Monthly Progress Reports 1992-1993

• Description: Monthly Progress Reports 1992-1993
• State: CO
• Title: Monthly Progress Reports 1992-1993
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

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