Laserfiche WebLink
<br />organizations to which rule making power is delegated. The <br />National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been given <br />and has exercised power to make rules about reporting. And <br />state regulators have promulgated regulations concerning profes- <br />sional licensing and operational permitting. <br /> <br />Courts, although their law making role is not as overt, <br />have "made" law concerning atmospheric water rights and cloud <br />seeding liabilities by deciding cases, writing opinions stating <br />the reasons for their decisions, and thereby setting precedents <br />which usually are followed in subsequent similar cases. Search <br />for weather modification law must examine their decisions <br />as well as the work of the other branches of government. <br /> <br />The bulk of the law overtly dealing wi~h wea~her control <br />activities has been made by the states. Sixty percent of <br />them have at some time and tb some degree legislated about <br />cloud seeding. These laws vary from the rather complete North <br />Dakota scheme to the bare mention of atmospheric waters in <br />Hawaii (6, 7). (See the Appendix, ~ 3.9, for a complete list <br />of state statues). <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />But states cannot deal completely with interstate and <br />national concerns and have no legitimate direct role in inter- <br />national matters. They have cooperated with each other when <br />the need has arisen, and thus far only rarely have engaged <br />in interstate confrontation (3). Nevertheless, except for <br />appropriations for research and a federal study law, the only <br />national legislation is the reporting requirement (11). <br /> <br />International law regulating the transnational impacts <br />of intended weather alteration is but barely discernible (15). <br />According to customary international law principles, it would <br /> <br />3-2 <br />