Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10. Repeal the requirement that <br />certain information be <br />contained in reports filed by <br />the weather modification <br />operators, and authorize the <br />Executive Director to <br />promulgate rules requiring <br />weather modification <br />operators to file reports <br /> <br />Section 13, page 12, lines 10-26 <br />page 13, lines 1-26 <br />Page 14, lines 1-9 <br /> <br />We agree that the reporting requirements in the <br />statutes are confusing. Based on our experience, all <br />we really need to effectively monitor WM activities <br />are; <br />I) permittee keep daily records available for <br />inspection if necessary , <br /> <br />2) bi-weekly report sent to the state and county, <br /> <br />3) final annual operations report (days, <br />- amounts, and costs) with a scientific <br />evaluation (percent increase in snowpack, <br />increase in skier days, or saved crop <br />damages) <br /> <br />We would include these reports be included in the <br />changes to the existing rules and regulations. <br /> <br />The existing rules and regulations need to be <br />revised anyway to incorporate changes to the <br />program resulting from passage of HB 92-1129. <br />They have not been revised because there was no <br />money to cover the additional costs associated with <br />the legal process of changing the rules and <br />regulations. Any excess fee revenue in the weather <br />modification account reverts to the General Fund. <br /> <br />Furthermore, the sunset hearings were originally <br />scheduled for 1994. Before we started the rule <br />change process, we wanted to know what other <br />changes might occur, so we would only have to go <br />through the process once. <br /> <br />WMSUNSE2.DOC <br /> <br />8 <br />