Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Progress Report <br />Agreement Number 2-AB-30-001110 <br /> <br />Development of a Program Plan for a <br />Precipitation Management Demonstration Activity <br /> <br />Commencement through June 15, 1992 <br /> <br />The initial activities conducted under the subject agreement were in two areas. The first was a <br />series of initial information gathering meetings with each of the Colorado River Basin States, and <br />the second was a review and selection of potential experimental sites. <br /> <br />The purpose of the state meetings was to determine states' attitudes ~bout cloud seeding as they <br />related to the development of a program plan. The meetings dealt with determining exactly what <br />the plan should address and accomplish, investigating state positions on various technical aspects <br />of cloud seeding, and determining the need for and role of river modeling. Arlin Super and John <br />Lease met with the following: <br /> <br />State/GrouD <br />Arizona <br />California <br /> <br />ll!\1& <br />April 28 <br />May 27 <br /> <br />May 11 <br />April 29 <br />May 22 <br />April 30 <br />May 26 <br /> <br />May 19 <br /> <br />Contacts <br />Tim Henley <br />Jerry Zimmerman, Dick Angelos, <br />and Jan Metzuak <br />Gene Jencsok <br />Jerry Edwards <br />Bill Miller (by telephone) <br />Barry Saunders, Clark Ogden <br />Jeff Fassett, John Shields <br /> <br />Colorado <br />Nevada <br />New Mexico <br />Utah <br />Wyoming <br />Upper Colorado <br />River Comm;ssion <br /> <br />Wayne Cook <br /> <br />These meetings were very beneficial and it soon became apparent that there were common <br />positions among the states on a number of issues. The consensus positions were as follows: <br /> <br />1. A plan should describe a demonstration program that will accomplish three things: (1) <br />validate (prove) that cloud seeding technology can increase winter snowfall, (2) quantify the <br />increase resulting from appropriately applied seeding, and (3) develop procedures so that <br />the technology can be readily transferred to other locations in the Colorado River Basin <br />after completion of the program. <br /> <br />2. Let the science drive the design of the program. Answers to questions such as: what is <br />the best demonstration area or areas, what is the minimum acceptable size of an ~ and <br />program duration should be determined by technical considerations. <br /> <br />3. The program should not be open-ended, and firm results are expected in the shortest <br />possible time with current budget realities. Although the length of the program should be <br />determined by the science, it is unlikely that a program longer than 8 years could be <br />supported. <br /> <br />4. The program can be evaluated and quantified on precipitation only. that is, evaluation <br />on streamflow is not required. However, it is necessary that an estimation be made of <br />streamflow resulting from enhanced precipitation. <br />