Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:1 <br />~- <br /> <br />this program and other weather modification programs, It is time for <br />an evaluation of the WKWM.Program only based on a correct identifi- <br />cation of the precise area over which weather modification has been <br />performed. <br /> <br />Second, no agency, group or individual has had the time, <br />inclination, expertise or resources to attempt estimating the economic <br />impact of our hail reduction efforts. After 15 years of weather <br />modification operation, an economic analysis of the WKWM Program is <br />due and deserves fresh attention at the State level, The economic <br />soundness of implementing similar prograIllS elsewhere in the State <br />should be re-examined. Since Kansas is so agriculturally-oriented, it <br />makes sense that if our weather modification efforts are economically <br />sound here, similar undertakings in other parts of the State could <br />increase the State's productivity. This would benefit not only the <br />State entity, but primarily its citizens and the many other businesses <br />supporting its agricultural base. If the WKWM Program does not make <br />sense economically, why does the Program still exist? Why shouldn't a <br />similar program make sense elsewhere? <br /> <br />In order to make a credible economic analysis one needs to <br />realistically determine what has been the effect of the WKWM Program <br />in Western Kansas---this is one reason for requesting an evaluation, <br />It is easy enough to understand State-level hesitation to take any <br />supportive action based upon the most recent II-year WKWM Program <br />evaluation, however, it appears to be the case that either the results <br />from other hail suppression/rain stimulation programs in the High <br />Plains have not been accepted at appropriate State levels in Kansas or <br />they are unknown at those levels. If reducing crop and property damage <br />from hail and increasing rainfall are desirable objectives for Kansas, <br />there should have been (but never has been) serious questions answered <br />pertaining to the reasons why the WKWM Program has not gotten similar <br />the statistically high results found elsewhere on other programs, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Either: <br /> <br />(1) something may have been amiss with .the way the evaluation was <br />performed <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />(2) something may have been amiss with the operation of the WKWM <br />Program, or <br /> <br />(3) a combination of both, above <br /> <br />We have unequivocably been stating for years, the answer is (3), <br />for both reasons. <br /> <br />We contend that better Program results can only be achieved by <br />financially supporting us at higher than , current levels. Higher levels <br />of funding would allow us to improve our seeding capability by adding <br />aircraft, increasing the amount of seeding agent carried and maintain <br />or improve program equipment as needed. A new evaluation and economic <br />analysis of the impact of the WKWM Program may be our best chance to <br />provide evidence of the merit of our claims and receive the needed <br />support. However, if the message has no chance of being acted upon, <br />any evaluation would be a futile and pointless exercise, That is, <br />there remains a question as to whether there are any relevant groups <br />out there, at any level, that truly have an interest in increasing <br />water supplies and protecting crops, If there are, we sincerely wish <br />they look again at weather modification as one tool to do so. <br /> <br />00 <br />