16-l (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion CWCB staff has been requesting small increases in funding since 2004 as discussed during the September 2007 Finance Subcommittee meeting. Board member input can be characterized by two main issues that are addressed below. Staff request for funding increase -Staff's vision for the CWCB Weather Modification Permitting Program can be characterized by learning from and implementing successes from other states. The concepts of using State funding to build local capacity come from Texas, a steady source of State funding comes from Utah, and building on the collective knowledge in the field to modernize operational methodologies comes from Nevada. The State of Texas Legislature appropriated $11.7M in 1997 to have state funding to build local capacity to operate cloud seeding programs. State funding was used to purchase radars, airplanes, cloud sampling and instrumentation equipment, onboard GPS units, and the development of TITAN radar, developed by NCAR in Boulder, to supplement the National Weather Service radar feed. Those activities teamed with the training meteorologists, technical assistance workshops, independent evaluations, and literally hundreds of meetings would characterize the State of Texas investment and a decade of progress. Today approximately one quarter of the Texas land area is in a target area funded and operated by local farming and ranching interests. The programs conduct airplane cloud seeding for rain augmentation based on the summertime storm tracks. These funds helped minimize funding commitments and reliance on contractors. Currently there are nine local programs in Texas with no State funding. The programs have created "weather modification associations" at the county and municipal level. More information about Texas is on the Licensing and Regulation website at httpalw-wvv,license.state.tx.uslweatherlsumma-y htm. Although Staff has no intention of asking for this level of funding the CWCB can implement similar ideas based on their success. The Utah Division of Water Resources (DWR) through their water projects revolving fund has provided grants for cloud seeding operations for 32 out of the last 33 years. The result has been that there are many local programs that have operated continuously for around 30 years. Currently there is approximately $400h being spent that is 50/50 cost shared by the DWR and local interests for about 135 ground based wintertime cloud seeding generators. More information about Utah is at http:/i' ~.water.utah.govi'cloudseeding/currentpro~ectsl. In Nevada the Desert Research Institute (DRI) appropriates $600h per year through the State legislature for wintertime cloud seeding for the Lake Tahoe, Carson, and Truckee Basins. DRI operates and self regulates on behalf of the State of Nevada. This is a similar level of funding and structure of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board and the Wyoming Water Development Commission. DRI is known as a world class research facility similar to NCAR in Boulder. The equipment, methodologies, and evaluations for wintertime cloud seeding in Nevada are decades more advanced than all of the Upper Colorado River Basin States. Nevada has a need for water resources and DRI has gone to remote operated generators high in the mountains where ground based cloud seeding has definitively shown to be very effective. More about the Nevada cloud seeding program is at ttp:/!'cloudseedin~.dri.edui' Another example of success in Nevada is that physical measurements or sampling the conditions in the target areas should guide decision making more so that inferring proper conditions based on models and forecasts. The development of weather stations at key areas within Colorado would be useful in real time. Air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed are standard instrumentation 2