|
<br />used in the United States and New Zealand to control hail damages to crops and orchards and that he is
<br />aware of no instance that the operation of a hail cannon has resulted in adverse effect on persons,
<br />property, the environment, or other weather modification projects, Robert Villano of Villano Bros,
<br />Farms, Inc, of Fort Lupton, Colorado testified that a hail cannons of the type proposed in this application
<br />is clUTently being used by Villano Bros, F anns, Inc in Fort Lupton, Colorado, and that he is aware of no
<br />instance in which persons or property have been damaged as a result of the operation of the hail cannon,
<br />No testimony was offered to contradict the testimony that the project is safe,
<br />
<br />16, Evidence of sound testing submitted by the applicant showed that the sound produced by the proposed
<br />project falls within the maximmn noise limits mandated under C,R.S, ~ 25-12-103 for residences located
<br />at least Y. mile (1320') from the device,
<br />
<br />17, The Applicant supplied to the Director its 24-hour telephone number in which it may be contacted by the
<br />Director for purposes of discontinuing operation of the hail cannon, if necessary,
<br />
<br />18. The applicant testified that it will utilize DTS Weather Radar, the adjoining co-generation plants' early
<br />warning'system, 'as well as the visual'observationS of Applicant's Senior Growers at each location to
<br />monitor weather conditions over the target areas in order to ensure that the )1.ail cannon will not be
<br />operated unnecessarily or without justification,
<br />
<br />19, Based on the infonnation in the proposed operational plan, testimony provided at the public hearing, and
<br />the materials reviewed, the project:
<br />
<br />A. is conceived to provide, and offers promise of providing, an economic benefit to the area in
<br />which the operation will be conducted [C,R.S, ~ 36-20-112(3)(a)],
<br />(FindilJ.gs 12. 13)
<br />
<br />B. is reasonably expected to benefit the people in the area in which the operation will be conducted
<br />[CRS, 36-20-1 12(3)(b)],
<br />(Findings 12,13)
<br />
<br />C, is scientifically and technically feasible [CRS, 36-20-112(3)(c)].
<br />(Finding 14)
<br />
<br />D, does not involve a high degree of risk of substantial hann to land, people, health, safety,
<br />property, water rights, or the environment [C,R,S, 36-20-112(3)(e)].
<br />(Findings 15, 16)
<br />
<br />E, includes adequate safeguards to prevent substantial damages to land, property, water rights,
<br />people, health, safety, or the environment [C,R.S, ~ 36-20-112(3)(1)].
<br />(Findings 15, 16, 17, 18)
<br />
<br />F, will not adversely affect another weather modification project [CRS, ~ 36-20,112(3)(g)],
<br />(Finding 15)
<br />
<br />G, is designed to minimize risk and maximize scientific gains or economic benefits to the residents
<br />of the area [C,R.S, ~ 36-20-112(3)(h)].
<br />(Findings 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
<br />
<br />DECISION
<br />
<br />4
<br />
|