WMOD00036 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DECISION AND PERMIT - Page 2 3. The Applicant has demonstrated that the persons in control of the project regarding seeding within Colorado will be strictly limited to those individuals having valid Colorado weather modification licenses, Mr. Ralph Papania, Jr. and Dr.' Larry Davis. 4. The Applicant must furnish a permit fee, as specified in Article 20, Title 36, C.R.S. 1973, before any permit can be issued. Said permit fee is necessary under interpretation of the Colorado Attorney General, dated April 26, 1978. The total permit fee in this case shall be $396.00. 5. The Applicant has furnished proof of financial liability in that the certificate of insurance tendered with the application expressly includes Colorado International Corporation and the state of Colorado. 6. Applicant issued a Notice of Intent to modify the weather pursuant to the above said hearing in conformance with C.R.S. 1973. 36-20-112 (1) (e). Said notice was circulated to newspapers throughout the affected area as specified by the Applicant during the -above-said hearing. Therefore, the Applicant has met the requirements of the Weather Modification Act regarding publication. 7. The Applicant has submitted an operation plan for the proposed project which is incorporated into these findings by reference. Said plan involves seeding in Colorado for up to 20 miles west of the Colorado- Kansas border but with a target area downwind and east of Colorado. No Colorado counties are within the planned target area. Applicant, by his own admission, indicates that there may be instances when seeding could unintentionally impact limited area of Colorado just west of the Colorado-Kansas border but precautions will be taken to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Nevertheless, Applicant could not conclusively state that such impacts would not occur. 8. Under the legal theory of comity, Colorado may accept the factual findings. rendered by another state pursuant to an applicant that applies to both states by virtue of the same project. Applicant has. supplied to the Director a weather modification approval which has been issued .for this project by the Kansas State Water Board on March 14, 1978. It should be noted that the Kansas statute K.S.A. 823-1411 contains similar requirements to the Colorado statute, particularly C.R.S. 1973, 36-20-112. . To the extent possible, Colorado will support the findings of the State of Kansas Water Resources Board. Furthermore since the project does not target areas within Colorado, this state will not require the same element of proof as normally required for applications designed ~o directly affect Colorado. 9. The precipitation augmentation of the program appears to offer economic benefit to the target area. The applicant does not intend to impact Colorado; therefore no anticipated economic benefit is expected. 10. From examination of the documents and reports submitted as part of the application the precipitation augmentation portion of the program appears to use current state of the art techniques. However, the record is insufficient to substantiate scientific and technical feasibility of the hail suppression program. In view of the absence of supporting evidence, the applicant has not met the required burden of proof for a commercial or operational permit as required\by Section 112 of the Colorado statute.