Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Federal operational program as a major and significant action <br />impacting the environment and their lives. A widespread perception <br />is that the people in the project areas will incur the inconveniences <br />and costs of increased snowpack, while the downstream areas will <br />enjoy the "real" benefits. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Compensation claims can be expected in areas such as: increased <br />costs of snow removal, structural damage due to increased snow <br />loading, livestock losses, loss of the use of grazing areas for <br />indefinite periods in the late autumn and early spring, "haystack <br />losses" from changes in big game feeding patterns, mitigation needs <br />to protect wildlife from loss of winter range or more severe <br />winters, and delayed access to mining sites. The development of a <br />compensation system is not only a legal-policy question; it will be <br />a primary factor in community acceptance of the technology. State <br />and local governments are sensitive to complaints about disbenefits <br />that may be caused by increased snowpack. <br /> <br />Water Ri~hts. Under the research mode, the Water and Power Resources <br />Service and the Departmental position has been that any additional <br />water produced by cloud seeding is "incidental" to the learning <br />process, and that this incremental amount of water simply enters <br />the system for free distribution among users according to existing <br />water rights. <br /> <br />Many Western states have enacted weather modification laws which <br />include a statutory claim of rights to all water produced in the <br />state through weather modification technology. If the Federal <br />Government undertakes an operational precipitation management <br />program to produce water to meet needs involving the Federal <br />Government, the question of a potential Federal water right claim <br />to the new water will concern the states and other water rights <br />owners. An eventual Federal policy decision regarding a potential <br />legal claim by the Federal Government will be desired by state and <br />local interests as they develop their own policy and attitudes <br />about a Federal program. <br /> <br />General Liability Concerns. The general rules of liability for harm <br />resulting from a person's or entity's actions or negligence have <br />always applied to weather modification activity. To date, no legal <br />action concerning weather modification activities has resulted in a <br />favorable decision for the plaintiff due to the difficulty in <br />establishing the necessary cause and effect relationship. As <br />operational activity increases and scientific certainty of effect <br />improves, this situation will change. The Weather Modification <br />Advisory Board Report, in discussing liability under expanded <br />operational scenarios, examined the theory of absolute liability as <br />well as liability for fault. The report tended to favor the <br /> <br />VII-4 <br />