WMOD00281

• Title: The Impacts of Snow Enhancement - Technology Assessment of Winter Orographic Snowpack Augmentation in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• Date: 1/1/1974
• State: CO
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

..;;r ''"

J'I
r
II
]1
I,
I:
j

II
Ii
II

- " ~

--- --

for the allocation of net rew;"nuc.s SO that tllcyarc'spent Jor the: purposes for
which t1wy are made av~il~lblc. The selection of an implenlcnting 'authority
3i\d the approval of allocation details could be subject Ii) i.l vote; however, asa
practical matter the number of possible combinations is too' large to be prc~
scoted USa votingni~ttter.1t i!i slJggested that two Or three '''packages'' of-alter-
native conibhl~tiolls could be, the subject of a voting pr()ce,~ure by the people
of the .target areas.

7. [-lability CtJlfsidemtio/ts

One of the unsolved public policy issues is the qucstionof the extent ,or
kind of liability to be incurred for weather modification activities. The discus~
sion was confined to the questions of damagcsand the possible altcm~ttives of
compensating for them. There appear to bc two types of recoverits (or two
different types of damages. Oile type finds its standards in the law (md is
recompensable as a maHer of dalllag~s awarded at law. The other type is not
recompensablc.at law bUt is based on socially.dctennined damag~.
Although therc are several legal theories by which liabiIi'ty for \VaSA
~lcti\'ities might be imposedl recovcry of damages by private individuals under
the law is exceedingly difficult. The, major reason that the law has not come to
a cIear-c.utimposition of liability for damages arising from weather modifica-
tion activities is that the dfccts of nature canupt be separated from the effects
of man. The consequences of weather modification activity cannot be, causally
connected to each incidence of its application sufficiently to meet the court.<;'
rcquirementofptoof,
Onc pOint 'of view is that thedifi1cldty of proof l.tgainSt existing judicial
standards is proof of the abscnceof'~lctual ccimpeilsable injury. DUly if liability
and damages prove to be legally ~ompel1sablc does weather modification be-
come a liability-producing activity. Another viewpoint is that a new rule. of
law for weather modification activities is the socially responsible ,yay of re-
dre,<;.c;ing the potential damages from SUch activities. According. to this view-
point, it is bcli~ved that the sodal wisdom behind current policies might, given
timc, fin~ expression in changed rules of law. Considering.. however, that
society has nonjudiCialinsliturional means to change current laws, itseeins
inappropriate to wait for legal developments under either of these points of
view.
Are,awide economic losses resulting from, weather moditi<;ation activitics
cannot meet ,legal standards of proof of causation. Legal liability under ~my of
its possibl~ altcrnatives-:'for example, negligence, .cxtra.;lmz.ardous 'activitie$,
strict liability, t.respass, nuisance, or absolut.c li~biJjty-is not, theri;fore, a
means for r~imbursing, these losses. If this type of loss is to be compens,uted, it
wiUhave to he accompli.shed bit public poliCy.
Another rcason for institutional interveritiollin tbe anticipated devclop-
ment of the law is that the potential imposition of liability for damages reo
quires somesrrt pC payments to b~ antiCipated. Unless there is alarg~ actl,l('Lrinl

xxvii