Laserfiche WebLink
JuNr:1978 BERNARD A. SILVERMAN <br />What Do We Need in Weather Modification? <br />BERNARD A. SILVERMAN <br />Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. 80225 <br />(Manuscript received 13 March 1978) <br />ABSTRACT <br />The needs of weather modification are examined from the vantage point of a manager, from the Federal <br />sector, of applied research and development in precipitation management. Several problems in the perspec- <br />tive with which weather modification is viewed in the scientist, user and political communities are discussed. <br />This image of weather modification has given rise to a credibility gap which hinders its technological de- <br />velopment. Several courses of action are suggested to improve this image and move the field of weather <br />modification forward both scientifically and socially. <br />1. Introduction <br />The question, "What do we need in weather modi- <br />fication?" is one that responsible managers, researchers <br />and users of weather modification must continually ask <br />themselves. Significant events of the last few years <br />make this question particularly relevant at this time. <br />Among the more important events are the following: <br />1) Great concern over the widespread drought in <br />the United States has triggered an unprecedented <br />number of state and locally supported weather modi- <br />fication programs, and along with it, reaction that <br />has ranged from a total lack of credibility in its <br />effectiveness to the ill- informed perception that any <br />seeding - induced precipitation in the intended target <br />area will inevitably be at the expense of precipitation <br />that would have fallen in "downwind" areas. <br />2) Reduction in the number of Federal agencies <br />with active weather modification research programs <br />and a steady decrease in the level of funding by those <br />Federal agencies that are still active. <br />3) Recent completion of several large -scale weather <br />modification programs, i,e., the Colorado River Basin <br />Pilot Project (CRBPP), the National Hail Research <br />Experiment (NHRE), and the Florida Area Cumulus <br />Experiment (FACE), the results of which are being <br />perceived as having fallen short of projected expecta- <br />tions, despite the fact that they have made significant <br />contributions to the science of weather modification. <br />4) Launching of two new major research programs <br />by the Bureau of Reclamation, i.e., the High Plains <br />Cooperative Program (HIPLEX) and the Sierra <br />Cooperative Pilot Project (SCPP). <br />5) Passage by the U.S. Congress of Public Law <br />94 -490, the National Weather Modification Policy Act <br />of 1976 and the creation of an auspicious Weather <br />867 <br />Modification Advisory Board thereunder which is <br />charged with recommending a national weather modi- <br />fication policy, a national program of research and <br />development and an organizational structure for car- <br />rying out the policy and program. <br />What, indeed, do we need in weather modification? <br />I will attempt to respond to this difficult question <br />by first commenting briefly on some problems in, what <br />I term, the perspective with which weather modifica- <br />tion is viewed in the scientist, user and political com- <br />munities. Then, I will suggest several courses of <br />action which I feel will move the field of weather <br />modification forward both scientifically and techno- <br />logically. I will discuss the needs of weather modifica- <br />tion from the vantage point of a manager, from the <br />Federal sector, of applied research and development <br />in precipitation management and will confine my <br />remarks to this important area of weather modification. <br />2. Problems in perspective <br />The past and present image of the field of weather <br />modification has given rise to a credibility gap which <br />constantly places obstacles in the path of its techno- <br />logical progress. Three main problems in perspective <br />are, in my estimation, responsible for the creation <br />of this credibility gap. <br />a. The drought - relief fallacy <br />There are too many potential users and policy <br />makers who view weather modification only as a <br />drought- relief measure. Funding and operational pro- <br />grams increase during drought periods, apparently <br />with the expectation that water deficits that took <br />years to develop will be quickly replenished. Weather <br />modification is often invoked as a desperation measure, <br />