Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />We feel like, on the next, the EVALUATION OF PEm~T <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />APPLICATIONS, in paragraph (D): <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />The applicant for Cl permit (and then <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />we'ld like to scratch out" for scientific <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />or research project" just scratch that) <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />must show that the project is designed for <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />and offers promise of expanding the knowledge <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />and the technology of weather modification. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />tfny shOuld we limit it to the scientific research <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />projects: We ought to grow from all of them; and in their <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />endeavors, there s:~,ould be consideT.ation of this opportunity. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />If they1re going to have this permit, they're obligated to <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />contribute. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />Then in paragraph (E): <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />The applicant mu8t provide information <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />that the project does not involve a high <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />degree of risk or substantial harm. Any <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />risks and the applicant1s appraisal or each <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />should be presented. <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Now, we think that this [i,an who gets a permit should <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />be able to prove his opposition is in error. Now, we all see <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />things differently, and there are two sides to every story. <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />One of them has got to be right, one of them has got to be <br /> <br />24 ,.rong. If he I s going to hold this permit, he should be able <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />to prove the opposition is in error. <br /> <br />MRS, LORINA M, BROWN <br />CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER <br />283 TITAN STREET <br />AURORA. COLORADO 80010 <br />