman. Since we have an acute budgetary problem righ t 

now—and I guess that will be the understatement of the morning— 

but I understand from your statement that the costs will not be d ramatic, and that we will have continuing information presented to us 

and an opportunity for continuing review as the program is projected 

on down through the various years as you envisage it ?

I know we have the power, but tha t is your idea?

Mr. White. Tha t is how we envisage it, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Brotzman. So we could continue to look at it and to add to it 

•or take away from it as we thought was in the national interest?

Mr. White. Tha t is correct, Air. Congressman.

Mr. Brotzman. As I said, we are very happy to have you here, and 

I do hope, and I told you this already, but I hope the opportunity 

might present itself for all of us to see some of the things you are 

doing. I think it is much more meaningful than just to listen to it, to 

see it in operation.

Mr. White. We would welcome the opportunity to have the com­ mittee visit any of our facilities. We would be pleased to extend the 

invitation to them.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Kornegay?

Mr. Kornegay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. White, I am sorry I was not here to hear your statement. I at­ tended another committee meeting this morning.

I don’t know that this question has been asked, but I do feel tha t 

it ought to be in the record if it has not been asked, and if it has, stop 

me.
53

Unde r the present state of the art in weather forecasting, what is 

the length of time that you can reliably and accurately predict what 

the weather conditions will be?

Mr. White. We believe our weather forecasts are reasonably accurate for a period on the order of 48 hours. We consider them useful— 

it is a vague term, admittedly—for periods of about 3 to 4 days.

Aft er that, our accuracy on day-to-day predictions becomes quite 

marginal, although it is possible to provide useful information on average conditions over a period of a week and, in some cases, over a period 

of a month.

Mr. Kornegay. In the program tha t you recommended under the 

House bill and under the J oin t Resolution 688, if it were implemented 

and were to go into effect, what would be the length of prediction, say, 

at the end of 10 years?

Mr. White. If we are successful in the program of obtaining the 

observations tha t I have spoken about, at the end of 10 years, as it 

stands now, in principle we should be able to make the same kinds of 

forecasts th at we presently make for 48 hours for a period out beyond 

1 week.

Mr. Kornegay. I n other words, that would be a substantial advance 

in the state of the art.

Mr. White. It would, Mr. Congressman. It would have tremendous 

economic implications.

Mr. Kornegay. Let me ask you one other thing. On page 3 of your 

statement, you talk about, as a result of the scientific discoveries and 

advances, that you are cautiously optimistic about the future of 

weather modification.

By the term “weather modification,” do you mean the ability of man 

to affect the weather conditions, or cause changes in weather conditions by actions that man might take ?

Mr. White. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kornegay. I) o you feel that we will so progress at any time in 

the future that we will possess knowledge on how to divert a hurricane and that type of thing?

Mr. White. I thin k ultimately we will atta in tha t type of ability. 

I do not believe th at practical hurricane modification is something we 

are going to find in the near future.

On the other hand, there are other kinds of weather modifications 

tha t are now with us. There is no question any longer than we can 

successfully clear cold fogs from airport runways. There is also growing evidence that one can modify precipitation from certain kinds of 

cloud systems.

Mr. Kornegay. When you say “modify precipitation,” do you mean 

stop rain, or make it start to rain ?

Mr. White. Most experiments have been directed at increasing the 

rainfall, especially in arid regions and other regions that become arid 

for a time, as in the recent Northeast drought.

Mr. Macdonald. Would the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Kornegay. Yes.

Mr. Macdonald. What happens if there is going to be a rainstorm,, 

say, in Iowa, and yet it falls in Kansas and Iowa doesn’t get any ?
54

How about those farm ers in Iow a? Who is going to reimb urse them 

fo r th e rai n the y were go ing to ge t ?

Mr. W hit e. Mr. Ch air man , you raised the $64 question. Th is is a 

que stio n to which nob ody at the prese nt time has the answ er. One 

of t he p urp ose s beh ind this bill is to foste r the necessary lega l studies 

so t hat we can come up wi th some recommenda tion s as to wh at mig ht 

be done.

Mr. Otting er. Would the gentlema n yield ?

Mr. K ornegay. Yes.

Mr. Otting er. Some thi ng th at has fas cin ate d me is the accu racy 

of the Fa rm er s Alma nac in pred ictin g a year ahe ad the am ount of 

ra in fa ll or sno wfa ll in a pa rtic ul ar season of the yea r. Do the y consu lt with you on th at , or do they have a special divining rod ?

Mr. W hit e. No; the y don’t con sult with us, and I ha te to make 

any adv erse comment on the Fa rm er s Alm ana c, because I enjo y it 

so muc h------

Mr. Kornegay. Let me ask thi s. I)o you consult the alm anac? 

[L au gh ter.]

Mr. W hit e. At times, I feel like doin g ju st that.

Mr. Ottinger. You do n't know wh at systems they use?

Mr. W hit e. No, I don’t.

Mr. Kornegay. J ust this one final question, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Dr. W hite gave us the inf orma tio n on the impro vem ent in the art 

of weathe r pred ict ion. Yo u say it w ill be im proved ove r th e years u nder 

the pro vis ion s of House Jo in t Res olution 688. Re lated to th at is the 

que stio n of we ath er mod ifica tion.

Do you feel th at with in th at 10-y ear period s ub sta ntial p rog res s will 

be made in we ath er mod ifica tion?

Mr. W hit e. Yes, if we jud ge b y the pro gre ss th at has been mad e in 

the p as t 10 ye ars in we ath er m odif ication, I th ink we will see sign ific ant 

imp rov ements in our capabilitie s in th at are a in the next 10 y ears .

Mr. Kornegay. Th at is all, th an k you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Bro wn?

Mr. Brown. M r. W hit e, are House Jo in t Resolutio n 688 and H.R. 

0212 related to the exten t th at one of them involves are as of activ ity 

th at wou ld be h elp ful in t he economic accom plishme nt of obje ctives of 

th e other ?

Mr. W hi te . Yes, very definitely so. House Jo in t Resolution 688, 

which calls fo r this inter natio na l prog ram o f obs ervatio ns, is goin g to 

be very vital in any att em pts th at we m ake w ith rega rd to large-sc ale 

we ath er and clim ate modification, wh eth er it be a conscious modifica ­

tion we might att em pt or inad ve rte nt modification such as might resu lt fro m ai r pollution.

It wou ld pro vid e a scien tific basis on which we could judg e t he consequences o f an y artific ial inter fer ence with large-scale w eather.

Mr. Brown. L et me questio n you on the po int that has been raised 

by a couple of colleagues. Th ey have s tarte d down th is r oad but I am 

no t s ure th ey have rea lly finished it up. Th e total cost of 9212 as it sits 

now is wh at, $50 million ?

Mr. W hit e. There is no specific fu nd a utho riz ation in 9212 as i t now 

sta nds.

Mr. Brown. I s the re an estimate of the costs?
55

Mr. White. I have agreed to attempt to provide the committee with 

an estimate of the kinds of funds th at might be required over the next 

3 or 4 years. I have also indicated that we do have recommendations 

as to what the total scope of the national program should be from two 

bodies which have studied the problem, the National Academy of 

Science Panel and the Commission of the National Science Foundation.

And I have further indicated tha t I believe the amounts of money 

tha t were authorized in S. 2916, which passed the Senate last year, 

roughly correspond to the amounts of money envisioned in those 

reports.

Mr. Brown. What amount is that ?

Mr. White. I t authorized $30 million in 1968 and $40 million in 1969.

Mr. Brown. Are you talking about 9212 ?

Mr. White. Yes, 9212.

Mr. Brown. What about 688 ?

Mr. White. On 688, I have not given any figures at all. I will attempt to provide such figures.

Mr. Brown. And if you could, I think a 5-year projection is a 

legitimate request of you, although by the fifth year hence you would 

be guessing pretty widely perhaps.

Is the undertaking of both of these budgeted by the Bureau of the 

Budget?

Mr. White. The undertaking of the activities in fiscal year 1968 

was approved by the Bureau of the Budget and submitted to the Congress for approp riations this year; yes.

Mr. Brown. I am sorrv tha t I haven’t had a chance to study the 

legislation in detail, but is there any provision for the assessment of 

the results of these two undertakings—the effectiveness of the expenditure of this money ?

Mr. White. Yes. House Joi nt Resolution 688 provides for an annual report by the President to the Congress summarizing the program, its plans, and its accomplishments, and there is a provision for 

a report on the other bill also by the President to the Congress.

Mr. Brown. On an annual basis?

Mr. White. On an annual basis.

Mr. Brown. One thing I have noticed lacking in your first testimony, is any reference to ocean currents. Is it presumed in 9212 tha t 

you will get into tha t area?

Mr. White. Under 9212, when we talk about the modification of 

hurricanes, since the hurricanes are a creature of the oceans, their 

energy comes from the moisture of the ocean, it becomes very important to understand the interaction between the atmosphere and 

the ocean.

With regard to House Joint Resolution 688, we will have to get into 

ocean activities for the following reason: The ocean is a sort of a boiler 

for the atmosphere. Unless we know the rate that moisture and energy 

are imparted from the ocean to the atmosphere, we will not be able to 

make the kind of forecast I have talked about.

Therefore, the world weather program does provide for the oceanographic information required for this purpose.

Mr. Brown. I recall during World Wa r II in the Sunday supplements, we were going to dam up the Gulf Stream and freeze out the
56

Germans on their way to Moscow, a la the War of 1812, and I gath­ ered from what 1 see here tha t you have read some of tha t stuff, too. 

But I presume that all of these other contributing forces, such as the 

accumulation of data on the polar icecap are the kinds of things, 

the effects of which you intend to study.

Mr. White. They would have to be. For example, in our computer 

simulations, we have already arrived at a point where we can model 

the global atmosphere. One can see what will happen if one changed 

the temperature of the ocean a few degrees. One can also change the 

amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the mathematical model 

and ask what the consequences will be.

This is the principal way of approaching this climate modification 

problem. Our feeling is tha t you must understand the consequences 

before anybody attempts experiments.

As for these grandiose schemes proposed for modifying climate, at 

the present time they are speculative. One would have to have a model 

to judge what the results would be.

Mr. Brown. Will your studies go in depth into the effects of air 

pollution and to what extent is provision made for the sharing or 

working with other departments of the Federal Government so that 

you are not duplicating efforts already being made by somebody else 

in this field, or coming up with significant information which then 

doesn’t become available to somebody else in the Federal Government 

who needs it?

The problem of exchanging information with the Soviet Union is 

duck soup compared with the problem of gettin g information from 

one branch of the IT.S. Federal Government to the other, from my 

exjierience on this committee and others.

Mr. White. I am pleased to report, Mr. Congressman, that we have 

close contacts with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

about a ir pollution problems.

We work very closely with them at the Air Pollution Control Center 

in Cincinnati, where we have our own people.

We also—with regard to the measurements-----

Mr. Brown. May I interrup t you at tha t point to ask if you are 

beginning to feel any significant information may develop out of it ?

Mr. W hite. Well, quite a bit of information has developed out of 

this. Indeed, in forecasting, as contrasted with weather modification, 

we have already developed techniques for forecasting air pollution 

potential, which are distributed routinely through the Nation to alert 

air pollution people on the dilution capacity of the atmosphere.

Mr. Brown. Reverse th at, and give us the effects of pollution on 

the modification of the weather.

Mr. White. It is quite clear there are effects. One is increased carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere.

There are indications tha t the amount of carbon dioxide in the air 

seem to be increasing. Since carbon dioxide is an important absorber, 

and provides a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, it is critical for 

us to know whether it is going to continue to increase and, if so, what 

the consequences are going to be.

Mr. Brown. I f I may, are you suggesting that the temperature and 

humidity of the surface of the earth may be increasing because of the 

increase in pollution ?
57

Mr. White. We don’t know what the consequences will be. Th at is 

the point. We don’t know whether it will bring about an increase or 

decrease in the precipitation or the temperature, because the processes 

in the atmosphere are complicated. But we know it will have an effect.

Similarly with the dust content in the atmosphere. This cuts down 

the amount of sunshine received at the surface of the earth , and we 

are looking at what the consequences will be of continuing to increase dust content of the atmosphere through monitoring networks.

Mr. Brown. With relation to the international implications not 

only of 9212, but of 688, have you given, or has the Department of 

Commerce given any consideration to the possibility of an inte rnational weather year on a regular basis such as the International 

Geophysical Year that we had a couple of years ago? Or is it 

necessary ?

Mr. White. It is desirable.

One of the proposals which we hope to follow through with on the 

research phases of House Joint Resolution 688 deals with what we 

call the global observational experiment, Glomex, which proposes at 

a point some 10 years hence to place the atmosphere under complete 

surveillance for a period of from 3 to 4 months to a year, using all 

the facilities we have. So exactly the kind of thing you are proposing, 

but perhaps on a somewhat g rander scale, is envisioned.

Mr. Brown. Thank you very much.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much.

Before we close, Mr. Harvey has a question.

Mr. Harvey. Just one question, Dr. White. In looking at the bill 

here, are we duplicating our effort in H.R. 9212, in the wav we have 

provided here, on having functions of weather modification carried 

out by several departments?

This is frightening, dividing up the earth.

Mr. White. I don’t believe we are. I thin k weather modification 

has to be regarded as a technology, like atomic energy, which is going 

to be useful to many agencies. It becomes natural, therefore, tha t the 

particula r agency which has a task to do should be able to use this 

technology to do the job.

The key problem is the need for a comprehensive program in which 

the entire technology is being explored, and this is provided for by 

the bill.

Then you need an adequate coordinating mechanism which makes 

sure the program hangs together as a well-integrated national program.

Mr. Harvey. We hear about the need of another Hoover Commission to eliminate overlapping. We are looking at section 201 and 

what we are attem pting to do, it looks like we are taking a job and 

dividing it up into six different pieces and giving it out to six different agencies to possibly duplicate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tha t is all I have.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Brown?

Mr. Brown. I should like to ask one other question. We have talked 

about all the possibilities of use of this pollution control in defense 

and agriculture and everything else.

Other than the purely local ramifications, are there broader dangers 

inherent in the modification of weather? I thin k it is wonderful if you
58

try to eliminate hurricanes and thunderstorms and all that, but are 

we also then creating some worldwide problems, or do we know?

Mr. W hite. At the present time we don’t know. And the bill does 

provide for studies in which we would attempt to come to grips with 

the problems.

I think these are questions the answer to which we don’t know.

Air. Macdonald. Thank you very much, Dr. White, and your associates. We appreciate your testimony.

The next witness will be Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, science adviser 

to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

STATEMENT OF DR. MILN ER B. SCHAEFER, SCIENCE ADVISER TO

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INT ERIOR ; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ARCHIE M. KAHAN, CHIE F, OFFICE OF ATMOSPHE RIC WATER RESOURCES, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

DENVER, COLO.

Dr. Schaefer. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you 

to testify on these bills. I would like to introduce my colleague, Dr. 

Archie M. Kahan, who is Chief of the Office of Atmospheric Water 

Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. He happens to be 

here in the city, and it is fortu nate to have him with us.

Mr. Macdonald. You are both very welcome.

Dr. Schaefer. We have brief statements on both House Joint Resolution 688 and H.R. 9212. Would you like us to take 688 first?

Mr. Macdonald. Why don’t you submit the statements, and perhaps you can summarize them. I thin k time is running out.

Dr. Kaiian. I will speak first to 9212.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, the statements will appear in 

the record.

(Dr. Schaefer’s prepared statements on H.R. 9212 and H. J. Res. 

688 follow:)

Statement of Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, Science Adviser to the Secretary of

the Department of the Interior, on H.R. 9212.

Mr. Chairman, I appear before yon today in beh alf of the Dep artm ent of the 

Interior to testify on H.R. 9212, a bill “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce 

to car ry out a comprehensive program in the field of weather modification, and 

for other purposes.” The views of the Departme nt were outlined in the repo rt 

we submitted to your committee.

We would not object to enac tment of thi s bill, if it is amended in accordance 

with our suggestions.

Mr. Chairman, as was indicated when we testified las t yea r in rela tion to the 

Senate version of thi s bill (S. 2916), we strongly believe th at the importance 

and complexity of the tota l problem of weather modification require that a nation al program designed to make optimum use of our atmospheric wa ter resources 

should draw on the coordinated streng th of several agencies, each doing the job 

it knows best. There were adopted several amen dments that, in our view, 

strengthened it in this respect, which are included in H.R. 9212. We believe tha t 

you will wish furth er to strengthen the opportunities for full utilization of the 

capabilities of all agencies concerned with weather modification.

H.R. 9212 would place a major resp onsibility for weather modification in the 

Departm ent of Commerce; it would also include auth oriz atio n for programs in 

various aspects of weather modification in the Departm ents of Interior, Agricultu re; Hea lth, Education and Welfare; and the Feder al Aviation Agency; it 

would res trict the National Science Founda tion to supp ort of basic and applied 

resea rch and programs of education and training, in the sciences which rela te to 

and underlie weath er and clim ate modification technology.
59

We believe th at all agencies concerned with weather modification, enumerate d 

in Sec. 201 should be authorized to furnis h technical assistance and information 

to each other. We have suggested a specific amendment of Sec. 20 1(a) (2 ) to th at 

effect.

Regulation of weather modification research, development, and operational 

activities is a very complex matter, and legislation concerning it will almo st 

certain ly require modification after careful study. This is wisely provided for in 

Sec. 205 (d). However, inasmuch as seve ral Fed eral agencies would be involved 

in this study, we believe th at the final product should be coordinated by the 

President. We recommend, therefore, th at the report called for be made to the 

President who would subm it it to the Congress with his recommendations.

Many aspects of weather modification, including those specifically authorized 

to be und erta ken by the agencies enumerated in Sec. 201, requ ire internatio nal 

cooperation for their effective pursuit. This is tru e both because of the global, 

intern ational natur e of the atmospheric circulation, and also because of the need 

for extensive cooperation in development and applications of methodologies'. It 

is, therefore, essential th at the heads of all agencies concerned, not ju st the 

Secretary of Commerce, have autho rity for intern ationa l cooperative activities. 

We have, therefore, suggested a specific amendment to Sec. 302 to this effect.

Mr. Chairman, the total problem of weather modification, its application and 

its potential effects, both planned and inad vertent, is extremely complex. It 

requires, we belie\ e, to be developed cooperatively by the several Fed eral agencies, 

each designing its program in accordance with its assigned mission and responsibilities. It is in the Nation’s intere st to encou rage the orderly development of 

such w eather modification activities.

As you know, the Department of the I nterior (through our B ureau of Reclamatio n) has been conducting a limited, but highly promising study of atmo spheric 

wa ter resources since 1901. On January 9, 1907. we released a report on a “Pla n 

to Develop Technology for Increasing Water Yield from Atmospheric Sources.” 

This report outlines a plan for the orderly development of operational systems 

to enhance precipitation in some p arts of the country by 1972 and for achieving 

a general national capa bility to enhance or redistribute prec ipitation by 1985.

We are alre ady conducting studies on the legal, social, economic, biological 

and ecological effects of weather modification. The Secretary of Inter ior has 

established an Office of Ecology, one of the prim ary responsibilities of which 

is a study of biological and ecological effects of w eather modification.

It is logical that this expanded national program for the utilization of atmo spheric wa ter resources should be the responsibility of the Departm ent of the 

Interior. As the government’s departm ent of natural resources, we already have 

many and varied responsibilities in relation to water. The Departm ent collects 

basic data on the qua ntity and quality of the Nation’s surface and underground 

waters. It provides wa ter for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and municipal 

and ind ust rial uses from a vast system of storage reservoirs and canals. It 

manages public land s as watersheds, and fish and wildlife refuges. Its responsibilities for promoting outdoor recreation and conservation are intimately concerned w ith water. In recent years, we have been assigned added responsibilities 

for developing desalination techniques, encouraging wa ter resources research, 

and controlling pollution. And finally, beginning in 1962, the Congress autho rized us to und erta ke a modest program of research into developing the wa ter 

resources of the atmosphere through our B ureau of Reclam ation. We ather modification activities are completely harmonious with the basic mission of the Department of the Interio r—the conservation, development, and use of natural resources.

Our scientific and engineering efforts to develop techniques for increasing the 

yield of wa ter from the atmosphere have accelerated during the last five years. 

The present work being done by the Bureau of Reclamation brings to bear some 

of the best scientific and engineering tal ents available in the Dep artm ent of the 

Interior, in other government agencies, such as the Forest Service and the 

Weathe r Bureau, and in many universities and private meteorological insti ­

tutions. We are receiving stron g encouragem ent from the National Academy of 

Sciences and the National Science Foundation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we are strongly in favor of an enhanced 

national prog ram in weather modification, we consider th at II.R. 9212 requires 

furth er revision in order most effectively to serve the Nation’s needs.
60

Statement of Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, Science Adviser to the Secretary of

the Department of the I nterior, on H.J. Res. 688

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to app ear before you today on behalf of the Departm ent of the Inter ior in supp ort of H.J. Res. 688, “To provide for an expanded 

and intensified effort to increase the accuracy and extend the time range of weather predictions and to request the President to take actio n so t ha t the peoples of 

the United Sta tes derive, at the ear liest possible time, the social and economic 

benefits th at would accrue from achievement of this new level of capa bility in 

weather predictions.” The views of the Department were outlined in the report 

we submitted to y our committee.

H.J. Res. 688 would provide for supp ort for United States’ participation in a 

worldwide system of observation, communication, processing, and analysis of 

weathe r d ata, and for the conduct of a comprehensive research program, utiliz ing 

these data, for the development of a capa bility in long-range weather prediction. 

It would also provide for studies and evaluation of inadve rten t climate modification. as well as the feasibility of inte ntional climate modification. Additionally, 

it would provide for the training and education of scientists, engineers, and technical personnel for the development, operation, and conduct of any system in 

which the Pre sident is authorized to participate, and for the provision of appropriate technical and training assistance and facilitie s to other nations, and 

to intern ational organizatio ns, to a ssure their effective p articipatio n in t he global 

program. Under provisions of the proposed legislation the Pre sident is to submit 

a plan to th e Congress before M arch 1 of each y ear setting forth the proposed pa rticip ation of the United States for the next fiscal year, a statement of the activities 

to be conducted, and indicatin g the dep artm ent or agency which is to conduct the 

activities and seek appropriations therefor.

The program contemplated by H .J. Res. 688 would not supersede or tak e precedence over our Atmospheric Wa ter Resources Research Program. On the other 

hand, the resu lts gained from the worldwide program would be of material value 

in advancing our Atmospheric W ater Resources Program. With more detailed and 

relia ble short- and long-range weather predictions, we would be able to conduct 

with a gre ater degree of accuracy field operation s and expe riments und er this 

program. Furthermo re, the results of such operation s and experiments could be 

determined more precisely.

This program would also greatly assist the Department of the Interio r’s program of fisheries forecasting. The observational net for improved weather prediction requires increased data acquisitio n over a nd in the sea. and the resea rch 

program requires, as specifically mentioned in the bill, study of the inte ractions 

between the atmosphere and the oceans. These observations and studies will enable 

improved long-term predictions of currents, tem perature structure, and other 

ocean phenomena th at determ ine the location of abun dan t fish concentrations.

For the above reasons, we recommend t ha t H .J. Res. 688 be enacted. The Bureau 

of the Budget has advised that enac tmen t of this legislation would be consistent 

with the Admin istratio n’s objectives.

Dr. Schaefer. We have outlined our views on both of these bills in 

letters written to the committee.

Our position on 9212 is that we would not object to the enactment of 

this bill if it is amended in accordance with some of our suggestions.

In reporting on the Senate version of this bill, which was S. 2916, 

we indicated tha t we believe very strongly tha t the importance and 

complexity of the total problem of weather modification requires a 

national program, designed to make optimum use of our atmospheric 

water resources. This activity draws on the coordinated strengths of 

the several agencies of the Federal Government, each doing the job 

that it knows best.

At the time S. 2916 was considered, we submitted several suggested 

amendments, and a number of these were adopted. We believe that 

you may wish further to strengthen the opportunities for full utilization of the capabilities of all of the agencies concerned by considering 

additional amendments.
61

We believe that all of the agencies concerned with weather modification enumerated in section 201 should be authorized to furnish technical assistance and information to each other on a reciprocal basis, 

rather than just having Commerce act as the advisory agency, and we 

have suggested a specific amendment in this regard.

We also consider that regulation of weather modification research, 

development and operations is an an extremely complex matter, and 

legislation that concerns it will almost certainly require modification 

after very careful study, and section 205, paragraph (d) of the bill 

very wisely provides for this.

However, several Federal agencies would obviously be involved in 

this study. We believe, therefore, tha t the final product should be coordinated by the President. We recommend tha t the report called for 

be made to the President, who will submit it to the Congress with his 

recommendations.

We also note that a great many aspects of weather modification tha t 

were discussed by Dr. White, including those tha t are specifically 

authorized to be undertaken by the agencies enumerated in section 201, 

require international cooperation.

This is true both because of the global n ature of the atmosphere that 

Dr. White described, and also because of the need for extensive cooperation in the development of methodologies among nations.

We, therefore, believe it is essential tha t the heads of all agencies 

concerned, and not just the Secretary of Commerce, take p art in inte rnational cooperative activities. Again, we have suggested a specific 

amendment in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, the message I would like to carry is that the total 

problem of weather modification, its applications and its potential 

eifects, both planned and inadvertent, is very complex. We believe that 

it requires, therefore, to be attacked cooperatively by the several Federal agencies, each designing its programs in accordance with its 

assigned responsibilities.

It is in the Nation’s interest to encourage the orderly development 

of these activities.

As you probably know, our Department has been conducting limited, 

but highly promising studies, of atmospheric water resources since 

1961. In January of this year, Inte rior Secretary Udall released a report entitled “Plan To Develop Technology for Increasing Water 

Yield From Atmospheric Sources.” It outlines a p lan for the development of an operational system to enhance precipitation in some parts of 

the country by 1972, and for achieving a general national capability to 

redistribute precipitation by 1975.

Mr. Macdonald. Sir, could I interrupt you at that point?

Does the experiment which you refer to include the one at Sonora 

in Mexico?

Dr. Kaiian. No, sir. T hat is being conducted by the Mexican Government, and is not part of our program.

Mr. Macdonald. No, it was being conducted by Sonora University 

in conjunction with Arizona University.

Dr. K ailan. I t is not p art of the Bureau of Reclamation programs.

Mr. Macdonald. How about the one that is going on in California 

now, in which both water and power are being considered ?

87-936 — 61 5
62

Dr. Kahan. We do have a program in California, the so-called 

Southern Sierra program.

Mr. Macdonald. There is another bigger one farthe r down south.

Dr. Sciiaefer. I think I can answer the question, sir. It is a nuclear 

reactor to produce power and desalinate sea water. I would be very 

glad to speak to this. It isn’t part of the atmospheric program. It is 

part of our total water program.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you.

Dr. Schaefer. The work in Sonora may be a program of the National 

Science Foundation. Again, this illustrates that these are complex programs, and this is all part of the total picture.

Mr. Brown. If the gentleman would yield, it also points up one of the 

other problems to which you alluded in your testimony, and to which 

I alluded in my questions, and that is the failure of keeping everybody 

advised of studies being made. This encourages duplication.

Dr. Schaefer. I think we are aware of the programs at Sonora and 

the University of Arizona. The only question was who was funding 

tha t particu lar study. You see, many of the university contractors that 

are at work in this area receive support from several agencies. That is 

a very good thing, because we get the best brains in universities, and 

even in private companies, to bear on these problems.

Mr. Brown. It is also not bad sometimes for the people who are 

getting the funds.

Dr. Schaefer. I would like to point out, sir, in relation-----

Mr. Brotzman. Would the gentleman yield for one more question at 

this point ?

I have been led to believe that all of the agencies in weather modification were presently exchanging information. Is th at correct? Do you 

know that those studies are, in fact, going on, and what A, B, C, 

and I) are doing?

Dr. Schaefer. Yes, sir. One of the major mechanisms is through 

the Federal Council on Science and Technology: There is an Inter ­

agency Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. There is quite good 

interchange of information and plans.

Mr. Brotzman. Taking your first section on page 2 here relative 

to a proposed amendment, you say that under section 201 all agencies 

“should be authorized to fu rnish technical assistance and information 

to each other.”

Is the addition there the technical assistance? Presently you are furnishing information to each other, as you just stated.

Dr. Schaefer. As the bill reads, it authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to furnish technical assistance and information to any other 

Federal agency requesting assistance.

We believe that, if the bill were passed, it would be desirable to make 

it so tha t it authorizes the heads of all of these agencies to provide 

technical assistance and information to each other.

Mr. Brotzman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. S chaefer. I think the second significant matter is tha t we have 

anticipated some of the legal, social, economic, biological, and ecological effects, of weather modification. We already have started some 

studies in the legal aspects and the economic and ecological aspects.

The Secretary of Inte rior has established an Office of Ecology.
63

Obviously, one of its very important responsibilities is a system for 

the study of the biological and ecological effects of weather modification.

We believe th at it is quite logical that this expanded national program in atmospheric water resources should be a responsibility of our 

Department, because we already have a great many responsibilities 

in relation to water. The chairman already mentioned the desalinisation effort th at is advancing in southern California.

We collect basic data on the quantity and quality of all the Nation’s 

surface and underground waters. We are in the business of providing 

water fo r irrigation, hydroelectric power, and municipal and industrial 

uses from reservoir systems. We manage the Nation’s public lands and 

watersheds, and fish and wildlife refuges, and so on.

Without going into all the details given in my statement, it is quite 

obvious tha t weather modification activities are completely harmonious with the basic mission of the Department of Interior. Tha t is, 

conservation and development of the Nation's natural resources, of 

which water resources are a part.

In the conduct of our own program, we are attempting to mobilize 

the best scientific and engineering efforts to develop the techniques for 

increasing the yield of water from the atmosphere. This program has 

been accelerated in the last. 5 years.

Presently the work done by our Bureau of Reclamation is bringin g 

to bear some of the best engineering and scientific talent available in 

our Department, and other agencies and universities and private 

meteorological institutions. We have been encouraged in this area by 

the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science 

Foundation.

Our conclusion is t ha t while we are strongly in favor of this program, we consider tha t H.R. 9212 requires some further revision in 

order most effectively to serve the Nation's needs.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you, sir. I just have one question, and tha t is 

when you say you have been “encouraged by the National Science 

Foundation,” in what way do you mean? Just by conversation, or 

monetarily, or exchange of information, or what?

Dr. Schaefer. There are the two reports that Dr. White referred to, 

one by the National Science Foundation and the other by a committee 

of the National Academy of Sciences th at recommended strong support for the further development of these weather modification activities. Our people remain in quite close touch with these groups.

Perha ps Dr. Kalian would like to speak to this.

Dr. Kaiian. The reports recognized the need for further experimentation in the field. Our program, already underway in field experiments, recognizes that it is a complex matter tha t requires engineers, 

and social scientists—this is compatible with our program, and we feel 

the reports advocate the kind of program we have been trying to 

mount,

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Ottinger ?

Mr. Ottinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the questions th at your testimony raises is the relationship 

between our efforts to clear up water pollution and air pollution. I 

suppose all these efforts are interrelated, the supplies of water and the 

quality of water.
64

What is the justification of separating out the air pollution program 

and having th at in Health, Education, and Welfare, rather tha n in the 

Department of Inte rior ?

Dr. Schaefer. Again, sir, i t is one of these problems where certain 

aspects are being handled by the Department of Commerce, as Dr. 

White indicated—that is, certain weather aspects.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has a large part 

of this program. At Interior, we are doing work particularly with 

respect to the problem of sulfur dioxide th at is largely generated by 

fuel, th at is, by coal and petroleum, which again is our responsibility. 

So, in cooperation with Health, Education, and Welfare, we have an 

extensive program in our Bureau of Mines looking toward either 

attem pting to eliminate the sulfur from the fuel, or to process stack 

emissions to get rid of it.

Here, again, I think it is one of the things that relate to the missions 

of several agencies.

Mr. Ottinger. Excuse me. On water pollution, is there consideration given to interstate bodies created to handle water pollution, to 

also handle air pollution in the same areas where the airshed may correspond roughly with the watershed ?

Dr. S chaefer. I am sorry, sir. I am not able to answer that question.

Mr. Ottinger. We are g etting into an area that concerns me, where 

we are duplicating a lot of these regional arrangements.

Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Broyhill ?

Mr. Broyhill. Dr. Schaefer, I note from your testimony that the 

Department of Inte rior has already undertaken a number of projects 

and is involved in this area of weather modification. What does H.R. 

9212 do? W hat e xtra power does this give you that you do not already 

have?

Dr. Schaefer. As fa r as I am aware, sir, it doesn’t give us any new 

authority tha t we don’t have. I n fact, we would like to make sure it 

doesn’t subtract any authority we have, among other things.

I believe that the only possibility of new au thority is in relation to 

the matter of international cooperation. I think we probably already 

have authority for international cooperation, but if we don’t, the 

amendment suggested would give us the requisite authority.

We certainly have authority in certain aspects of international cooperation. We may have it for all. We would not like to see it implied 

tha t we don’t have authority for things we need to do as part of our 

own program.

Mr. Broyhill. Are you hopeful of getting additional appropriations as a result of this legislation ?

Dr. Schaefer. Our position on the legislation, sir, is tha t with these 

amendments we would not object to its passage, but we are not necessarily testifying in support of it. We have au thority for our developing program now, and we believe that this is coming along in moderately good fashion.

Mr. Macdonald. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Broyhill. I would be glad to.

Mr.’ Macdonald. Do I understand tha t there is going to be a hassle 

in the tradition of Washington between the various departments now 

about this bill?
65

Dr. Schaefer. No.

Mr. Macdonald. I thought the bill was agreed upon. I though t th at 

everyone agreed tha t th is bill was necessary and needed, and t hat you 

were testifying in support of it.

If I understood what you just said to Mr. Broyhill, you said you 

weren’t testifying in support of it.

Dr. Schaefer. I am sorry if I made a misstatement, sir. We would 

be in favor of it with the suggested amendments.

Mr. Broyhill. Your statement says t hat you would not object.

Mr. Macdonald. There is a good deal of difference between not 

objecting to something and supporting something. I would like to 

have it on record whether you support it, or you just don’t object to it.

Dr. Schaefer. Well, the statement that our Department wishes 

to make formally is tha t we don't object to its passage with these 

amendments, and this was the same statement, I believe, tha t was 

provided in relation to the bill on the Senate side.

Mr. Macdonald. Then you are not supporting the bill, is that 

correct ?

Dr. Schaefer. I think as far as I could go, sir, is to say tha t we 

won’t object to its passage, with these amendments.

Mr. Macdonald. I will ask you a question that is not contained in 

your statement. Do you, as scientific adviser to Mr. U dall—you have 

some auth ority in these matters. I will ask you a direct question. Does 

the Department of In terior support this bill, or not ?

Dr. Schaefer. I t is my belief that we do not urge the passage of the 

bill.

Mr. Macdonald. I will try again. You don't object to it, and you 

don't urge the passage of this. You support it ?

Dr. Schaefer. With these amendments, we would support it.

Mr. Brown. I think tha t you have come very close to saying what 

you really think about this bill in the last sentence at the top of page 

5, in which you say :

We ather mortification activities are completely harmonious with the basic 

mission of the Departme nt of the Interior.

I would assume the bill would be a great deal more palatable if 

the authority for the functioning of the bill were put under the head 

of the Department of Interior. Is that a fair statement?

Dr. Schaefer. I don’t think so, sir. Our position is th at we believe 

that the various aspects are harmonious with our functions.

In section 201, still other departm ents have capabilities. We would 

like to see a fully coordinated program without one of the agencies 

necessarily being the chosen one.

Mr. Brown. I f the chairman will continue to yield further, it still 

strikes me that perhaps the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the 

Department of Inte rior on this bill may be truly in the tradition of 

Washington in tha t it may boil down to who is going to sign the 

pay checks for this effort.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Brotzman ?

Mr. Brotzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

you, Dr. Schaefer, and also your colleague, Dr. Kalian, whom we all 

know out in the West, for appearing this morning.

One technical thing tha t I thin k you probably would like to correct: 

According to copies of your statement that I have, which you sub-
66

mitted for the record, it shows you are appearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, and I say this so tha t 

it doesn’t show up incorrectly in the report, that you would rather have 

tha t show tha t you are appearing before the Communications and 

Power Subcommittee.

Dr. Schaefer. I certainly would, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Brotzman. I think most of this has been covered by my colleagues here, but I was going to ask this. The reluctance, I would 

assume, on your part—maybe it is as stated bv my colleague from 

Ohio, tha t you just don’t know what this bill does. Is tha t what is 

troubling you ?

Dr. Sciiaefer. Well, the review of the legislation indicated that it 

does give certain authorities to Commerce that, without these amendments, might value the authority tha t we have.

For example, we are involved in the water for peace program-----

Mr. Brotzman. The water for peace?

Dr. Sciiaefer. Yes, which is an international activity. This is one 

of the programs the Secretary of Interior is involved in. We would 

be very reluctant to see this bill passed in a form tha t would imply tha t 

international cooperation activities were authorized only to the Departm ent of Commerce and not to Inte rior and the other agencies 

stipulated in section 201.

Mr. Brotzman. This is what 1 was really sort of leading up to, 

because you know your particular programs and projects. I wondered 

if, from your study of 9212 as it is constituted, in conjunction with 

House Join t Resolution 688, that you feel it will preclude you from doing something you are presently doing, that you have been working on, 

or pointing toward ?

Dr. Schaefer. No, I believe it would no t; and particularly with the 

amendments suggested, it would not preclude anything we are doing.

I might also say in relation to the international business, that, when 

we come to it, we very strongly support House Joint Resolution 688. 

Here, again, we are involved in our Department in certain of the airsea interaction aspects of House Joint Resolution 688, which involves 

international cooperation.

Mr. Brotzman. Most of your testimony related to 9212, but you do 

support 688 as written, or do you feel tha t there are amendments 

needed to it?

Dr. Sciiaefer. No, we support that as drafted, from two aspects. 

In the first place, as indicated in more detail in my prepared statement 

this bill would provide for studies and evaluation of inadvertent climate modification, and would also provide for the tra inin g and education of scientists and technical personnel, and many other things th at 

are necessary as part of this general international cooperative program.

Specifically, with relation to our own programs, while it would not 

take precedence over our atmospheric water resources program, the, 

results from this worldwide program would be of very great value 

in helping our predictions in relation to weather modification.

Secondly, we have another responsibility in fisheries forecasting 

in the ocean. This observational net for improved weather predictions 

is required to acquire data both in the sea and in the atmosphere over
67

the ocean, as Dr. White explained, and the research program to go 

with it.

This same program will enable long-term forecasts of the ocean 

conditions tha t determine the location of fish concentrations. An inte resting fact is that, due to the sluggishness of the ocean, a day in the 

air is about like a week in the ocean. So, if one can attain the capability 

for forecasting the air for 2 weeks, much of the same data will enable 

us to forecast in the ocean for 2 or 3 months.

We would strongly support it, and in fact the Bureau of the Budget 

has advised us that enactment of this legislation would be in line with 

the administration’s objectives.

Mr. Macdonald. Would the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Brotzman. Yes.

Mr. Macdonald. Wh at do you forecast in the ocean ?

Dr. Schaefer. The distribution of the temperature, and currents 

in the ocean, both their horizontal movements and vertical movements.

Mr. Macdonald. You mean the drop of the, tides?

Dr. Schaefer. No. There is an upper mixed layer of the ocean, 

separated from a deeper colder layer by a density change called the 

thermocline.

The upper layer receives radiation from the sun, and it returns heat 

and moisture to the atmosphere,. One has to look at the upper ocean 

and atmosphere as part of the same system. We have to have the 

measurements in the top pa rt of the ocean to predict what will happen 

in the atmosphere and, conversely, we have to know what is happening 

in the atmosphere to predict what will happen in the ocean.

So, this world weather watch will advance the forecasting in the 

atmosphere, and will also advance the forecasting of the temperature 

and currents of the top part of the ocean-----

Mr. Macdonald. Who really cares about the temperature of the 

ocean ?

Dr. Schaefer. Well, fishermen-----

Mr. Macdonald. I come from a State where we are ri ght alongside 

the ocean, and I have been on the ocean a lot of times, and I never 

stay awake nights wondering whether or not the temperature of the 

ocean is going to change.

Dr. Schafer. Tuna fishermen operating out of Massachusetts 

would be much interested—also those on the west coast and Florida, 

pursuing the pelagic fisheries. The temperature distribution determines 

where different kinds of fish are concentrated. Many of the sports 

fishermen along the Atlantic are also interested in this.

Of course, the ocean currents are of grea t interest not only with 

respect to fisheries forecasting, but also with respect to transportation, 

and military operations, and quite a lot of things.

Mr. Macdonald. I would just like to finish with one comment, which 

really has nothing to do with the record, about if we had been doing 

tha t sort of forecasting—2 years ago, we had a tuna sport fishing 

contest off the Massachusetts coast, and they had to call it off after 

3 days. They hadn't caught one tunafish. So the forecast didn’t seem 

to be terribly accurate, or else they didn't call on your services.

Dr. Schaefer. Fisheries forecasting, like weather forecasting, requires improvements, sir. and this is one of the reasons we are en-
68

thusiastic about the world weather watch, because it will give us the 

basis for improved forecasts.

Mr. Brotzman. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Broyiiill. Is this a prime responsibility of the Department 

of Interior, or does any other agency or department of the Government get into it ?

Dr. Schaefer. Well, in the Department of Interior, through the 

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, we are responsible for the encouragement, development, and conservation of the fisheries of the United 

States. There are other departments, including the Department, of 

Commerce, which are responsible for other aspects of the ocean environment.

Also the Department of Defense, which needs the same data, obviously, as part of their submarine and antisubmarine programs.

Mr. Brotzman. I have one simple question now. If we report this 

particular measure, and I am re ferring to 9212, with the amendments 

suggested, do you think that it might be helpful to you in accomplishing your weather objectives and missions? What would your opinion 

be?

Dr. Schaefer. I would like to bow to Dr. Kalian from the technical 

side. I cannot say th at it would give us additional new authority. As 

to whether the coordination would in any way enhance our technical 

capability, I would rather have Dr. Kalian answer that.

Dr. Kahan. In my opinion, sir, the need is for sufficient funds to 

mount the scale of attack, rath er than legislation. If this legislation 

makes available funds, then we would be benefited from it.

So far as carrying out our program, we don't see an immediate need 

for this legislation.

Mr. Brotzman. All right.

Mr. Broyiiill. I have one more question Mr. Chairman.

You have referred to proposed amendments in section 201 and also 

section 302. Are these amendments before the committee in legislative 

language ?

Dr. Schaefer. Yes. There was a letter written to you by our legislative counsel that contains the specific language.

Mr. Macdonald. It might have got misplaced and gone to the Committee on Aeronautics and Transportation. I can see why it would, 

because it seems the Department of Inte rior on this particu lar issue 

is up in the air anyway, so I can see why it might have got misplaced.

Dr. Schaefer. I wanted to say tha t a copy of that was addressed 

to the correct place.

Mr. Macdonald. I have one last question—have you finished, Mr. 

Brown ?

Mr. Brown. No.

Mr. Macdonald. Go ahead.

Mr. Brown. Dr. Schaefer, in your testimony on 688, all of which I 

was unable to hear you deliver but which I have gone ahead and read, 

in the p arag raph in the middle of page 2, it says:

The program contemplated by House Joint Resolution 688 would not supersede 

or take precedence over our atmospheric water resources research program.

That fu rther leads me to the feeling that the thrust of your testimony 

here is to explore a possible jurisdictional dispute between Inte rior and
69

Commerc e ove r whose au th or ity is go ing to be modified an d to wh at 

deg ree by these tw o piec es of leg isla tion .

I would like to ask Dr. Ka lian, in view of h is comment in resp onse 

to the pre vio us questions, do you th in k th at th e $50 milllion figure 

estim ate d by Mr. W hite is about righ t? Is it too modest, is it too h igh ?

Dr. K ahan. I th in k it is too modest, sir. I th in k to really do the 

inv est iga tio ns th at are required, it is going to req uir e a comm itm ent 

in excess of $50 mi llio n a yea r.

Mr. Brown. W ould you care to say how much in excess, or to cite 

some kind of a figure th at wou ld give us a be tte r idea of where we 

migh t be head ing fina ncially ?

Dr . Kah an. I think a c omp rehensive na tio na l prog ram------

Mr. Brown. Ar e you undersc ori ng n ati on al ra th er tha n worldwid e ?

Dr . K ah an. Yes, sir. I hav e no way now of estim ati ng the cost of 

the world we ath er wa tch prog ram . I doubt th at anybody has a good 

way of do ing it now, because ins tru men tatio n is no t yet fully develope d 

an d pr iced o ut, a nd th at is envisione d as p art of obs ervatio nal faci lities.

I think it may help un de rstand it to make some comments about t he 

term. Th e term “we ath er m odific ation” has become a Moth er Hub ba rdtype term, w hic h covers the sub ject a nd reveals no details.

It ran ges fro m the scale of the m icroclim ate of plan ts to the cir cu ­

lat ion of pla nets, and whi le it has, throug ho ut its ran ge, involvement 

with the atm osp her e, there are so ma ny activ ities involve d th at it is 

difficult to be sensible about t he cost of a we ath er m odification pr og ram .

In just dev elopin g the tech nology th at will be require d to use this 

m at te r of clou d seeding fo r wa ter reso urce pur poses, I can see a need 

fo r in excess of $50 m illi on a year, and this is com pletely ap ar t fro m 

wh eth er or no t you are going to un de rstand the total cir culat ion of 

the atmosp here.

Mr. Brown. Yo ur com men ts have made me more nervous, bu t I 

have n’t yet decided how nervou s the y make me.

How much in excess of $50 mill ion ?

Dr . K ahan. I n our plan ning , we have g otten an outlook of g ettin g 

up aro un d $57 millio n as a peak valu e.

Mr. Brown. Bu t j us t f or a do mestic prog ram in th is area, not rela ted 

to the internati on al we ather watch?

Dr. K ahan. T hat is correct.

Dr. Schaefer. Mr. Congressman, I t hi nk t he re m ay be a bi t of confusion a bout this $50 m illion, i f th is is the corre ct figure. I believe the 

figu re Dr. W hite was re fe rrin g to was th e qu an tit y th at was recommen ded by these stu dy comm ittee s for only the n ex t f ew y ears.

Mr. Macdonald. Thre e yea rs.

Dr . Schaefer. Th e numb er Dr . Kah an is ta lk in g about is bey ond 

th at .

Mr. Macdonald. Th e Senate b ill covers 3 y ear s, an d it is $50 m illi on 

fo r 3 years.

Mr. B row n is nervous , an d I un de rst an d why he should be.

Dr . K ahan. I am ta lk in g about wha t I see is requ ire d to solve the 

problem s, an d no t ju st in the next 3 yea rs. The re have been recommendatio ns, a repo rt t h at has no t been m entioned here, wh ich was an 

IC AS repo rt, p repa red by Dr. New ell, wh ich looks to th is p oint.
70

It recommends in 1970 a $35 million p rogra m for th e B ure au of Reclam atio n, D epartme nt o f Int er io r prog ram alone.

Mr. Brown. Wha t is this I CAS f W hat does 1CA S st and for?

l)r. Kaha n. It is the In terd ep artm en tal Committee on Atmo spheric Sciences, an d bri ngs all the agencies tog eth er with an int ere st 

in atmosph eric sciences.

Mr. Brown. Do 9212 a nd 688 rea lly only beg in on this? Is i t an iceberg that we are ju st begin nin g to see? If you are talking abo ut $35 

million for one po rti on of wha t the De partm ent of In te rior is now 

doing, thi s $50 million that was men tioned fo r 3 years doesn’t seem 

to me to be too ap prop ria te to our think ing. It is only the top of the 

problem.

Dr. Kaha n. I think in all these things, a star t needs to be made. 

When you try to estimate the tota l cost, this c alls for crysta l ba lling of 

a natur e that I do n’t know who is really qualified to speak au th or itative ly on it. To some extent, you are talk in g about emp loying things 

th at are now only concepts, and to try to es timate th e tota l cost, I do n’t 

know how to do it.

I think-----

Mr. Brown. Somebody has go t to do th at cry sta l balling, though, 

because the fiscal problem is the one we fac e right now, where this 

money is going to come from , and how much the taxp ay er is going to 

sit still for—perh aps I shou ld say lie down fo r—in term s of where we 

get this money that goes into these program s.

Th is is all wonderful stuff, a nd I am enthu sia stic about them. As I 

said earlie r, they are visions of the Su nday sup plements tu rned rea l, 

and I begin to get all excited abo ut t ha t. But th at is t he whole problem 

we are now havin g, somebody gets us all excited about wh at we ought 

to be d oing, how we should control ou r atm osp here, bu t nobody tells 

us how much it is going to cost.

Dr. Kaha n. It is a difficult thi ng , because it involves several dif fer ­

ent agencies which may not yet have the basis fo r speci fying wh at 

they see as their role in the global research program.

Mr. Brown. T won der if it would be ap prop ria te, Mr. Ch air ma n, 

to ask the In terio r De partm ent, which indicate s it has a ce rta in 

amount of interest, and present jur isd iction and expe rtise in th is area , 

to give us its estimates o f costs in t his re ga rd as relates to 688 and 9212, 

and to give us referen ce to ot her indep end ent estimates w hich may ha ve 

been made, such as the IC AS survey o r re port.

Dr. Schaefer. Mr. Con gressman, we would be very gla d to provide 

you with such estimat es as we have on our pro gra m, and to give you 

referenc es to es timates tha t have been made.

I believe with reg ard to 688 th at it would be bette r fo r us to cooperate with Dr. W hite.

Mr. Brown. I would almost prefer t ha t you di dn ’t. I would like to 

com pare wha t you come up with sepa rately .

Dr. Schaefer. Ac tua lly , sir, I believe, on th is pa rti cu lar p rogra m, it 

would not he possible for us to come up with a sep ara te estimate because the work to he done und er 688 is going to involve cooperatio n 

of several agencies and the Worl d Meteorological Or ganiz ati on. I t 

involves the State De partm ent, and so fo rth , and any useful estimate 

has to be a co ord inated estimate.
71

(The following information was subsequently submitted:)

The Department of the Interio r subm itted the following cost estimates for the 

atmospheric wa ter resources program of the Bureau of Re clama tion:

1969 _ _ __________________________________________ $10, 000, 000

1970 _ __ __________________________________________ 15,000,000

1971 ____ _________________________________________ 27,000,000

1972 ______ __________________________________________ 39,000,000

These represent estimates only—not approved budget program s. The cost estimates for an optimum program would be higher by abo ut .$5 million each year, 

if curre nt budgeta ry consideratio ns were relaxed. The nationwide plan contem plates expenditures approximating $57 million a year in the mid-1970’s.

Estimates for various Feder al weather modification programs may be found 

in ICAS report No. 10a, “A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification,” by Dr. Homer E. Newell, dated November 1966.

Dr. Schaefer. I will also, if I might, sir, answer your original question with regard to paragraph 2 on page 2 of my statement. We did 

not mean this to represent any jurisdictional dispute. We simply meant 

tha t in regard to priorities, if funds were short, we would not like to 

see the world weather watch displace the work we are doing on the 

atmospheric water research program. We would like to see the world 

weather watch undertaken because it would help out tha t program 

and others.

There is no jurisdictional dispute intended, sir.

Mr. Brown. I f I could go back to this tuna fish derby, you might get 

a copy of the Old Fisherman’s Almanac, if there is one in existence. 

If there isn’t, there should be.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

The House is now in session, and there is a quorum call. We had two 

more witnesses scheduled—Mr. Barrows of the Forest Service, Dep artment of Agriculture; and Mr. Malone of the Travelers Insurance Co.

Obviously we have just run out of time. We have already scheduled, 

or there has been scheduled for the subcommittee a hearing tomorrow 

and the next day, so I would think th at the best possible thing, and I 

hate to discommode Mr. Malone, who came from Hartford, I am sure, 

to give testimony—unless either of the gentlemen want to submit 

their statements for the record now. Otherwise, I think the best thing 

tha t we can do is recess until Tuesday of next week at 10 o’clock. So 

whichever you want to do, Mr. Barrows or Mr. Malone-----

Mr. Barrows. Tuesday of next week would be fine, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. We are adjourned un til Tuesday of next week.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, November 7,1967.)

WEATHER MODIFICATION

TUESD AY , N O V EM BER 7, 19 67

House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Communications and Power,

Committee on I nterstate and Foreign Commerce,

IV ashing ton, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Macdonald. The hearing will be in order.

The first witness to be heard today is Mr. Jack S. Barrows of the 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT OF JACK S. BARROWS, DIRECTOR, FOREST FIRE RESEARCH, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. BRUCE F. BEACHER AND DR. ARNAUD

L0USTAL0T, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE

Mr. Barrows. Mr. Chairman, 1 am Jack Barrows, Director of Forest 

Fire Research of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. 

With me is Dr. Bruce Beacher, of the Cooperative State Research 

Service, and Dr. Arnaud Loustalot, of the Cooperative State Research 

Service of the Department.

We are pleased to have this opportunity to meet with the committee. 

We do not have a formal statement to present.

The Department of Agriculture’s position on II.R. 9212 and House 

Joint Resolution 688 are as stated in the respective Department reports 

of June 15 and August 17, 1967. We are here to answer questions and 

we would be glad to respond to your questions and provide you with 

all the information we can on plans, current programs, capabilities, 

and general activities of the Department of Agriculture in weather 

modification.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much for coming here this morning. We have had a couple of hearings in between times so we lost a 

little continuity in so doing, but as I recall the last question being 

asked of the witness was whether or not all departments concerned 

with this matter are really for the bill.

As I recall, one of the departments said they don't oppose it, with 

certain amendments, if the amendments were reported out, but do you 

actively support the bill?

Mr. B arrows. Yes; we do, and you are speaking I assume first for 

II.R. 9212 and also for House Joint Resolution 688.

Mr. Macdonald. I don’t think the la tter bill is in any trouble at all. 

I think tha t is fine. I am talking about the first bill.

(73)
74

Mr. Barrows. I would like to add to this statement. I n our view this 

bill does not provide the Department of Agriculture any authority that 

we do not have at the present time. As we view it, it delineates the 

total area of weather modification to show the specific major responsibilities of each of the several departments. We are in agreement with 

the language of this bill as it pertains to the mission of the Dep artment of Agriculture in weather modification research.

Mr. Macdonald. Right. And my last question is, you know, it seems 

a little farfetched to me to have the Department of Agriculture in the 

weather picture, anyway, and if you could explain what you are doing 

in the weather picture I would be edified.

Mr. Barrows. Thank you. We would be glad to. Weather modification presents an enormous opportunity to agricu lture and forestry. 

During the last 20 years man has been gradually learning that various 

techniques can be used to modify atmospheric behavior. The resulting 

knowledge and technology, though only in preliminary stages o f development, show great potential benefits to agriculture and forestry.

The possible consequences of weather modification can affect nearly 

every program for the management of agriculture and forest resources. 

Agriculture production may be increased. Damage to agricultural 

crops and resources may be decreased. The kinds of crops grown in 

various areas may be changed.

Forests may be better protected from lightning-caused fires and disastrous conflagrations. Agricultural and forest water resources may be 

improved.

I think these indicate some of the reasons why Agriculture is so 

vitally interested and concerned in weather modification.

Mr. Macdonald. Right, sir. I asked one of the witnesses last week 

or the week before, whenever it was, what are the legal ramifications of 

rain heading toward Iowa and somebody seeds it so it drops in North 

Dakota or, you know, I am not familiar with the Midwest, but another 

State. Do you follow my question?

Mr. Barrows. Yes. This is a question tha t has been raised many 

times from the beginning of the programs in weather modification. I 

think it is a question tha t is only going to be satisfactorily answered 

throu gh the kinds of research programs tha t are now being planned 

and carried out, and tha t this is really the only way we are going to 

get at the answers of what are the downstream effects of weather 

modification.

Mr. Macdonald. Well, I don't really know what you mean by downstream effects.

Mr. Barrows. By downstream effects I mean tha t if clouds are 

seeded in Montana what are the possible effects downstream in North 

Dakota, if there are, in fact, any effects downstream ?

Mr. Macdonald Well, do you have any answers, or are you as curious 

as I am about it ?

Mr. Barrows. I am sure I am as curious as you are. Within our own 

weather modification programs in Agriculture we have not been dealing with this specific problem because our work has been aimed to 

date entirely upon lightning storms and the modification of these 

storms for fire prevention purposes. We have been dealing strictly with 

local and mountain-type thunderstorms.

When we look a t downstream effects I think we are visualizing the
75

possible effects from large-scale weather systems th at may be affected 

at some distance from the point of seeding. I am sure tha t these an ­

swers are not yet adequately available. 1 think they will be available 

through the kinds of programs that are being planned by the various 

Government agencies.

Mr. Macdonald. If Mr. Broyhill will indulge me, that is one of 

the things that has been bothering me. It seems from the testimony that 

about four, five, or maybe six different departments are carrying on 

experiments in this field.

Don’t you think there should be just one—either department or commission or something—to do this ?

Mr. B arrows. No s ir; I do not think tha t would be the way to get 

at these answers. I think the activities of the several Federal agencies 

that are working in weather modification are, in fact, being very well 

coordinated.

A good example of th is is just 2 weeks ago all of us in Government 

weather modification research met for the ninth consecutive year at 

Big Meadows in Shenandoah National Park, which is the scene of 

the annual National Science Foundation Weather Modification 

Conference.

Every Federal weather modification activity was reported at that 

meeting and ideas exchanged on them, and in my view we have good 

coordination in the weather modification field as a result of the activities of the National Science Foundation performing these kinds 

of conferences and also as a result of the activities of ICAS. I believe 

this activity is reasonably well coordinated.

Mr. Macdonald. Wha t is the ICAS ?

Mr. Barrows. Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric 

Sciences.

Air. Macdonald. Mr. Broyhill.

Air. Broyhill. Than k you, Air. Chairman. Air. Barrows, it is good 

to see you here today. You state tha t you already have authority in 

this field and tha t you are presently conducting experiments of 

weather modification as it applies to the control of lightning and hail, 

is that correct ?

Air. Barrows. It is correct, sir, for lightning. The hail suppression 

research program that is being planned has not yet been activated.

Mr. Broyhill. And this authority comes to you in specific terms, or 

in general terms in other legislation ?

Mr. Barrows. I t comes in general terms through the research authority to the Department of Agriculture.

Air. Broyhill. How long have you been conducting experiments of 

this type?

Air. Barrows. The only active experimental weather modification 

program in the Departm ent is lightning suppression. This research was 

originated in 1953 and has been carried on continuously from that time. 

I believe it is now perhaps the oldest continuous weather modification 

research project in the United States.

Air. Broyhill. Can you tell the committee approximately how much 

money is being spent in this program for the current fiscal year ?

Mr. Barrows. Yes. This is a modest program. It is a cooperative 

affort with the National Science Foundation. The Forest Service is 

expending $180,000 for Forest Service fire research funds. There is
76

ap prox im ately $70,000 t his fiscal ye ar of N ation al Science F ou nd ation 

funds, a to tal of $250,000 for t his project.

We hav e ad ditio na l assistance, however, fro m num erous oth er 

sources. F or ex amp le, the Weather B ureau coo per ates in th is pro gra m ; 

it pro vid es some of the r ad ar obs ervatio ns a nd the sp ecial w eathe r f orecasting t hat is necessary fo r the pro jec t.

In ad dit ion , we utilize existing fac ilities of the Fo res t Service th at 

are in place fo r fire pro tection pur poses to help this pro jec t. Th is 

includ es a network of 38 lookout sta tio ns th at are scatt ere d over the 

no rth ern Rockies and the No rth we st th at provide special cloud and 

lig ht ni ng o bse rvation s fo r t he p rojec t. We tr ai n these loo kou t obs ervers in cloud and lig ht ni ng observa tion . The ir services are valua ble to 

us b ut are n ot inclu ded in the cost figures I hav e just giv en you.

Mr. Broyhill. Yo ur De partm ent is the coo rdinati ng agency f or th is 

pa rtic ul ar specific p ro gram ; is that correct ? W ha t I am ask ing r ela tes 

to yo ur o rganizati on structur e. To whom do you repo rt th is i nf or m atio n ? Wi th whom do you exchange information ? H ow is it coord ina ted ?

Mr. Barrows. Si r, I would n’t rega rd us as a co ordina tin g agency. 

I t is true th at we have pe rhaps been th e lead agen cy in lig ht ning 

sup pressio n rese arch.

Our res ults are first of all reporte d to th e scien tific com munity 

th roug h normal cha nnels—scientific publications. We make perio dic 

repo rts to the Na tio na l Science Fo un da tio n as well and, of course, 

period ic repo rts to the Secre tar y of A griculture.

Mr. Broyhill. M r. Ch air ma n, one question whi ch pe rhap s can’t be 

answered or pe rhap s it can be, is wh at has been accomplished with 

these p rogra ms , no t only in the D ep artm ent of A griculture, th e Fo rest 

Service, bu t the othe r de pa rtm en ts as well. W ha t are the res ults of 

thes e prog ram s?

Can you poin t to re all y m eanin gfu l results ?

Mr. B arrows. Yes, sir. We are quite encourage d by the we ath er 

modific ation res ult s fro m Pr ojec t Sky fire and I wou ld be glad to cite 

some of them .

In doing this I would like to b ack u p, if I may , to look at the kin d 

of a problem th at we are deali ng with in ligh tn in g sup pre ssion re ­

search. Lig ht ni ng causes some 10,000 to 15,000 forest fires annually. 

In the West ern United State s ligh tn in g is the gre ate st single cause 

of forest fires. These fires cause t rem endous d amage t o tim ber, watershed, an d o utd oor recre ation resources.

Fire sup pre ssion costs alone on ligh tn in g fires amount to some $50 

millio n an nuall y. Th e 1967 fire season in th e Rockies and the N or th ­

west is a viv id e xamp le o f th e seriousness o f th e l ight ning fire proble m. 

In Au gu st of 1967 dr y lig ht ni ng storms which were preceded by a 

sum me r-lo ng perio d of critically hot an d dr y we ath er ignit ed th ou ­

san ds of fires. Som e 4,000 fires occ urred in a 3-week period.

On the natio nal forests alone 46 o f thes e fires spr ead to sizes of 100 

to more th an 50,000 acres. We believe th at fire pre vention is the best 

method for re du cing such losses a nd costs.

W ea ther modification pro vid es the best pos sibility fo r the prevention of ligh tn in g fires. Pr ojec t Skyfire is pe rfo rm ing researc h on this 

possib ility. Th e rese arch perfo rm ed to date includes the follow ing 

resu lts : First , the develop ment of an electro nic sensing system fo r the 

me asurem ent o f lig ht ning discharges. W e are ope ratin g this elec tronic
77

sensing system in a specially instrumented experimental area near 

Missoula, Mont. It provides vital information needed for the evaluation of weather modification experiments.

Second, we believe that we have identified the special type of ligh tning discharge tha t is most apt to start forest fires. There is a wide 

variation in the kinds of cloud-to-ground discharges that occur from 

thunderstorms.

The discharge that we believe is most apt to ignite fires is a discharge tha t has a long continuing surge of current involved in it. 

In time scale it lasts considerably longer than a normal lightning 

discharge.

Third, we have developed special equipment and technology for 

the massive seeding of mountain thunderstorms. This equipment includes a highly efficient airborne generator using a ramjet principle 

tha t we are using in seeding experiments.

Fourth, we have performed over the past 5 years a pilot experiment 

in lightning suppression. The results from this experiment show onethird less cloud-to-ground lightning from seeded storms. We are most 

curious as a result of these experiments as to whether or not we are, 

in fact, also reducing the occurrence of the kind of discharges tha t 

start fires and this will be the target of concentrated work that we are 

planning for the period ahead.

We are now ready on the basis of this pilot experiment to conduct a 

larger scale experiment which is essential if we are going to get results 

from this field.

I would like to add one other thing with regard to our results from 

Project Skyfire. We believe tha t this is providing some of the scientific basis that has been badly needed for the planning of hail suppression experiments. The experience that we are getting with massive 

seeding aimed at lightning prevention is the same general approach 

tha t may be most useful in hail suppression.

Perha ps I could cite an example of this. With these high output 

generators that we are using on Project Skyfire we have recently found 

tha t we can get nearly total glaciation of supercooled clouds at temperatures as warm as —7° C. This is the first time to our knowledge 

tha t this has been found or reported.

We have penetrated these clouds with specially instrumented aircraft, sampling both seeded and unseeded clouds, to get these results. 

We believe th is provides part of the basis to now go ahead and plan 

similar massive type seeding aimed at hail suppression.

Mr. Broyhill. I would like to ask one more question, Mr. Chairman.

This bill, H.R. 9212, provides w hat we call open end appro priation 

authority. How much is the Department of Agriculture looking to re ­

ceive from this legislation for the next 3 fiscal years ?

Mr. B2\rrows. The Secretary of Agriculture has appointed a weather 

modification research task force to develop a long-range weather modification program for agricu lture and forestry and this task force is 

currently at work to develop the specific kind of figures th at you are 

requesting.

Our work is not yet completed. We expect to have these figures 

available within the next month to 6 weeks. I might mention tha t 

this task force consists of 18 members, including representatives from

87-9 36— 68------6
78

each o f the o ther dep artm en ts th at w ould have a hand in a cooperativ e 

prog ram inv olv ing ag ric ultu re and forestr y. We h ave rep res ent atives 

fro m the Dep artm en t of the In te rior , fro m ESS A, an d fro m the Natio na l Science F ou nd ation on our tas k force.

Now to res pond still fu rt her to y ou r question on fun ding , as you ma y 

recall, last ye ar the F ed eral Council fo r Science a nd Tec hno logy issued 

the so-called Newell re po rt which is IC A ’s Rep ort No. 10A. Th is repo rt contains reco mmended levels o f fu nd ing fo r a ll agencies fo r fiscal 

year 1970.

Agriculture agrees wi th th e reco mmended level of fu nd ing fo r the 

kind o f prog rams th at we are inter ested in as con tained i n th is r ep ort 

fo r th at ye ar.

Mr. Broy hill. W ha t are those figures ?

Mr. Barrows. F or the Dep artm en t of A gr iculture this recommends 

a pr og ram of $7 million in fiscal ye ar 1970.

Mr. Broyhill. And you are presen tly spe nd ing $180,000 ?

Mr. B arrows. This is corre ct.

Mr. Broy hill. Tha nk you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Va n D eerlin ? M r. Brotz ma n ?

Mr. Brotzman. T ha nk you , Mr. C hairm an.

Will the passage of H.R. 9212 and House J oin t Resolution 688 help 

you to accomplis h yo ur obje ctives in this pa rtic ul ar are a, or will it 

re ta rd you in y ou r opinion ?

Mr. Barrows. II.R . 9212 does not ad d to the Dep artm en t of Agr icultu re any au thor ity th at we don’t hav e at th e present tim e. House 

Jo in t Resolution 688 we re ga rd as an excellent piece of le gis lation th at 

will ce rta inly give empha sis to the worldwid e we ath er prog ram .

We th in k everyone will benefit fro m this increased effort thro ug h 

th e worldwid e we ath er prog ram an d we are very much in favo r o f it. 

I am s ure we will benefit fro m the r esults of the worldwide activities .

Mr. Brotzman. T o pursue y ou r answ er, will H.R. 9212 de tra ct from 

th e pow ers th at you have, or, as I asked the question before, re ta rd 

yo ur e ffort?

Mr. B arrows. We do n ot feel th at it will re ta rd our effort.

Mr. Brotzman. Tha t is a ll, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. Macdonald. Th e only question I have is, if you are spe nding 

$180,000 now and you are request ing $7 million , you know, th at is quite 

a ju mp a nd wha t would t hat money be used for ?

I am n ot one o f these so-called economy me n so I ask jus t f or my ow n 

inform ation .

Mr. Barrows. S ir, firs t of all when the se figures wer e developed in 

1966 it was assumed the n th at the level of fu nd ing in 1967 a nd 1968 

wou ld be mu ch larg er th an has actua lly occurre d, so we need to look 

at it from th at st an dp oint first.

How ever, loo king at how the fund will be used, these fund s first of 

all will be used to establ ish larg e-scale experim ents in both lig htning 

sup pre ssion and hai l sup pressio n. The scientific basis fo r such experimen ts h as been esta blished.

In stal ling thes e exp erime nts w ill be fa irly expensive because of the 

equip me nt th at will be req uir ed fo r good large-scale experim entation , 

also from th e stan dp oint of e xpenses of th e ai rc ra ft th at w ill be flown. 

Th ings of th is t yp e are fa irly exp ensive fo r this kind of exper imentatio n.
79

Mr. Macdonald. You want to get the aircra ft from the A ir Force, 

for a concrete example? The thing tha t bothers me, and I think it 

bothers most Congressmen, is the total fiefdom th at each Department 

sets up. They never seem to me to get very close together. It seems to 

me if they got closer together I would think expenses per se would go 

down.

Mr. Barrows. Perhaps, sir, I could give you an example of how two 

departm ents recently did get together, aiming at the very thing I think 

you a re questioning. The cloud penetration experiments that we made 

last year on Project Skyfire utilized an aircraft belonging to a private 

meteorological concern in California. This aircra ft had been specially 

instrumented under the auspices of the Department of the Inte rior 

program. This made it quite a unique airc raft. I t could do some of the 

things the Department of Interior was interested in as well as the 

Department of Agriculture.

Therefore, the two agencies cooperated on this matter. We made 

a contract with this private concern to make these cloud penetrations 

for us just as Inte rior would. We wouldn’t have been able to do this 

if the two agencies hadn 't been willing to pool their resources. I think 

there are numerous examples of this kind of cooperation.

The type of aircraft that we are using in our lightning suppression 

experiments are light aircra ft tha t do not belong to the Government. 

We contract for these aircraft.

However, one of our requirements is to upgrade the airc raft from 

the standpoint of safety. In the kinds of work we will need to do in 

large-scale experiments we are going to need much better and much 

safer aircraft.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Kornegay.

Mr. Kornegay. No questions.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much.

Mr. Barrows. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. The next witness is Mr. Thomas F. Malone, research 

department, Travelers Insurance Co., Hartford, Conn.

We welcome you here, Mr. Malone, and I would like to point out 

before you go into your statement, I know you work fo r the Hartfo rd 

Insurance Co.—of the insurance company in Ha rtford —but that you 

are Chairman of the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences and past president of the American 

Meteorological Society and of the American Geophysical Union, and 

therefore your background is obviously much more than tha t of a 

consultant to an insurance company.

Because this is a rather peculiar day for us—we reported out the educational TV bill and we have been asked to go to the White House for 

the signing of it and I think we are supposed to leave at 11. but that, 

of course, is not as important as hearing witnesses on this subject and 

I for one will stay if it takes th at long—I was wondering if you could 

submit your statement for the record and then summarize and answer 

questions from the committee as they might arise.
80

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. MALONE, VICE PRESIDENT, AND HEAD

OF RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COS.,

HARTFORD, CONN.

Mr. M ALONE. M r. C h ai rm an , I wou ld be ple ase d to d o t hat. I th in k I 

could s um marize it in a bo ut 5 mi nu tes .

Mr. Macdonald. W ithout ob jection th e w ri tt en statem en t of Mr. 

Malo ne will l>e i ns erted in t he record at th is po int.

(M r. M alon e’s pre par ed sta tem en t fo llo ws:)

Sta teme nt of T homa s F. Malo ne,

1

 Vice P resid ent, and Head of Researc h Depar tm en t, T he Travelers I ns ur an ce Cos., H artford, Con n.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this opportunity to appear before your committee and convey the enthusiasm of the scientific community in this country 

and in the world at large over the program of international cooperation in 

meteorology described in Joint Resolution 688 together with some remarks on 

the reasons—as I see them—for this enthusiasm. I am pleased, also, to comment on H.R. 9212. My remarks on this la tter hill will be ra ther brief inasmuch as I am 

submitting for the record a copy of an article which appeared over my name 

in Science magazine earlier this year, summarizing in considerable detail my 

views on the matter of weather modification.

With respect to the World Weather Watch and its closely associated Global 

Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), I am pleased to report tha t two and 

one-half years devoted to the development of a global atmospheric research program by the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the International Council of 

Scientific Unions culminated in an intensive Study Conference of two weeks 

duration in Stockholm, Sweden this past summer at which approximately fifty 

distinguished scientists from thirteen countries reached essentially unanimous 

agreement on—

(a) The basic scientific problems that require attention;

(b) The preparatory numerical experiments tha t seem most im portant;

(c) The observational requirements both for the preparatory studies and 

a global experiment;

(d) The feasibility of necessary observational systems in view of today’s 

technology and the expected developments over the next few years.

The deliberations of this Study Conference were summarized in a 325 page 

report which was considered in some detail at the 14th General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in Switzerland last month. 

The IUGG endorsed unanimously the GARP program as an appropriate and 

imaginative response to the United Nations Resolution and urged that “the 

nations of the world, acting singly and in concert, ICSU and its constituent 

bodies, adhering academies and research councils provide strong and sustained 

support for this important program.” This Resolution was received and acted 

upon unanimously by the Executive Committee of the International Council of 

Scientific Unions at its meeting in Rome on October 10. A joint committee with 

the World Meteorological Organization has been established to develop and to 

keep under review the global atmospheric research program including

Determination of scientific objectives and content of the general program —

and its sub-programs:

Design of observational and logistical systems; and 

Implementation of the program, including data acquisition and processing

analysis.

This joint committee will provide administrative direction and preclude wasteful duplication of effort. This prompt and enthusiastic response of IUGG and

1

 Dr. Malone Is Chairman of the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences of the National 

Academy of Sciences and Pa st President of the American Meteorological Society and of the American Geophysical Union. In addition, he has served as Secretary-General of the 

Committee on Atmospheric Sciences established by the Intern ational Council of Scientific 

Unions and the Int ernational Union of Geodesy and Geophysics to develop a global atmospheric research program in response to Resolution 1802 (XVII) of the United Nations. He 

has also served as Chairman of the Committee on Metereology for the Intern ational Cooperation Year. Dr. Malone was a member of the Special Commission on Weather Modification established by the National Science Foundation in 1963 to develop recommendations to NSF.
81

ICSU shou ld, I belie ve, l>e re ass uri ng to yo u as an in di ca tion of th e im po rtan ce 

and tim el in es s of th is pr og ra m in th e ey es of sc ie ntist s all ov er th e wo rld .

You ha ve he ar d from I)r. Rob ert M. W hi te co nc er ni ng th e ov er al l pl an s 

fo r th e W or ld W eath er W at ch an d GARP a t th e nat io nal level. I wou ld sim ply 

exte nd th a t disc us sion to in dic ate th a t th e N at io na l Ac adem y of Sc ien ce s has 

agre ed to es ta bl is h a U ni te d S ta te s Com mitt ee fo r GAR P und er th e c hai rm an sh ip 

o f Pro fe ss or Ju le G. Cha rn ey , of th e M as sa ch us et ts In sti tu te of Te ch no logy , to 

be co nc er ne d w ith—

Dev elop men t of th e scientifi c ob je ct iv es of GA RP , spec ifi ca tio n of th e 

ob se rv at io na l re qui re m en ts , in it ia l tech no lo gica l fe as ib ility evalu ations fo r 

ea ch p ro je c t; and to

Pro vi de appro pri ate ad vice an d revi ew co nc er ni ng th e det ai le d pro je ct 

de sig n, opera ti onal logi stic plan ni ng , and field wo rk.

I t has been my pr iv ileg e to di sc us s th is pro gra m w ith th e Boa rd of T ru st ee s 

of th e U ni ver si ty C or po ra tion fo r Atm os ph er ic R es ea rc h an d w ith th e Co un cil 

of th e Am er ic an Meteo rologica l So cie ty duri ng th e p ast mon th. In bo th in st an ce s, 

th e re ac tion w as po sitive an d en th usi as tic.

I re ci te t he se d ev elop men ts o f th e p as t few m on th s as a n in di ca tion o f th e w idesp re ad su pport am on g sc ie nti st s of th is countr y as well as sc ie ntist s fr om ot her 

countr ie s fo r th e pro gr am de sc ribe d in Jo in t R es ol ut io n 688. P erh aps som e 

th oughts on th e re as ons fo r th is su ppo rt m ay be of in te re st to you r co mmittee . 

Bas ic al ly , in my view, th ere are th r e e :

In tr in sic scientifi c in te re st an d tim el in es s of t he pr og ra m a re s ug ge sted by 

th e follo wing th re e dev el opm en ts :

The or ie s on phy si ca l proc es se s go ve rn in g at m os ph er ic mot ion ha ve 

ad va nc ed to t he s ta te a t which m od er at el y re ali st ic m at hem at ic al mo dels 

ca n be c on st ru ct ed to si m ula te a vari ety of at m os ph er ic sy stem s ra ngin g 

in sc ale from in div id ual clo ud s to th e g loba l win d syste ms. Alth ou gh st ill 

in a re la tivel y ru dim enta ry stag e, th es e mod els const itute a poin t of dep a rt u re fo r re pl ac in g em pi ricism w ith ph ys ic al ly m ea ni ng fu l w eat her 

pr ed ic tion tech ni qu es .

O ur ability to m ea su re q uanti ta ti vely th e v ari able s th a t det er m in e th e 

st ate of th e at m osp he re has in cr ea se d ra pid ly in re ce nt de cade s. Rad ioscon des, meteo ro lo gica l ra d ar, an d a host of bo th dir ec t and in dir ect 

se ns in g metho ds ha ve be en au gm en te d in dra m ati c fa sh io n by th e de ­

ve lopm en t of th e meteo rologica l sa te ll it e which , fo r th e first tim e, offers 

pr om ise of bri ngin g th e glob al at m osp her e under ob se rv at io nal su rv ei lla nc e in a re al -t im e d ata syste m.

The ad ven t of high -spe ed el ec tron ic co m pu te rs which h as has te ned 

th e pr om ise of be ing ab le to in te g ra te th e n on line ar , part ia l, dif fe re nt ia l 

eq ua tion s go ve rn in g at m os ph er ic mot io ns by num er ic al metho ds . Compute rs , in tu rn , pr ov id ed a po w er fu l ne w tool fo r th e gr ow ing num ber o f 

in vest ig ato rs se ek in g to unders ta nd at m os ph er ic proc es ses by m ea ns of 

an aly si s of th e re le vant m at hem ati cal eq uat io ns and an xi ou s to per fe ct 

th e pow er o f th es e metho ds in nu m er ic al w eath er pr ed ictio n.

The pra cti cal be ne fit s th a t ca n re as on ab ly be anti cip ate d fro m th es e pro spe cts th a t larg e- sc al e fe atu re s of th e at m osp he ri c ci rc ula tion ca n be pre ­

di ct ed quanti ta ti vely fo r pe riod s up to tw o wee ks or mo re. W hi le th is pro spe ctive cap ab ility w ill not pr ov id e th e “u lt im ate ” so lu tio n to th e w ea th er 

fo re ca st prob lem, it is cle ar th a t th e ad vanta ges to agri cu lt ure , comm erc e, 

tr ansp ort ati on, and in d u str y a re pote ntial ly ve ry larg e.

The co m m on ality of in te re st am on g a ll nati ons is pr ec isely th e ki nd of 

ba se up on which su cc es sful in te rn ati o n al co op er at ion has been buil t in th e 

p ast an d, ho pe fu lly , will const it ute a sm al l but sign ifi ca nt br ic k in th e in ­

st it uti onal edific e whi ch one da y will hel p to co nta in wor ld co nflic t w ithin a 

fr am ew or k of l aw an d or de r.

No w a few w or ds co nc er ni ng H.R. 9212 hav in g to do w ith a co mpr eh en sive 

pro gra m in th e field of w eath er mod ifi ca tio n. Sinc e you r co mm itt ee h as alr ea dy 

heard testim on y on th is b ill an d sin ce my view s hav e be en se t fo rt h in ex te ns iv e 

fo rm in th e re p ri n t th a t I am su bm itting to you. I w ill re str ic t my co mm en ts to 

tw o as pe ct s an d th en be pre par ed to answ er qu es tion s, if th a t is yo ur pl ea su re .

My fi rs t co mmen t has to do w ith th e appro pri ate ness of le gi sl at iv e ac tion on 

th is m att er a t th is tim e. F our de ve lopm en ts have m ad e th is le gi sl at io n tim ely : 

Rec og nitio n th a t th e prob lem of w eath er mod ifi ca tio n is pas si ng fr om an 

e ra of in te llec tu al ly un di sc ip line d sp ec ula tion an d mor e or less opport unis ti c
82

field experimentation into an era of rational, organized inquiry in which a 

set of meaningful scientific questions can be explored analytically and by 

means of coordinated and carefully designed field experimentation.

Increasing but still somewhat ambiguous statistica l evidence that precipitation from some types of clouds and storm systems can be modestly 

increased or redistributed by seeding techniques.

Recognition that the implications and issues involved in weather modification transcend the boundaries of the physical sciences and embrace important questions in the social and the life sciences, in international relations, in law and governmental regulation, and in the decision-making 

structure of the federal government by which it legislates, appropriates, 

manages, and coordinates national programs tha t cut across scientific 

disciplines and departmental missions.

Recognition of a deeper appreciation of the international implications of 

any success in weather modification as exemplified by these words of a panel 

of the National Academy of Sciences:

“It is clear that a long-range program of weather control and climate 

modification can have a direct bearing upon relations between nations. It 

can aid the economic and social advancement of the less-developed countries, 

many of which face problems associated with hostile climates and serious 

imbalances in soil and water resources. And, quite importantly, it can serve 

to develop common interests among all nations and thus be a stimulus for 

new patterns of international cooperation.”

Mr. Malone. I could speak first, sir, for about 2 minutes on House 

Joi nt Resolution 688, and 1 think perhaps the most important thing I 

could do would be simply to convey to you the widespread interest 

within the scientific community of the United States and in other 

nations over this international cooperative program.

Two and a half years ago the Internatio nal Council of Scientific 

Unions established a committee to look at this. The activities of th at 

Committee culminated in a 2-week intensive study conference in 

Stockholm this year out of which emerged a 300-page repo rt setting 

forth the character of the program; what it should do.

This report was reviewed by the scientists and geophysicists and 

meteorologists assembled in Switzerland at a general assembly. They 

passed this unanimously to the Executive Committee of the Inter ­

national Council, which is established, together with the World 

Meteorological Organization; that is, the intergovernmental apparatus, a joint committee.

Wh at I really want to convey to you is the remarkable unanimity 

among all these peoples tha t this program is timely and worthwhile 

doing.

Scientifically it promises useful benefits from improved and extended forecasts and as an act of international cooperation it is useful 

in establishing a commonality of purpose among the nations of the 

world.

I think this is why it has such widespread support. Within the 

United States it has been my privilege to ta lk to the board of trustees 

of the University Corp, for Atmospheric Research which operates the 

laboratory out in Colorado. I t is a consort of about 15 or 20 universities. Their response was very warming and positive.

I discussed this with the Council of the American Meterological Society, again a very enthusiastic resnonse Within the National Academy a special committee to look after this program over the next 10 

years is now in the process of being established and it is attra cting 

some of the very best minds in our field.
83

So on both the in tern ationa l an d the na tio nal scene I wa nt you to 

know th at I am imp ressed by wh at to me as one who has worke d in 

thes e societies is trul y a rem arka ble deg ree of unanimity.

Now if I m ig ht t urn to the we ath er modification program , I would 

make two com men ts on this. Fir st , I think it is ap pr op riate; and 

second, I th in k the leg islation before yo u is responsive to the th inki ng 

of b oth t he scientists an d the Na tio nal Science Fo un da tio n’s Comm ission which look ed into this.

I had th e p riv ile ge of si ttin g on the Co mmission. W ith r eg ard to the 

timeliness, I wou ld emphasize , Mr. Ch airm an , this po int above all 

othe rs: That ra th er th an a dr am atic tu rn in g point , som eth ing very 

sub tle has tak en place in we ath er mo dification wi thin the past few 

years, and it is th is : T hat the whole eff ort has passed from a sort of 

intellectua lly undis cip lin ed era of specula tion and more or less oppo rtu nisti c field exper iment s—by th at I mea n con jecture abo ut wh at 

happens if you m elt th e iceca p, go ing out an d seeding h op efu lly above 

ran chers ’ land wi th expecta tio n there will be an increase—i t has 

passed fro m th at into a perio d when you can ana lyz e this prob lem.

You can design me aning ful field ex pe rim en tat ion a nd it is really now 

beco ming a ratio na l field of inq uiry. Al on g with th at it is going to 

expan d. T hat is why I t hi nk t he leg islative pro vision s here are useful. 

That is why t hi s is a good bill at this time.

Other dev elopments attestin g to the tim elines s is the encoura gin g 

evidence th at ra in fa ll can be inc rea sed; the rec ogn ition th at the 

problem goes bey ond just a physical science problem, because it embrac es questio ns in the life sciences, law , governm ent regulat ion , and 

so on; and again the in tern ationa l im plications.

We know th at if you can do som eth ing me aning ful in the atmosphere in one po rti on of the e arth it is very likely to affect it somewhere else. I t is r at her im po rta nt th at we get our l ink s establis hed now 

before we are confronted w ith a pro blem which ha s g ott en out o f h and .

A for midable scientific problem has yet to be solved, but when th at 

is solved— an d I believe it will be solved —a fa r more difficult problem 

in political science wil l emerge.

Mr. C hairm an, those are m y pr inicpa l thou gh ts and pe rhaps it could 

be most he lpful i f I tried to re spo nd to questions.

Mr. Macdonald. I hav e one whi ch I have ask ed othe r peop le, but I 

th in k you are uniqu ely equ ipped to answer it an d th at goes to the 

lia bility if th is bill is adopted and the see din g of clou ds does occu r 

and one St ate was about to ge t some ra in a nd the far mers there would 

pro spe r.

I f th is were to be diverte d by m ech ani cal means who would be liable ? 

I ask you this no t ju st as a scientist, bu t as a rep res entat ive of an 

insura nce comp any.

Mr. Malone. Thi s is one of th e p erplex ing problem s t ha t you cannot, 

I do n’t believe, sta te a pr iori who is resp onsible. Th is will eventua lly 

be settled by a series o f cou rt decisions, b ut we must not wait fo r th is 

to be t hro wn in the courts and rig ht now t here is consider able activ ity 

going on analy zin g the leg islative an d indemn ity aspects of this.

So uthern Meth odist U nive rsi ty is ho lding a sym posium on December 7 and 8 at which they ar e ga ther ing l awyer s, scientists, some in su rance people—2 day s to look at precisely the pro blems th at you are
84

identifying. There are as yet no answers, hut you have put your finger 

on a very crucial aspect of this, one which is ju st as difficult as the 

scientific problem.

Mr. Macdonald. My last question. Isn't it asking the Congress to 

do quite a good deal to go into a field in which there are no answers 

and put the long finger of the Federal Government into an area in 

which the legal aspects have not been decided or at least even legal 

opinions haven’t been reached.

It would seem to me th at the original cost as outlined in the bill 

would be important, of course, but the aftereffects of the liability, to 

use an insurance term, might be fantastic, and isn't it asking a good 

deal of the Congress to go ahead with a program like this before there 

are any answers in the field?

Mr. Malone. Mr. Chairman, I think there are two m itigating circumstances here. One is that the Congress will have the o pportunity to 

amend and revise this legislation as we walk down this road.

Second, it is my observation that here is one area in particula r where 

a strong case can be made for Federal regulation as contrasted with 

State regulation. We have already seen instances where States erect 

barriers to activities within a State and between States.

In Connecticut, for example, we have a State weather control commission and we have taken a position that we would prefer to see this 

handled at the Federal level because the atmosphere does not recognize 

any State boundaries.

I am afraid I haven't answered vour question.

Mr. Macdonald. If you have, T haven't quite understood it, sir, but 

I won't pursue it because I know it is a difficult one.

However, it just also offers difficulties to us who have to pass on 

this type of legislation to go ahead into a field that is really as uncharted as the Atlantic Ocean was when Columbus took off.

Mr. Malone. You may be aware that a couple of years ago there 

was rath er bad summer weather in the Province of Quebec in Canada 

and there were 80,000 signatures affixed to a petition requesting the 

Government authorities in Canada to do something about the people 

down in New York State who were seeding the clouds and allegedly 

causing the bad weather over the bay.

This, you see, is a problem that perhaps only can be handled bv the 

national governments and not by the Province of Quebec and the State 

of New York. I would encourage you to go into this even though the 

waters are uncharted.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kornegav ?

Mr. Korneoay. Thank you. You put your finger on one thought 

which occurred to me: th at is, it is not only national, but international, 

because weather conditions, of course, do not respect States lines nor 

national boundaries.

T have no further questions to ask.

Mr. Malone. May I respond, sir, that I did leave with your committee for the record, a re print of an article that I published in Science 

magazine a few months ago and much of that article is addressed to 

precisely this question of international implications.

I did not co into detail because of the time, but if the topic intrigues 

you, you will find at least my think ing laid out in that article.
85

(The article referred to follows:)

[Reprinted from Science, May 19, 1967]

Weather Modification : I mplications of th e New Horizons in Research

Tho m as F . M alo ne 1

F or tens of m ill ions of year s th e de ve lopm en t of man an d his an cest ra l sto ck 

has been p ro fo un dl y influ en ce d by th e natu re of hi s ph ys ic al en vi ro nm en t. As th e 

spec ies evolved, m ul tipl ie d, sp re ad ov er th e fa ce of th e ea rt h, an d ac hiev ed 

m as te ry of m att er an d en ergy , man be ga n to tr ansf orm th e en viron m en t in 

which he w as fo rm ed an d in which he ha d le ar ne d to fu nc tion . Som e tr an sf o rm ation s are d eli bera te ; ot he rs , in ad ver te nt . Some are deem ed to be go od ; ot he rs , 

un de sira bl e. My pre se nt co nc ern is w ith one spec ial way in which ubi qu itou s ma n 

is ti nker in g w ith one as pec t of his ph ys ic al en vir onm en t: w ith art ific ia lly pr odu ced ch an ge s— deliber at e or in ad ve rt en t, tr an si en t or per m an en t— in th e c omposition an d be ha vi or o f t he atm os ph er e.

I t is no t alt ogeth er in appro pri ate th a t we tu rn to th is topi c at th is tim e. Th e 

p ast year has been an ev en tful one in th e long —a nd not al w ay s ha pp y— his to ry 

of w eat her mod ifi ca tio n, but no t be ca us e of gre at scientifi c or tech no logic bre akth ro ughs; if an y w er e ac hiev ed , th ey ha ve , I am so rr y to say, pa ss ed re la tive ly 

un no tice d as ye t. Tru e, it is th e 20 th an niv ers ary of Sch ae fe r’s pa th -b re ak in g 

de m on st ra tion th a t su pe r-co oled w ate r clou ds co uld be tr an sf orm ed in to ice 

cr ys ta ls , w ith some yie ld of pre ci pitat io n (7 ). 2

 By contr as t, th e chara cte ri st ic s 

th a t mad e 1966 ev en tful wer e cu m ul at iv e an d su btle ra th e r th an di sc on tinu ou s 

an d d ra m a ti c ; th ey w ere ne ve rthe le ss p ro fo un d an d por te nt ou s.

F our de ve lopm en ts a re w orthy of sp ec ial m en ti o n : F ir st , th er e w as ge ne ra l 

ag re em en t (2 ) th a t th e prob lem of w eath er mod ifi ca tio n w as pa ss in g fr om an 

era of in te llec tu al ly un di sc ip line d sp ec ul at io n an d m or e or les s op po rtun istic 

field ex pe rim en ta tion in to an era of ra ti onal, or ga ni ze d in qu iry in which a se t of 

mea ni ng fu l sc ientifi c que stio ns co uld be ex pl or ed an al yti call y an d by mea ns of 

co or di na te d an d ca re fu lly de sig ne d field ex pe rim en ta tion . The im po rtan ce of 

th is tr an sf orm ati on, an d of th e fa ct th a t it has been iden tif ied even as it is 

un de rw ay , ca nn ot be ove rs ta te d. I am co nfiden t th a t it s sig nific an ce will be eve n 

mor e a p pare nt 100 y ea rs fr om n ow t han i t is to da y.

Sec ond , th ere w as cl ar ific at io n of th e effic acy of clo ud -see ding in te nd ed to 

au gm en t n atu ra l ra in o r snow . Alth ou gh c ou ch ed in th e ty pi ca lly— an d pro pe rl y— 

ca ut io us an d car ef ully ch os en wor ds of th e pan el of th e N at io na l Aca de my of 

Scien ces, “T her e is in cr ea si ng but st ill so m ew ha t am bigu ou s st ati st ic al ev iden ce 

th a t pr ec ip itat io n fr om some ty pe s of clo ud s an d st or m sy stem s ca n be mod es tly 

in cr ea se d or re dis tr ib ute d by se ed ing te ch ni qu es ,” th is conc lusio n has cl ea rly 

ad de d new di m en sion s of pra ct ic al in te re st to a prob lem th a t was be ginn in g to 

a tt ra c t co ns id er ab ly in te llec tu al in te re st . Kee nly aw are of th e sign ifica nc e of its 

fin din gs, th e pa ne l w en t on to s ay , “The im pl ic at io ns are man ifo ld an d of im med iate nat io nal co nc er n. ” T hus th e pre lim in ar y fin ding s of th e Adv iso ry Com mitt ee 

on W ea th er Con trol (3 ) of nea rly a de ca de ag o ha ve been vi nd ic at ed , an d th e 

co nt ro ve rs y in which no on e ca n ta ke a g re at de al of pr id e m ay now be re pl ac ed 

by th e po sitiv e step s th a t ha ve bee n prop os ed to redu ce fu rt h er th e re m ai ni ng 

am bi gu ity .

Thi rd , th ere w as fo rt h ri g h t reco gn itio n th a t th e im pl ic at io ns an d is su es in ­

vo lved in w eath er mod ifi ca tio n tr an sc en d th e bou nda ri es of th e ph ys ic al scienc es 

and em br ac e im port ant qu es tion s in th e so cial an d th e life scien ces, in in te rnati onal re la tion s, in la w an d go ve rn m en ta l re gu la tion , an d in th e de cision ­

m ak in g str u ctu re of th e fe der al go ve rn m en t by which it le gi slat es , appro pri at es , 

man ag es , an d co ord in at es nati onal pro gra m s th a t cut ac ro ss scientifi c dis ci pl in es 

and d ep art m enta l miss ions . The se c on si de ra tion s w er e tr eate d in som e deta il by a 

Sp ec ial Co mm iss ion of th e N at io na l Scien ce Founda tion (} ), w hi ch cl ea rly 

st re ss ed th e u rg ent need fo r de ta iled an al yse s of th e co nseq ue nc es be fo re we are 

co nf ro nt ed w ith th e ta sk of cop ing w ith them .

1

 The auth or Is vice president and director of research of the Travelers Insurance Com­ pany, 1 Tower Square, Hartfo rd, Con necticu t: and chairman of the Committee on Atmos­ pheric Sciences, Natio nal Academy of Sciences. The article is adapted from an address to 

th e AAAS, Washington, D.C., 28 December 1966.

a

 Ita lic numerals In parentheses denote references to bibliography at end of artic le.
86

Fourth, there was the unan imit y among the scientific community, the executive branch of the government, and the Congress tha t a dra stic ally increased 

research effort (fivefold growth by 1970) in weather modification is required. 

The speed with which the 89th Congress moved on hearin gs, studie s, and legislation (5) leaves l ittl e doubt but t hat the 90th Congress will take definitive action.

Deep issues of science and public policy are involved and it is timely that 

the dialogu e be widened. I welcome this opportunity to widen i t ; it was the 

A AAS Committee on Sci ence in the Promo tion of Hum an Welfar e tha t remarked 

less th an 6 years ag o (6‘) :

“ For nearly two decades scientists have viewed with growing concern the 

troublesome events that have been evoked by the interaction between scientific 

progress and public affairs. Wit h each increment of power, the problem of directing its use toward beneficial ends becomes more complex, the consequences of 

fai lur e more disastr ous, and the time for decisions more brief. The problem is 

not new either in the history of human affairs or of science. Wh at is withou t 

para llel is its urgency.”

I am quite persuaded tha t these thou ghtful words apply today with particu lar 

force to the scientific exploration of weathe r modification. The potential increment in master y over natu re, the ever-present hazar d tha t this power may 

be used as a tool of conflict rathe r than for the benefit of mankind, and the 

responsibility to preclude inadve rtent initiation of massive irreve rsible processes 

tha t are not in the interests of human life confront our civi liza tion with a complex set of decisions tha t will be taken— consciously or unconsciously—during 

the nex t few decades. Whet her the “time for decision” is adequat e or inadequate 

may be debated. Th at debate, I submit, is irr elevan t; the point is that time 

remain s fo r reflective thoug ht, for settin g o bjective s, and for weigh ing alter nativ e 

courses o f action— in short, f or actin g responsibly.

Wi th tha t thought as a i»oint of departure, let us : (i) examine the scientific 

problem and the developments that are curre ntly tran sform ing it, (ii) briefly 

summarize the state of the art, (iii) review the issues, and (iv) close with 

some o f the implica tions that tran scend science.

With respect to the scientific problem, we may thin k of the atmosphere as a 

complex phys ical system in which movement of air, changes in temperature, and 

tran sform ation of water among the liqui d, solid, and gaseous phases are all of 

considerable prac tical interes t, all taking place in response to certa in forces or 

throu gh par ticu lar processes. Although the atmosphere is fa r from being a tidy 

litt le determ inistic system, in principle (by alte ring the forces or inte rferi ng 

with the processes) we can influence the motion of air, changes in temperature, 

and the phase trans form ation s of water. In this sense, the matte r of weather 

modifica tion is a mean ingfu l scie ntific problem.

It is, however, a complicated problem. The eart h’s atmosphere may be viewed 

as an envelope rotating with the earth as well as relative to it. The relative 

motion arises because of the forces associa ted with the rotation of the earth, 

and force s associated with the sources and sinks of energy tha t are varia ble in 

number, location, and strength. These sources and sinks of energy depend on the 

distribution o f shortwave solar radiatio n, the flux of outgoing long wave radiat ion, 

the late nt heat involved in the chang e in phase of water, the tra nsfer of sensible 

heat between the atmosphere and the underlying surfac e, and final ly the air 

motion itse lf. The kinet ic energy of air motion exist s in an array of scale sizes 

tha t extend from planetary wave systems down to monecular movement. There is 

continuo us excha nge of kinetic energy from one scale to another , and the kinetic 

energy is conti nually being exchanged with other forms of energy in the 

atmosphere.

The quan tities of energy involved in weathe r systems and processes occurring 

nat ura lly in the atmosphere exceed subs tant ially the quantities of energy under 

the control of man. For example, the energy required for increase of the rai nfa ll 

by 0.1 inch (2.5 millim eters) over an area 100 miles (160 kilometers) square 

is equivalent to the sum of the total output of elect rical energy in the Tinte d 

Stat es for about 6 days. Thus, even though it is clear tha t the scientific problem 

of weather modification is solvable in principle, the outlook would be pessimistic 

within the foreseeable futu re were it not for two charact eris tics of the atmosphere: (i) an intr insic tendency toward certa in ins tab ilities ; and (ii) the key 

role of the processes at the inte rface between the atmosphere and the underlying 

surface in determining the energy inputs into the atmosphere.

The attri bute of instability is read ily apparent, from everyd ay experience, in 

the tendency for the amplitude of atmosphe ric disturbances to increase with
87

time. For example, a small puffy-type cloud may grow to a towering thunderstorm in a matter of hours ; a gentle zephyr in tropical latitu des may develop 

into a “ killer” hurricane in a matte r of da ys; and a small low-pressure center 

may grow to a v igorous extratr opical cyclone within a single day.

We are jus t beginning to understand: (i) the instabili ty of supercooled water 

droplets which, when released, provide a local source of sensible energy; (ii) 

the convective instability of a risin g curre nt of air within which water vapor 

is condensing into liquid, thus affect ing the vertica l distributon of sensble energy ; 

and (iii) the so-called baroc linic instability of the large-sc ale, planetary atmospheric waves, whic h when released can profou ndly alter the nature of the great 

globa l system o f winds.

Shou ld it turn out tha t the upward progression of energy through the size 

spectrum of inst abil ities tha t I cite is a process of considerable significance, an 

avenue may be opened up by which great effects may be produced from relat ively 

modest but highly selective human intervent ions. We could, then, break the eggs 

rath er than slay the drago ns! Sim ilar ly, the sensitiv ity of the atmosphere to 

the interplay of the varia bles tha t determine the flux of energy, between the 

atmosphere and the underlying land or water, is beginning to yield to numerical 

anal yses and field measurement. The influence of chan ging surface parameters 

such as roughness, reflecting power, and tra nsfer of wate r across the inte rface is 

becoming known, and the posib ilitie s tha t the effects range beyond a local area 

are being explored.

Some support for the line of reasoning tha t link s small causes with large 

effects is found in the result s of an exam ination of fluctu ation s in the clima te 

tha t have been eithe r observed or reconstruc ted from hist oric al or geologic 

evidence. There is reason to believe that these fluctuations—some o f which would 

be disastrous to modern civi liza tion —may have been caused by the trigg ering 

of instabili ties by natu ral processes, throug h which a given clim atic regime was 

transfo rmed into a r adi cally different one.

There in barest outline is the nature of the scientific problem and the general 

direction in which it is likel y to proceed. The new horizons of research that are 

suggested by the title of this arti cle arise from fou r scientific and technologic al 

develo pments:

(1) Understanding of the phys ical processes occurring in the atmosphere has 

now progressed to the point at which they can be expressed in equations tha t 

constitute math ematical models. These models permit simulation of natura l processes or—of partic ula r relevan ce to our topic—assessment of the consequences 

of human intervention in these natura l processes. Alth ough crude and oversim plified relative to the processes they are intended to simu late, useful models have 

been construc ted of atmospheric phenomena tha t range in size from a single cloud 

to circu latio n of air over an entire hemisphere. There is almost unlim ited potentia l f or extension and refinement.

(2) Development of the modern high-speed computer (which was encouraged 

ini tia lly by the comp utational needs of meteorological models) has proceeded 

simultaneously with the growth in sophistication of these atmospheric models, 

and brings within the realm of reality experimentation by simulation tha t has 

hitherto been only a gleam in the eye of the meteorologist. Some of the more difficult problems of nonlinear inst ability will soon be with in reach as the speed 

and capac ity of computers both increase.

(3) The third development concerns the expan ding capa bilit ies of mak ing the 

observations and measurements tha t specify the initial and final atmospheric 

conditions tha t must be reconciled by the computerized atmospheric models if 

they are to be mean ingfu l. These emergin g capa bilit ies range from the use of 

meteorologic sate llites on a global scale to intr icate measurements of the releva nt 

phys ical char acte ristics of a single clou d.

(4) There have been significant advanc es in the refinement and the power of 

modern sta tist ical procedures for resolvi ng questions of cause-and-effect relation, 

in field experim entation, by establis hing approp riate “design criter ia” for both research and operational project s. The interaction between individu als skill ed in 

these procedures and experim ental meteorologists is real ly only getting u nderw ay, 

but it already promises important contributions to the reduction of amb iguity in 

the interpr etation of weath er-modification activitie s.

Taken together, these four advances set the stage for the ratio nal inqu iry into 

weather m odificati on to w hich I have referred. Quite clea rly, within the next decade or so it w ill become possible to explore, throug h simulation techniques, an al-
88

most unlimited ar ray of deliberate interventions in natu ral atmospheric processes, 

and to assess possibilities and limitations. These studies will inevitably lead to 

specific requirements for meteorological measurements that will deepen our 

understanding of natur al processes. As an example, mathematical models of the 

atmosphere have already been used in a preliminary way to assess the consequences of the inadve rtent intervention associated with the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Models may yet be used to define the tolerable limits to 

this large-scale geophysical experiment that mankind is und ertaking; or, alternatively, to determine desirable countervailing measures.

As I have already indicated, these scientific considerations take on new dimensions when viewed in the context of the present state of the art. At the risk 

of oversimplification, this state may be summarized in the following w ay :

(1) Field results have demonstrated unequivocally that several cubic kilomete rs of clouds, consisting of supercooled wa ter droplets, can be transforme d 

into ice-crystal clouds by seeding with appropriate chemicals.

(2) Supercooled ground fog can be cleared from large are as by the same 

techniques.

(3) Persuasive although not conclusive evidence suggests that rainfa ll can 

be increased by from 5 to 20 percent (say 10 percen t), depending upon the 

conditions.

(4) There a re indications that Soviet scientists have succeeded in suppressing 

hail by introducing silver iodide directly into susceptible parts of hail-producing 

clouds.

(5) Physically reasonable approaches to the suppression of lightning have been 

trie d with mixed but, on balance, promising results.

(6) Cloud-seeding techniques th at are of sufficient merit to wa rra nt field e xperim entation have been advanced for the modification of hurricanes, but the 

limited tests have not yet yielded even preliminary conclusions.

(7) No technique for influencing large-scale weathe r patterns in a delibera te 

and predictable manner yet exists.

(8) With respect to inadvertent w eather modification, calculations suggest t ha t 

the 10- to 15-percent increase since 1900 in the minute amount of carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere has caused surface tem peratures to rise 0.2°C, while tempera ­

tures in the stratosp here may have decreased ten times as much. Air pollution— 

par ticu larly the ejection of submicroscopic particles of lead from automobile 

exhaust—may have already extended its influence beyond the urban domain (7). 

Contamination of the upper atmosphere by rocket exhaust may become a problem 

of practical importance sooner than we realize. Finally, agricultural cultivation 

and urbranization are transforming the nature of the surface underlying the 

atmosphere, w ith possibly im portant consequences t ha t we hope soon to be able to 

assess.

Against this brief background of scientific problem and opportunity, and practical accomplishment as well as fru stration, it is appro priate to review the issues 

now confronting us. To my mind there are two major ones. I stre ss the fact th at 

each is a very live issue today because the crucial legislative decisions th at commit us to a p art icu lar course of action have not yet been made.

The first issue is our domestic program—its character, its size, its rat e of 

growth, and its management. Since the cha rac ter of the domestic program is 

singly the most important p art of this issue, let us examine it. the c harac ter of the 

program should be responsive to the elements involved in the solution of the problem, which include, first, basic research of the kind we designate "little” science: 

fundamental studies in (i) the physical sciences, engineering, and statistical design theory—nucleation, the physics of precipitation, energy-exchange processes, 

instability in the atmosphere, sensors and sensing systems, and decision-making in 

the face of uncertaint y; (ii) the life sciences—the ecologic effects of transi ent or 

permanent modification of the physical environment of nat ura l biologic communities ; biologists warn us that the biologic outcome of modification of the weathe r is apt to be a “mixed bag” of good and bad effects on man’s artificial ecosystems; and (iii) the social sciences—the human effects, including the impact 

of weather on the individual and on human activ ity, the “r igh t” of the individual 

to the weather provided by nature, the gains and losses to different sectors of 

society that would follow in the wake of atmospheric alterations, assessment of 

benefits in relation to costs, the likelihood of conflict, and the institution s tha t 

may have to be created or transformed to resolve those conflicts.

Second, the elements include applied research of a kind having a specific aim— 

in which the mission is to develop capa bility of modifying the weather. This
89

element has all the attributes of “big” science: giant computers simulating atmospheric processes, simulating biologic adaptation to variable ecosystems, and 

simulating economic input-output models—instrumentation laboratories; extensive field measurement programs and experimental research. This element would 

close the most conspicuous gap in our present national effort and would give the 

effort of coherence by complementing the c urrent fragmentation tha t has certain 

positive attributes.

The third element would be operational application of proven techniques as 

soon as their efficacy and desirability are established.

The fourth and final element is the regulation tha t may be required to protect 

the interests of the public, and the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of 

the private sector, as well as to prevent the contamination of field-research 

p vo j oct s

The Weather Modification Act of 1966, passed by the United States Senate last 

October, goes a surprisingly long way toward development of a domestic program compatible with the elements we have jus t discussed. Since there was no 

concurrent action by the House, the entire matter must he reopened for discussion 

during 1967 if definitive action is to result.

The second issue is concerned with the manner in which our domestic program 

interacts with the vigorous national programs in other countries. Basic to this 

issue is the knowledge tha t the atmosphere is a single, indivisible, physical system : a large-scale disturbance over one pa rt of the world is reflected in different 

disturbances over other parts.

Resolution of this issue demands perception and awareness tha t we are no 

longer in the 19th century but moving rapidly toward a 21st century in which 

science and technology will have so transformed society that it will be scarcely 

recognizable, with science and technology creating new imperatives for foreign 

policy. Even now the demands on imaginative innovation are so great tha t they 

are equaled only by the concomitant opportunities. The international issue demands that we forthrightly recognize the atmosphere, and the benefits it brings, 

as a resource shared by all nations; recognize tha t the terrors it holds and the 

suffering it can cause are adversaries that nations can overcome only through 

a partnership of effort. If one day we may be able to div ert the rivers of rain that 

course through the skies, let that diversion be for the common good and not for 

narrow national aggrandizement. The Academy panel stated the case succinctly 

in these w ord s:

“It is clear th at a long-range program of weather control and climate modification can have a direct bearing upon relations between nations. It can aid the 

economic and social advancement of the less-developed countries, many of which 

face problems associated wth hostile climates and serious imbalances in soil and 

water resources. And, quite importantly, it can serve to develop common interests among all nations and thus be a stimulus for new patterns of international 

cooperation.”

The NSF commission presented the opportunity in th is wa y:

“Rarely has a more inviting opportunity been offered for advanced thinking and 

planning regarding the impact of a technological development upon international 

relations.”

The bill passed by the Senate in 1966 included a policy declaration supporting 

international cooperation and “peaceful and beneficial applications of weather 

modification.”

Now is the time to carry out this policy declaration—while weather modification is still a research problem and before there are dramatic demonstrations of 

capability of large-scale modification. Now is the time to take th at “long sequence of small, correct decisions” th at John von Neumann told us a decade ago 

would be superior to a “novel cure-all” as a method of resolving the problems 

attendant on a development tha t would “merge each nation’s affairs with those 

of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of nuclear war or any other war 

may have done” (8).

The description of plans for the World Weather Watch, discussed a t the 1966 

meeting of the AAAS, set forth—I hope—one such “small, correct decision.” The 

warm response from our colleagues in other countries stimulates us to rise to the 

challenge offered by the occasion.

The actions taken by Maryland, in making any form of weather modification 

a crime, and Pennsylvania, in giving each county the option to outlaw weather 

modification (9), are unmistakable signs of political complication sent out by
90

an “ea rly warni ng ” system to tho se who would no te them . The public concern 

and indig na tio n in Ca nad a (m an ife ste d by 60,000 sign atur es on a petiti on re ­

quest ing governm ental interv en tio n) , over th e possible rela tio n between abn orm al 

wea ther in th e Pro vin ce of Quebe c an d alleged rain- ma kin g ac tiv iti es in the 

Pro vince of Ontario and in New York State , conta in a mild hi nt of the in te rn atio na l com plicat ion s t hat could ar is e (70 ).

In closing l et me selec t, fro m am ong th e ma ny impli catio ns of these new ho rizons of rese arch in wea ther mod ifica tion, th re e th at seem to me to have special 

sig nific ance:

(1) Th ere is the suggestion , impli cit in wha t I have said, th at th e un de rta king 

now ju st ge tti ng st ar te d is at such an ea rly sta ge th at it ma y well be carefully 

documente d as it proceeds and be trea te d as a case stu dy by sch ola rs concern ed 

with the in teractio n of science and pub lic policy. All the essential ing red ien ts 

ap pe ar to be presen t, inc lud ing : (i) an intri ns ically interesti ng scie ntific pro blem, with the outc ome unce rt ai n; (ii) a po tential fo r gr ea t pr ac tic al benefits for 

ma nkind and an equ ally gr ea t po ten tia l fo r ex ac erba tin g ma n’s procliv ity for 

conflict—with mo ral jud gm en ts an d the aplic ati on of ethics like ly to det erm ine 

th at outco me ; (i ii) clea r ind ica tio ns of th e nee d for a su bs tant ia l, specifically 

aim ed program of app lied researc h, with the op po rtu nit y to shed some lig ht on 

th e controve rsial conclusions of the Defense Dep artm en t’s Pr oj ec t Hindsight 

(11) (quite clearly the ha za rd of inhibitin g th e em erging and flou rish ing, un ­

dir ect ed, basic researc h in the atm osph eri c sciences at sev era l first-r ate un iversitie s sho uld be avo ide d) ; (iv ) in tric at e pro blems of interd isc iplin ary int eractio n 

among the phy sical, life , and soc ial sci ences; (v) complex interagenc y coordin ation and col lab oration, with the op po rtu nity fo r inn ovation in governm ental orga ni za tio n; (v i) invo lved legal an d regu latory que stio ns, as well as issues concerning th e role of the pr ivate se ctor : an d (v ii) an op po rtu nit y to in tegr ate 

emerging scientific and technological ele me nts into im ag ina tiv e for eig n policy. 

Du rin g th e dec ade s ahead we mus t deepen and pe rfe ct ou r un de rstand ing of the 

interaction of science and pub lic policy. Th e ga thering of dat a on an exp eriment 

as it pro ceeds w ould be a good star t.

(2) Th ere is th e imp lication th at cu rr en t and prosp ect ive a dvances in weather 

modification ar e pla cin g in our hand s w ha t H ar la n Cle veland (12) re fers to as “th e tech nological im perat ive s” to create or str en gthe n the in stitu tio ns fo r in te rna tio na l coo peration th at ar e req uir ed to serve th e na tio na l in eres ts of ourselv es 

and othe r peoples wh ile sim ultaneously advancing th e welfare of all mankind. 

Much more th an the parochial pro motion of a specialized area of science is at 

sta ke. Cleveland quo tes Pr es id en t Kennedy as remarking th at a manageable, 

wo rth wh ile sys tem of world or de r will be bas ed “no t on a sudden revolu tion of 

huma n na tu re, bu t on a gr ad ua l evo lution in huma n in stitu tio ns —on a ser ies of 

concrete actio ns and effective agreem en ts which are in the inte re st of all concerned.” If th e explo ration of wea ther mod ificatio n ad ds one more sma ll brick 

to t he edifice th at re stra in s world conflict and supp orts world ord er, science will 

ha ve se rved a noble p urp ose by enric hin g h um an life. Th e b urd en of res ponsi bility 

fo r seeing th at this hap pens is, I believe, on scien tists. Long ago Heisenbe rg 

undersc ore d th e uniqu e role of science in co ntrib uting to th e solution of one of t he 

gr ea t pr oblems of ou r time w ith th ese w ord s (12) :

“I t is especia lly one fe at ur e of science wh ich makes it m ore tha n an ything else 

suite d for estab lis hing the first stron g connection between dif feren t cu ltu ral 

tra di tio ns . Thi s is the fact th at t he ulti m ate decisions abou t the val ue of a spec ial 

scientific work, about wha t is co rre ct or w ron g in the w ork, do no t depend on any 

huma n au th or ity . It may som etim es ta ke ma ny years bef ore one knows th e solution of a problem , befor e one c an disti ng uis h betw een tr uth and e rro r; but finally 

th e questions will be decided, an d th e dec isio ns ar e ma de no t by an y gro up of 

scien tis ts bu t by na tu re its elf.”

(3) Fi na lly th er e is the im plicat ion of an op po rtu nit y—nay, neces sity —to turn 

ou r a tte nt io n to the stru ct ur e and the fou nd ati on s of the m oral an d ethical fra mework with in which we seek as sis tanc e in dec idin g wh y we must do those things th at science te lls us how to do. W ha t an un pa ralle led op po rtu nity to synthesize 

adv ances tow ard an un de rstand ing of ou r physi cal unive rse with adv ances in 

ou r u nd ersta nd ing o f m an’s role in t hi s u ni ver se ! For, as Te ilh ard de Ch ardin has 

sug ges ted with such simple eloquence in Th e Phe nom eno n of Ma n:

“How can one fail to recognize th is rev ealin g associa tio n of tec hnica l ma ste ry 

over envir onme nt and inward sp iritu al co nc entra tio n as the wo rk of th e same 

gr ea t force—the very force th at brou gh t us into being.”
91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) V. J. Schaefer, Science 104, 457 (1946).

(2) NAS-NRC Panel on We ather and Clim ate Modification, NA S-N RC Publ.

1350 (Washington, D.C., 1966).

(3) Advisory Committee on We ather Control, Final Report, I (Government 

Printing Office, Wash ington, D.C., 1957).

(4) NSP Special Commission on Weather Modification, AS F Publ. 66-3 (1966).

(5) U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Rept. 1139 (27 April 1966) ; U.S. 

Senate, Weather Modification Act of 1966 (14 Oct. 1966).

(6‘) AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of H uman Welfare, Science

132, 68 (1960).

(7) V. J. Schaefer, ibid. 151,, 1555 (1966).

(8) J. Von Neumann, For tune 51, 106 (1955).

(9) E. A. Morris, in Hum an Dimensions of W eath er Modification, W. R. Sewell, 

Ed. (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966), p. 283.

(10) Anon., New York Times, 10 June 1965.

(11) See, for example, P. H. Abelson. Science 151), 1123 (1966).

(12) H. Cleveland, in R. N. Gardner, In Pursu it of World Order (Pra eger, 

New York, 1964), foreword.

(13) W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, (Harp er, New York, 1958).

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Harvey.

Mr. H arvey. I just want to congratulate Mr. Malone on a very fine 

statement and ask a very naive question. What is the connection or 

relationship between this weather modification legislation and the insurance industry that retains you in this particu lar field ?

Mr. Malone. The insurance industry pays out roughly $300 million 

a year on the average for weather-caused damage to property of one 

kind or another. That is how I got into it in the first place. We made 

an assessment of the potential savings to the insurance industry and 

to the purchasers therefor of insurance if you could achieve a rather 

modest degree of influence over the weather and it comes out to be—- 

the figure is not perhaps precise as the number sounds—$182 million 

a year.

This is for a very modest tinkering or modification of the weather.

Mr. H arvey. What do you call modest ? Do you mean being able to 

slow down a hurricane a little bit ?

Mr. Malone. Yes; decreasing the incidence of hurricanes by, say, 

10 percent over a 10-year period, not wiping them out completely, but 

moving one out of 10 away from the coast, preventing hailstorms, preventing the kinds of high wind damage that are insured, the damage 

of hail to cars, the damage of hail to crops.

Mr. Harvey. But through these minor modifications you feel you can 

effect a saving of as much as $182 million a year.

Mr. Malone. Yes, sir.

Mr. Harvey. Tha t is all. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Van Deerlin?

Mr. Van Deerlin. Th at is $182 million out of approximately $300 

million ?

Mr. Malone. Yes. The $300 million is in a normal situation. As you 

may recall, in the hurricane that hit New Orleans I believe the insurance losses that year ran to over $700 million.

Mr. Van Deerlin. I should imagine this would lead to a promising 

reduction in insurance rates, and I can only hope t ha t after success 

in this field you m ight transfer your attention to the automotive insurance field.
92

Mr. Malone. Touche.

Mr. Macdonald. On th at po int , is i t still tru e th at you can’t ge t insurance ag ain st high tide s, hu rrican es, so-called ?

Mr. Malone. You can get wave wash insu rance and in any instance—th is is a tech nic ali ty— where the wind causes th e dama ge first, 

th at is? the win d ma kin g entrance in the bu ild ing and the n wa ter 

comes in, the n th at is ascribed to the wind component an d you are 

ful ly insure d under wh at they call the extende d coverage.

Mr. Macdonald. Yes, s ir : bu t d oe sn ’t the w ind cause the waves in the 

first place?

Mr. Malone. Yes; it does.

Mr. Macdonald. I have a house in Maine and I ca n't g et insured. 1 

don’t know why. They ju st won ’t give you insurance, and it is one 

thing th at I think the insura nce companies or somebody sho uld fix 

up.

Mr. Malone. I am g lad to hear you say th at, sir, because some of th e 

people who work for me have spent a l ot of hours th e last year in tr y ­

ing to deve lop the ac tua ria l base for not only flood ins ura nce on 

stre ams, but for high water insura nce on coastal areas.

There is, as you know, a bill b efore Cong ress, was hotly deb ated last 

week, i n w hic h an attempt is being made to develo p a cooperativ e p lan 

between the priva te sector and the Government wi th the reinsura nce 

clause to pro vid e prec isely the ki nd of coverage th at you hav e difficulty in gettin g now.

Mr. Macdonald. I rem emb er the bill, b ut I d on’t rem ember any section th at would cover the sit ua tio n such as I hav e person al know ledge of.

Mr. Malone. W ell, my pa rti cipa tio n stop ped . We generat ed abo ut 

1,000 year s of flood experienc e, bo th on coastal areas an d on stre ams, 

and th at was intende d to p rovid e t he a ctu ari al base fo r H U D ’s s tud y 

in response to the directive fro m Cong ress.

Mr. M acdonald. Th an k you , sir. Mr. B rot zm an ?

Mr. Brotzman. Th an k you, Mr. Chairma n. Mr. Malone , are you 

spe aking ju st fo r your p ar tic ul ar company, or are m ost o f th e casu alty 

insura nce companies across the Na tio n pointed in the same direction 

as you have in dicated here on be ha lf of you r com pany ?

Mr. Malone. Well, rea lly, of cours e, I speak for my self h ere, b ut I 

like to th in k our com pany is uniq ue. We are the only one th at has a 

staff of th is size.

Mr. Brotzman. Working in this pa rti cu la r area, is th at righ t?

Mr. Malone. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brotzman. That is all. T ha nk you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Ch airma n, do you hav e any questions?

Mr. Staggers. I have no questions, bu t I would like to than k Mr. 

Malone fo r coming and giv ing u s the benefit of you r views. You have 

been very helpf ul. I am sorry I di dn ’t g et to he ar all of it.

Mr. Macdonald. Th an k you, Mr. Chairma n. Mr. Bro wn?

Mr. Brown. Mr. Malone, I am sor ry th at I di dn ’t get to he ar a ll of 

your sta tem ent, tha nks to a lit tle dela y in the airline th is mo rning, 

bu t ma y I ask one question which you may not be in position to answ er ?

How does the $182 m illion sav ings—which you sug gested could be 

an tic ipa ted by modest we ath er mod ifica tion—re lat e to the poten tia l 

cost of the program into which we are en ter ing ?
93

When you speak of modest, weather modification, are you talking 

about technology we now have, or technology which will l>e developed 

by this program, and at what annual cost would that technology be 

developed ? Do you have any idea (

Mr. Malone. We are talking about an annual cost which will probably grow with an accelerated effort in this area at the rate of, say, 

30 percent per year—it will be constrained by the manpower limitations—grow to something of the order of $50 million a year.

I think that is a measure of the kind of benefit-to-cost possibility. 

This is just, one sector of the economy.

The Soviets, for example, in agriculture in their hail prevention 

get benefit-to-cost ratios of something like 30 to 1, so in round terms 

we are talkin g about a program which will probably grow to $50 to 

$80 million a year. I don’t know. This will have to be determined, 

but tha t is the kind of ball park. We are certainly not talkin g about 

a $500 million a year program at this stage.

Mr. Brown. This would lie $50 to $80 million in a new program 

and is the $50 to $80 million cost to which you are relating the $182 

million savings potential?

Mr. Malone. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brown. In the utilization of the $50 to $80 million Federal 

program ?

Mr. Malone. Yes, sir. Actually $50 to $80 million is probably the 

level this program would be at in the early seventies. That will be 

the total program, which would grow from its present value of somewhere around $7 or $9 million. I am not too sure of the exact status 

of it, but it is in tha t ball park.

Mr. Brown. Perhaps something a little less speculative; do you 

know to what, degree savings have been realized by the insurance 

companies and those who pay insurance premiums based on the past 

improvement in weather prediction and such efforts as have l>een made 

previously in weather modification?

Mr. Malone. I would say th at the improvements of prediction have 

probably yielded a savings. These were all wiped out in one stroke 

with Betsy, I believe, that struck New Orleans.

But over a period of time I am satisfied in my own mind tha t improved predictions will yield a saving. I can’t give you a hard estimate of what tha t might be.

Mr. Brown. No study has been done on what those savings are? 

What I am really asking is, if we can anticipate $182 million savings 

on the basis of a $50 to $80 million Federal expenditure, if tha t can 

be so precisely predicted or even so generally predicted, I wonder why 

it would be impossible or why we can’t come up with some figures 

to indicate the savings which have been realized by past expenditures. 

I would think both of these would be known quantities.

Mr. Malone. I think it would be possible to do that, sir.

Mr. Brown. But none exists of which you are aware.

Mr. Malone. No ; not to my knowledge.

Mr. Brown. Thank you.

Mr.MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Brown, Thank you very much, 

Mr. Malone.

With this testimony the hearings are now closed.

Mr. Malone. Th ank you, sir.

87-9 36— 68------ 7
(The following material was submitted for the record:)

Stateme nt of E. Wen de ll Hew son, Profe ssor of Meteo rolgy, Uni ve rs it y of

Mic h ig a n, on II .R . 9212

The establishment of a comprehensive program in weather modification by 

the United Stat es has my fu ll support, the writer being Dr . E. Wendell Hewson, 

Professor of Meteorology at the Universit y of Michiga n since 1954. I wish to 

express my support for the whole program, and in particu lar for that portion 

relating to air pollution, a field of research in which I have engaged actively 

since 1938.

My statement is presented in three sec tions: the influence of air pollution 

on weather and cli ma te; the influence of weather and clima te on air pollution; 

and the pros and cons of weather modification in gen eral.

IN FL UE NC E OF AIR POLL UTION ON WEA TH ER AND CLIMATE

There are two areas of concern he re : inadv erten t changes in city weather 

and clima te resulting from air pollu tio n; and inadvertent changes in global 

weather an d c limate resulting from air pollu tion.

We alrea dy know tha t air pollution may affect city clima te in a number of 

w ay s: by reducing the amount of ultra viole t sunlight reaching the gro un d; by 

lowering vi sibi lit y; by increa sing the occurrence and duration of fo gs ; by increasing rainf all , if only by small amounts ; and in other ways. Most of these 

are adverse effects on the quality of city life.

Air pollution may be c hanging our global weath er and climate in more serious 

ways. The concentration of carbon dioxid e in the atmosphere has been growing 

since the beginnin g of the century in step with our increased burning of fossi l 

fuels . Incre asing temperatures in the northern hemisphere for the same period 

may be due to the “ greenhouse effect” of this high er concentration of atmospheric 

carbon dioxide. Ther e is evidence that this tempera ture trend may have reversed 

itse lf durin g the past ten years or so, a period when the growing pall of industrial smoke over the continent may have become sufficiently dense to reflect back to space a significa nt fract ion of the sun’s r adia tion fa lli ng on it. Ma jor 

changes in global patte rns of weather and climate could have catas troph ic effects, 

not only on this continent but on the whole world. Even if there is only one chance 

in a thousand tha t major clim atic shifts might occur unint entio nally because 

of our indu strial and other practic es, the magnitude of the possible disaster 

which might ensue is sufficiently great to war rant making a major effort to 

assess and evalu ate the danger. The proposed legis latio n would at leas t permit a 

modest beginning in the type of effort required.

INFL UE NC E OF WEATH ER AND CLIMATE ON AIR POLL UTION

Up to the present time the main method of atta ck on the air pollution problem 

has been to remove contam inants a t the source. Disposal of such collected wastes 

presents a majo r dif fic ult y: they tend to become eithe r water pollution or land 

pollution or both. The possibilities of modifyin g weather to permit atmospheric 

dispersa l of pollutants over wider areas and in insignific ant concentrations have 

received relat ively litt le attentio n. Bu t until such time as ind ustr ial processes 

can be developed to the point where they are so efficient tha t they produce litt le 

or no w’astes—and tha t time may never arrive—efficient atmospheric dispersa l 

developed with suitab le weather modification technique s offers a possible means 

of par tial reli ef from air pollution. The proposed program in weather modification would permit a serious search for effective methods of reducing concentrations of a ir pollut ants by such means.

WE AT HE R MOD IFICATION IN GENERAL

Alth oug h effective means of weather modification wil l bring many problems, 

the benefits are like ly to be so grea t as to outweigh the disadvantages . The 

hazar ds can be minimized by conducting limited experiments on a small scale. 

As phys ical under standing of weather modification processes grows, the experiments can develop in complex ity and size in an orderly way. The present space 

program affor ds an excellent example of how scientific and enginee ring skills 

can be organi zed to move from modest beginnings to maj or accomplishments. 

Costs would be less because expensive hardw are is unlikely to be needed and
95

practical benefits would probably be greater. The key to success is greatly 

increased knowledge of weather modfication processes. If such knowledge is 

gained, as it must be, before large scale experiments are undertaken, there is 

littl e danger of adverse results. It is appropriate that the first requirement listed 

in the proposed legislation calls for “the development of the necessary scientific 

basis * •

In conclusion, let me emphasize tha t I support fully the whole program in 

weather modification. My concentration on the air pollution aspects merely reflects my gre ater experience and competence in that particular area.

Statement of National Association of Government E mployees by Michael

Scarpa, National Representative for Weather Bureau Affairs

The U.S. Weather Bureau is one of the Federal Government’s most important 

agencies. I t is essentially a service agency charged with the task of probing and 

measuring meteorological phenomena within our atmosphere to provide weather 

forecasts to the public on a routine basis and timely warnings of extreme weather 

conditions as they develop.

It is not fulfilling this critical mission. Serious operational deficiencies have 

been created by mismanagement and shortsightedness over the past 30 years. 

Faults developed over this period are being perpetuated today by the present 

l>olicy of reorganization upon reorganization which has done nothing to improve 

the national weather service.

The net effect of these reorganizations has been to assign higher priorities 

to administrative and non-operational programs, at the expense of operations. 

The latest change, the consolidation of various scientific agencies of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce into one superagency—the Evironmental Science 

Services Administration—has resulted in a serious deterioration of our national 

weather service.

The fa ct is tha t in many situations a breakdown in Weather Bureau services 

is primarily due to an inefficient system rather than the scientific limitations of 

the profession. We feel certain that, given the facts, the taxpayer will understand 

the la tter ; it is doubtful tha t he will long tolerate the former.

At the tender age of two, ESSA has evolved into a bureaucratic monster 

which is rapidly outgrowing one featherbed afte r another. Here are some of the 

res ult s:

Empire-building and inefficiency take precedence over vital public services.

Proliferation of positions and pay grades at the administrative and staff levels 

is taking place a t the expense of positions and pay grades a t the operational field 

level.

A large influx of retired military officers and other personnel from particular 

sectors of private industry and their assignment to high-paying, non-operational 

positions is strongly suggestive of the infamous “Buddy System” practiced in 

Defense Department civilian employment. This practice has had a devastating 

effect on the morale of career employees.

A too subjective promotion policy emphasizes favoritism, rath er than ability 

and experience.

Seriously inadequate servicing of weather forecasting and warning needs of 

many metropolitan areas across the country exists.

The use of propaganda and exaggerated claims as a means of winning Congressional approval of the ESSA budget—a foolish and dangerous precedent.

In private enterprise, there is a very real test of the efficiency of a corporation. 

The annual report gives the stockholders the answer to hoiv wrell the company 

is being managed; and woe to the company president who comes up with unsatisfactory earnings reports year afte r year. Although the same standard of comparison does not exist in government, the following efficiency tests might be 

applied to ESSA:

1. Ratio of non-operational to operational personnel prior to reorganization 

and at the present time.

2. The number of new GS-12 and higher grades created in nonoperational 

and operational positions under the cu rrent administration.

3. The number of positions downgraded, left vacant or filled a t a lower grade 

in Weather Bureau field offices.

4. Duplication of programs at the national, regional and local levels.
96

Today, the weathe r forecasting service provided by the Feder al Government 

is so cumbersome and centralized th at the storm warning and forecast needs 

(aviation, public, marine, and agricult ural) of many important areas across the 

country ar e not being m et

For example, let us examine the procedures involved in the preparatio n of a 

weathe r forecast for a larg e metropolitan area such as Rochester, N.Y. (1960 

population of 786,000). A small team of meteorologists in the Wash ington area 

supplies basic and general guidance meteorological material to a fore caster at 

Cleveland, Ohio, who in turn issues the w eather foreca st for an area comprising 

Ohio, Western Pennsylvania and W estern New York. Then ano ther fore caster at 

the Weather Bureau Office in Buffalo, N.Y., re-issues a similar forecast for the 

western half of New York State.

At the Weather Bureau Office in Rochester, a single employee is on duty and 

his task s and responsibilities increase as weather conditions become more critical. 

He, therefore, must assume the responsibility of providing a weather forecast 

or warning for Rochester and vicinity. This system is fan tastically inefficient, 

hut more importantly, it does not provide a tru e forecast service to an are a such 

as Rochester. So-called refinements and local details to make a general weather 

forecast suitable for local use are performed by successively lowergrade employees as the forecast echelon proceeds downward from Washington to Cleveland 

to Buffalo to Rochester.

Curiously enough, at Rochester the employee alre ady performing a staggering 

amount of work under difficult conditions is classified as a Meteorological Technician whose prime responsibility is the recording of weather observations and 

the dissemination of weather information and forecast togethe r with technical 

briefings. Officially, the We ather Burea u refuses to consider him a professional 

employee and he is, as a matter of fact, ineligible for promotion to a higher 

grade according to current Weathe r Bureau grad e stand ards. However, this very 

individual is charg ed with the professional task of issuing weather forecast and 

warn ings for a large metropolitan area . This is a gross inconsistency and injustice, since the employer claims that the employee isn’t professionally qualified, 

yet he is assigned professional duties.

Even if the question of professionalism versus skilled techn ician were resolved, 

the problem would not be solved. The very real problem is the inadequate staffing 

at most Weathe r Bureau offices which makes effective service during periods of 

severe weather an impossible achievement. The heavy snows of last winter and 

more recent experience this past September when hurricane “Doria” threate ned 

the E as t Coast are examples of poor service to the public.

It mu st be made clear th at Rochester, N.Y. is not the only major city confronted with this problem of inadequa te weather service. Following is a list of 

metropolitan areas in the eastern pa rt of the nation where sim ilar conditions 

prevail. The 1960 population is provided in parentheses.

1. Akron, O. (634,000)

2. Allentown. Pa. (492,168)

3. Asheville, N.C. (130,074)

4. Atlantic City, N.J. (160,880)

5. Binghamton, N.Y. (283,600)

6. Canton, O. (340,345)

7. Charleston, S.C. (254,578)

8. Charleston, W. Va. (252,925)

9. Charlotte, N.C. (316.781)

10. Columbus, O. (828,000)

11. Dayton. O. (778,000)

12. Erie, Pa. (250,682)

13. Greensboro, N.C. (246.520)

14. Greenville, S.C. (255,806)

15. Hun tington, W. Va. (254,780)

16. Lancaster, Pa. (278,359)

17. Mansfield, O. (117,761)

18. New Haven, Conn. (320,836)

19. Norfolk, Va. (578,507)

20. Por tlan d, Me. (139,122)

21. Providence, R.I. (735,000)

22. Reading, Pa. (275,414)

23. Richmond, Va. (436,044)

24. Roanoke, Va. (158,803)

25. Scranton, Pa. (234.531)

26. Syracuse, N.Y. (563,781)

27. Toledo, O. (630,647)

28. Trenton, N.J. (266,392)

29. Williamsport, Pa. (109,367)

30. Wilmington, Del. (414,565)

31. Worcester, Mass. (328,898)

32. Youngstown, O. (511,000)

33. York, Pa. (290,242)

34. Johnstown. Pa. (280,733)

35. Lorraine-Elyria. O. (217,500)

36. Lynchburg, Va. (110.701)

37. New London-Groton, Conn.

(170,981)

38. Columbia, S.C. (260.828)

Weathe r Bureau management over the years has readily admitted that the ir 

field offices are “staffed only for fa ir wea ther.” This is a startling revelation 

when one considers th at the government agency responsible for issuing severe
97

weather warnings for the protection of life and property is admitting tha t 

services during critical weather cannot he provided. This is tantam ount to 

having firemen on duty only when there are no fires! Similarly, if the Weather 

Bureau cannot plan its operations and assure proper staffing to guarantee 

meaningful public service during the 10-20% of the time when weather plays 

a major role in the fate of mankind, can there be any real justification for its 

existence when weather conditions are normal?

Obviously, this very same question must have been in the minds of members 

of Congress, especially those of the Appropriations Committee, judging from 

their actions during the last session of Congress when millions of dollars were 

cut from the ESSA budget.

The Congress and the American taxpayers have been hearing and reading 

many glowing reports and promises of some near-term weather forecasting 

capabilities during the past few years. These stories have included such promises 

as monthly, seasonal, and annual detailed and highly accurate weather forecasts. The role of electronic computers and weather satellites has been so grossly 

exaggerated that there are many people today who hold the illusion that weather 

satellites and electronic computers actually are 21st Century oracles spewing 

forth the latest and most accurate weather forecasts.

The public and the Congress have not been told that the computer and the 

satellite only provide the most basic and raw material needed before a weather 

forecast can be prepared. It is man’s ingenuity and innate ability that continue 

to be the most important ingredients in the preparation of today’s weather 

forecast.

Devastating and sad indeed have been the consequences of this foolish and 

amateurish use of propaganda and public relations. Can a Member of Congress 

or any taxpayer be expected to understand how, in the light of all these marvelous promises, the Weather Bureau not only doesn’t come through on a monthly 

or yearly basis with weather predictions, but has fallen on its face in merely 

providing hourly or daily predictions and warnings.

Perhaps, if the planners with ESSA would forget the glamorous, “win-over” 

sales talk and present their case forthrightly and honestly by pointing to the 

real needs of their organization as well as the limitations in solving the current 

problems, they would find a more understanding and sympathetic audience.

N ati onal Ass ocia ti on of Gov er nm en t E m pl oyee s.

Sou th Plain field, N.J., Novem ber 15, 1967.

S ubco m m it te e on T ra ns po rta ti on an d Aer onauti cs,

Rayburn House Office Building, Congress of the United States, House of

Representatives, W ashington, D.C.

G en tlem en : I have received a request from Representative Florence P. Dwyer 

to submit written testimony regarding the Weather Bureau facility at Newark 

Airport. The National Association of Government Employees has considerable 

data that I have sent them during the past several months. I spoke to Mr. Lyons, 

the National President of the NAGE today. He will submit the requested information to the subcommittee.

Enclosed are copies of newspaper articles tha t have appeared in the local 

press recently. They bring out some of the deficiencies that exist at the Newark 

Airport facility.

A program should be developed having as its primary objective the raising of 

safety standards at government facilities at airports. The FAA and the Weather 

Bureau can contribute toward safe operations at airports provided they are 

supported by appropriate legislation enacted by the subcommittee.

Obsolete equipment should be replaced by up-to-date equipment at this station. 

Sufficient personnel should he provided so that the demands of the public for 

weather information can be satisfied, especially during stormy weather.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very sincerely,

J u l iu s A. R udy , 

President, NAG E Local R2-Jf8.
98

[Prom the Newark Evening News, Nov. 1, 1967]

Unio n H ead H its Wea th er Stat ion at New ark Airport

(By Albert M. Skea)

The Weather Bureau station at Newark Airp ort is poorly equipped and inadequately staffed, a union represen tative charged today.

Julius A, Rudy of South Plainfield, president of the Newark local of the National Association of Government Employees, said he was making public the 

complaint in the interest of flight safety.

Rudy lias been a meteorological techn ician at the airport for 15 of his 19 years 

with the bureau.

His majo r complaint is that with only one man assigned to a shift, the task 

of keeping up with observations during poor flying weather leaves little or no 

time for briefing pilots or answering telephone calls from other airports in the 

state.

ONLY ON E CEILOMETER

As for equipment, he said the station has only one instrum ent for measuring 

cloud height, one of the facto rs in determining whether flight operatio ns can 

continue. He said the station formerly had two ceilometers but one of the measuring devices ha s been removed.

He added that the remaining rota ting beam ceilometer “has some bugs.”

While airline pilots generally are expected to stop at the station before a 

flight, airlin es maintain the ir own meteorology staffs and make use of computers 

to select the most desirable flight plan.

These resources are not available to general aviation, meaning private and 

business planes, which account for about a third of the landin gs and departures 

at th e airport.

PRIV ATE SERV ICE AVA ILAB LE

However, a privately opera ted weather forecasting service is available at the 

Newark Air Service building, which ca ters to general aviation.

According to Rudy, the W eath er Burea u staff at the airport has been reduced 

from nine in 1949 to six today. Landings and takeoffs, meantime, have increased 

from 93,000 in 1949 to 211,000 last year.

Weather observations, Rudy said, must be made twice an hour. These measurements include temperature, precipitation , cloud height, visibility, wind direction 

and velocity, and barometric pressure.

More frequent reports, however, are required when the weather approaches 

the minimums f or continued operation of the airport. For example, when soupy 

weather prevails, every 100-foot change in the height of the fog or clouds must 

be reported, so pilots can determine whether the airport is open or closed.

WA GING CAMPAIG N

While Rudy spoke only of conditions at Newark Airport, as he sees it, the national organization to which he belongs has been waging a campaign against the 

Weather Bureau as operated by th e Environmental Science Services Adm inistration (ESS A).

The charge is that ESSA, since its formation two years ago, has “evolved into 

a bureaucratic monster” by vastly expa nding its adm inistrative staff while neglecting field stations, such as the one here.

At leas t one private pilot has w ritten to ESSA complaining about the weather 

service.

The letter, in part, said :

“The service offered at the Newark Weathe r Bureau is progressing from bad 

to worse * * *.

“It app ears to me th at economizing on such an imp ortant factor as weather 

service is in the worst possible interests of safe flying, which, I am sure, your 

agency is trying to improve.”

[From the Star-Ledger, Nov. 2]

Storm R aise d Over Airport Wea th er Watch

A meteorologist charged yesterda y that the U.S. Weather Bureau at Newark 

Airport is poorly equipped and inadequately staffed.
Juliu s A. Rudy of South Plainfield, a meteorological techn ician at the airport, 

issued the s tatem ent in his capacity as president of the New ark local of the Nation al Association of Government Employes.

He said t hat with only one man assigned to a shift, the t ask of keeping up w ith 

observations d uring poor flying weather leaves l ittle or no time for briefing pilots 

or answering telephone calls from oth er airp orts in the state.

CU TS FIG URES

While the staff at the bureau h as been reduced from nine in 1949 to six today, 

Rudy charged, landings and takeoffs have increase d from 93,000 to 211,000 a 

year over the sam e period.

He also said th at the burea u has only one ins trument for measuring cloud 

height, one of the fac tor s in determining if flights can tak e off in bad weather. 

He said th at the burea u form erly had two of these devices, but one has been 

removed.

Airlines using the airport m aintain the ir own meterology staffs.

[From the Daily News, Nov. 2, 1967]

Rips Newark Airport Over Weath er Unit

The preside nt of the Newark local of the N atio nal Association of Government 

Employes charged yes terd ay th at Newark Airpo rt’s We ather Burea u is poorly 

equipped an d understaffed.

The asso ciation ’s president, Juliu s A. Rudy of South Plainfield, N.J., himself 

a meteorologist, said tha t only one man is on duty during each shift, m akin g it impossible fo r the man to a nswer telephone calls or brief pilots du ring poor weath er. 

All his time is take n up in making observations, Rudy said.

TE LL S OF STA FF CU T

Since 1949, Rudy said, the number of takeoffs and landings at the air po rt has 

risen by as many as 210,(XX) per year. However, be said, in the same period the 

Weather Bureau's staff at the air po rt has been c ut from nine to six.

Airlines using the air po rt ma intain their own meteorology staffs, it was said. 

Priva te planes, which make up one-third of the air po rt’s traffic, however, are 

forced to make use of a privately operated weather fore casting service, it was said. 

[From the New York Times, Oct. 26, 1967]

F our Forecasters Call New Agency “Monster”

Washington, D.C., October 25.—Four Government weathermen c harged today 

th at ther e w as a breakdown in the nation’s weather forecasting system caused by 

inefficiency and a lack of manpower.

The four charged at a news conference th at the new Environmental Science 

Services Admin istratio n had evolved into a “bu rea ucr atic monster.” They said 

they spoke as officers of the National Association of Government Employes and 

not as forecaste rs.

The four a re : Michael J. Scarpa, dis trict fore cas ter in New York City; Harvey 

S. Sands, aviation meteorologist at Kennedy Internatio nal Airpo rt; Stanley J. 

Krowka, a for eca ster in the intern ational aviatio n unit at Kennedy, and Jul ius 

A. Rudy, fo rec aster a t New ark, N.J.

Air T ransport Association, 

Washington, D.C., November 7, 1967.

Re H.R. 9212.

lion. Torhert H. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The Air Transport Association of America on beh alf 

of its members, the scheduled U.S. airlines, supports the broad purposes of H.R.

9212, a bill “to authorize th e S ecre tary of Commerce to carry ou t a comprehensive 

program in the field of weather modification, and for oth er purposes.”

While the airlines are intere sted in, and support the general objectives of a 

comprehensive weather modification program, our comments are directed par-
100

ticularl.v to the problems of fog and cloud dispersal as they relate to airport and 

air transport operations (Sec. 201(e )).

The Air Transport Association and its members have had an interest in weather 

modification, particularly fog dispersal, going back many years. A member 

carrier has developed a successful technique for abating supercooled fog (fog 

colder than 32° F. ), utilizing dry ice dispensed by a light aircraft. In the last 

several years, the airlines have made arrangements for fog dispersal services 

at 17 airports in the U.S. with a high exposure to supercooled fog.

Supercooled fog accounts for only 5% of all fogs. Warm fog (fog warmer than 

32° F.) accounts for the other 95%. To date, efforts to modify warm fog have not 

been completely practical and effective.

Several techniques for abating warm fog have been explored by the airlines 

since the end of World War II. The FIDO system, which involved the burning 

of fuel along the edges of runways, was rejected as too costly and hazardous. 

In 1959-1951, United Air Lines funded a project which was conducted a t Arcata, 

Calif, and Medford, Ore. Using the contractor’s aircraft, a heated brine solution 

was sprayed into fog banks with good clearing effects in many cases. When similar equipment was installed in a United aircraft, results were poor and the 

project was dropped. Nevertheless, cloud physicists regard this as a technique 

worth further examination.

Not under 1966 did the airlines fund another warm fog seeding experiment. 

Six airlines put up a modest sum to try dispensing carbides at Houston, Texas. 

After five tests with no conclusive results, the fog period ended. With some money 

remaining, one test was made with a new polyelectrolytic chemical prepared 

by the Dow Chemical Company in the spring of 1967. Clearing resulted, permitting airc raft operations.

On the strength of this test, the ATA member airlines have put up $100,000 to 

explore further the efficacy of this chemical in a more prolonged test. This project 

will commence November 15,1967, at Sacramento Metropolitan Field, Sacramento, 

California. It will conclude February 29, 1968. A second chemical, prepared by 

Procter and Gamble, will be tried as well.

Sacramento was selected because of its high exposure to warm fog during the 

time period of the contract. Seeding will be done, using the contractor’s aircraft. 

It is also hoped to use powerful ground sprayers to evaluate their usefulness.

These limited tests of two techniques by no means exhausts the possibilities. We 

are aware of three other approaches that deserve investigation and testing.

In September of 1966, the Air Transport Association urged the Federal 

Aviation Administration to support a research program to explore the more 

promising recommendations for warm fog suppression that had come to our 

attention. Although FAA was interested, support was not received.

Under Sec. 312 (c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, entitled “Research 

and Development’’, the Administrator is empowered to “develop, modify, test 

and evaluate systems, procedures, facilities, and devices, * * * to meet the needs 

for safe and efficient navigation and traffic control.” Surely, any procedure to 

abate warm fog and open an airport to flight operations t hat wouid otherwise be 

closed is a proper task for FAA.

In our view, the ability to economically abate warm fog to permit resumption 

of flight operations will do much to enhance the regularity of air transportation. 

The objective of H.R. 9212 of bringing the Federal Aviation Administration 

into the weather modification program to aid the safety and efficiency of air 

transportation is sound.

It is our recommendation tha t the bill be modified slightly to assure tha t the 

Department of Transportation is fully informed of all federal weather modification programs.

We suggest tha t Sec. 303 (a), (b), and (c) be amended to include the Secreta ry of Transportation as a participant in the three areas outlined. The Federal 

Aviation Administration which would conduct weather modification research, 

is a part of tha t Department.

In addition, the Department of Transportation should be interested in fog 

dispersal and weather modification techniques tha t may have application to 

other modes of transportation and, therefore, should participate in these plans 

and programs.

Cordially,

Stuart G. Tipton, President.
101

Air Transport Association, 

Washington, D.C., November 7, 1967.

Re H.J. Res. 688.

Hon. Torbert II. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The Air Transport Association of America, trade and 

service organization for virtually all the U.S. scheduled, certificated air carriers, 

supports H. J. Res. 688.

Knowledge of the ear th’s atmosphere is greatest in the northern hemisphere, 

particularly over the populated land masses. Since most of the globe consists 

of water areas, much of it untraveled, weather data from these areas is sparse. 

Even the land masses of the southern hemisphere are not covered with a dense 

surface observation network, and upper a ir observations come from but a handful 

of stations.

To truly understand and to better predict the behavior of the weather on 

this planet, knowledge of the weather everywhere must be obtained through 

cooperative international efforts. The relationship of tropical weather on future 

behavior of northern hemispheric weather no doubt directly boars on long range 

weather forecasting.

The airlines are particularly aware of this in the evaluation of computer 

forecasts used in long over-water flights. We have found that the accuracy and 

completeness of forecasts over the Pacific would be improved if more adequate 

data below 25° North latitude were available. Were it not for the high volume 

of aircraft on the Pacific routes and pilot reports of enroute weather, it is 

doubtful tha t satisfactory forecasts in this area would be possible. As it is, 

forecasts for these services are based 95% on pilot observations of weather.

With greater knowledge of the equatorial weather, more accurate and longer 

range forecasts of U.S. weather would become possible. It is well known tha t 

the Pacific Ocean is the “heat engine” most responsible for our weather conditions. Hence, greater knowledge of the Pacific equatorial areas with respect 

to weather and sea temperatures could enhance long range forecasts of air routes 

further north. This is an objective of the World Weather Watch.

Special measures must be taken to obtain needed weather data, through periodic 

reporting over a time span of a year or two from those areas for which weather 

reporting is now inadequate. These data will then enable forecasters, through 

computer techniques, to understand the interplay of the weather developments 

in one part of the globe on those developments in another part. Such a data 

bank is possible under the World Weather Watch program of the World 

Meteorological Organization.

The Air Transport Association urges full support of the World Weather 

Watch and participation by the Environmental Science Services Administration 

in this vital program as envisaged in H.J. Res. 688. The benefits to be derived 

should improve weather forecasts for the air transport industry throughout the 

globe.

Cordially,

Stuart G. Tipton, President.

The University of Michigan,

College of Engineering.

Ann Arbor, Mich., November 6, 1967.

Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Power, Committee on Inters tate

and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives.

Dear Sir : It is a pleasure to react to Congressman Marvin L. Esch’s invitation 

to comment on H.J. Res. 688 which is under consideration in your subcommittee 

at the present time. I am honored to submit the following statement for the 

record.

During the last two decades there has been a significant increase in our ability 

to understand atmospheric processes and to forecast the weather using modem 

computer technology. The forecasts prepared operationally by the Environmental 

Science Service Administration, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy for period 

of 1 to 3 days have shown increased accuracy. The simulation of the atmospheric
102

general circu latio n on computers has added to our under standing of atmospheric 

development over periods of weeks and months.

Howeve r, it is becoming incre asingly evident tha t if we want to extend our 

foreca sts beyond a couple of days we need to obtain more detailed informatio n 

concerning the physic al state of the atmosphere. We require mai nly an increase 

in meteoro logical observations from regions of the earth from w hich we have l ittle 

or no informatio n in the observat ional network which exists today. It seems that 

the most cr uci al regions are the oceanic regions of the world, the tropics and the 

southern hemisphere.

It is obvious tha t the world weathe r program can be carried out only as a truly 

inte rnationa l effort, and tha t it is of the greatest importance tha t we parti cipat e 

free ly in a cooperative effort by the nations of the world to implement the World 

Weather Wa tch System and thereby obtain increased cap abil ity in weather prediction and weathe r service to the people of the Unite d State s.

I am happy to add my endorsement of the complete H. J . Res. 688. It is of particula r importance to recognize tha t such an under taking will be succe ssful only 

if it is accompanied by an intensive research program as outlined in the so-called 

Glob al Atmosp heric Resea rch Program, and if support is obtained to provide for 

the tra inin g and education of atmospheric scientists and engineers.

It is indeed encouraging to observe the dilig ent efforts of your committee in 

critically examining the great potential which the World Weather Program may 

offer. H .J . Res. 688 should make a significan t contribution to a broad national 

effort to increase our abil ity to unders tand and predict the atmospheric circ ulations over longer time periods than we are able to h andle today. I hope tha t you 

may see fit to consider these comments favo rabl y.

Since rely yours,

A. Wiin -Nie lse n,

Cha irman, Departm ent of Meteorolo gy and Oceanograp hy.

T ii e Unive rsity of Mic hig an,

College of E ng inee ring ,

Depa rtme nt of Meteorology and Oceanography,

Ann Arb or, Mi ch ., Nov emb er 6 ,196~. Hon. Marv in L . E sc h,

Lon gworth B uil din g,

Washin gton , D .C .

Dear Marv in : I am writing in regard to H .J . Resolu tion 688: S .J . Resolution 

116 to urge your strongest possible support of this measure and of the program 

to which it pertains. I understand that you have alrea dy been in correspondence 

with Prof essor Wiin-Nielse n on this matt er, but I though t I would add my own 

comments anyway.

When I was in Washington several years ago as a consu ltant in the Dep artment of Commerce, I became involved in the early plann ing and deliberations 

tha t have evolved into the present concept of a World Weather Wat ch and the 

related Glob al Atmosph eric Resear ch Pro ject . The people who have continued 

these efforts are some of the finest atmospheric scient ists we have.

As a meteorologist I am sure that I have alwa ys had some prejudices in favo r 

of the concept of such a program, but T think I have been most impressed by the 

way in which such a program is suitable. Al l nations, large and small, developed 

and undeveloped, would be able to contribute, each in its own way, and to 

benefit, e ach according to its own problems.

From the point of view of our own national self-in terest, I believe that these 

programs, if we could undertake them ourselves, would be ful ly worth the cost 

and the e ffort. Bu t we are not a ble, nor should we tr y to do these thing s ourselves, 

because the entire world stands to benefit along with us. From the beginning 

those who have been concerned with the global weath er program have tried to 

assure tha t it is neither unilate ral nor bila tera l, but a truly multila teral program, invo lving the underdeveloped nations as well as the great powers. Now, 

with the favo rab le actions of the Wo rld Meterological Orga niza tion this is 

assured. We can have a program of real cooperation with al l contributing and 

all benefiting.
103

From the scientific point of view, too, the proposed program is sound. I have 

met personally many of the prospective international leaders who will plan 

and direct these programs, and they are very competent people of high integrity.

If there are any specific questions with regard to this program to which vou 

would like answers, I would be happy to help in any way I could.

Sincerely yours,

Ed

Edward S. Epstein, 

Associate Profe ssor of Meteorology.

(Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

o