Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ASPECTS OF PRECIPITATION ENHANCEMENT <br /> <br />35 <br /> <br />1972. At its height, the program included about 60% of the land area of <br />the state at a cost of approximately $1 million each growing season. <br />Surveys of the South Dakota public from 1972 to 1975 found the majority <br />were favorable toward the program (Farhar 1973; Farhar 1975b). South <br />Dakotans favored cloud seeding because they believed it would help <br />farmers in a state where agriculture is the mainstay of the economy. Only <br />after an opposition group organized, and the legislature failed to appro- <br />priate funds, did majorities fail to favor the program. In contrast, North <br />Dakota has maintained an operational program with public support, and <br />some opposition, for over 30 years. <br />When a weather modification project has local sponsorship and strong <br />local support over several years, even a large-scale negative weather <br />event (such as a flash flood disaster) in the presence of cloud seeding may <br />not produce organized protest. For example, findings from South Dakota <br />show that the majority of respondents did not attribute the Rapid City <br />flood to cloud seeding that had been carried out in the area. Even those <br />who thought cloud seeding was to some extent responsible for the flood <br />did not organize against it. A committee of scientists released an official <br />report 18 days after the flood stating that cloud seeding was not its cause; <br />this may have alleviated some citizen concern (Farhar 1974). <br /> <br />2.4.4 Assessing Community Dynamics <br /> <br />The decision to adopt cloud seeding is most often made by organiza- <br />tions and communities, not by individuals. Therefore, public opinion is <br />but one factor in a community where this decision is being made. Fur- <br />thermore, although a number of communities adopted cloud seeding <br />during the 1970s, most of these projects have been discontinued since that <br />time. This can probably be attributed to early overselling and consequent <br />unrealistic expectations of a technology still in its infancy. Cloud seeding <br />adoption by communities has not followed the normal diffusion S-curve. <br />Public acceptability is not identical with unanimous agreement; public <br />acceptance means that sufficient majority support exists to move a project <br />forward without serious social polarization. Systemic (community-level) <br />variables relevant to acceptance of cloud seeding (Haas et al. 1972; Weis- <br />becker 1974; Mewes 1977) include the following: <br /> <br />. Environment and conditions-climate, water supplies, economic <br />activities, topography, and population <br />. Structure and process-institutions, organizations, power elites, <br />stakeholder interests, and relationships among groups <br />. Interaction between the project community and communities down- <br />wind and downstream <br />. The stream of events-contingency events and planned action <br /> <br />Stakeholder groups-the range of associations; state, local, and tribal <br />governments; and individuals with economic or domain interests-may <br />be affected by the proposed action. Difficulties in the application of a cloud <br />