My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00085
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00085
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:27:47 PM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:12:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Contract/Permit #
#96-5
Applicant
Southern Colorado Farms
Project Name
Southern Colorado Farms
Date
1/1/1996
Weather Modification - Doc Type
Public Hearing
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />..Jul-02-96 11:S8A <br /> <br />P.06 <br /> <br />disregarded. <br /> <br />3. MATERIAL - is similar to relevancy and requires that any <br />testimony must be material to the issues being considered <br />and to the questions in hearing before the tribunal. Any <br />testimony not relating to those questions would immaterial and it <br />too must be disregarded. <br /> <br />ISSUES <br /> <br />The relevant and material issues before the hearing officer relates <br />to the usage of ultrasonic sound waves to be used in hail control <br />and whether or not ultrasonic sound waves are a scientific and <br />technically f~a~ible .w~y Q( c9ntrolling nail. If the above be <br />answered in the affirmative. <br /> <br />The second question is the economic benefit to be obtained and the <br />benefit to be gained by the people using the sound wave approach <br />and also the benefit to the people of the state and if that be <br />answered in the affirmative. <br /> <br />The third question would relate to the determination that there is <br />no high degree of substantial harm or that adequate safeguards are <br />used to prevent substantial damage. <br /> <br />EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING <br /> <br />There are the above three issues to be determined from the hearing_ <br />The first issue concerns economic ben~fit to the area and to the <br />people of the state. <br /> <br />The second issue relates to the scientific and technical <br />feasibility. <br /> <br />The third issue is to determine that there is a high degree of risk <br />of substantial harm and that there are adequate safeguards to <br />prevent substantial damage. These issues are framed by the statue <br />as previously discussed on the matters that the director must <br />determine based on the operational plan and the testimony. <br /> <br />1) First issue - Is there an economic benefit and is it beneficial <br />to the neonle of the area in the state? <br /> <br />The testimony in this regard was furnished by Victor Smith, John <br />Smith, Brian Mizokami and several of the others that testified <br />there is a substantial risk of hail in the designated operating <br />area namely Township 41 Range 7 and Township 41 Range 9 and that <br />such hail produces devastating economic loss. utilizing the <br />method set forth in the application, the hail might be controlled <br />and reduce or alleviate the loss thereby furnishing an economic <br />benefit to the people within the operating area and also furnish an <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.