WMOD00174 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 'tin.' . f '\ {/~ . j .' WEEKLY NEWSLETTE~ 94-17 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 20 - AUGUST 26, 1994 General Interest: Earlier this year, the Kansas Water Authority considered supporting the weather modification program and asked the Kansas Water Office to evaluate it to detarmine if would produce positive result a and be of practic41 economic s1atl~t1canCl.. It so, a cost-sharing pro9ra~ would be developed in whiCh $10,000 per county would be made available to the weather modification program. That evaluation was recently completed: It found overall crcp~hail damage was reduced .by 28t in a group of six counties participating continuously from 1979 through 1993, compared to IS block of eight counties in Northwest Kansas in which no weather modification was performed. A cost-to-benefit ratio of 1 to 37 was found ($1 paid into the program returned $37 to the part1cipatinq counties' economies). Based on thisf it was concluded the program would be worth supporting. Interastingly, the number of counties participating each season averaged 12.2, not 6, indicating a higher cost-to-benefit ratio is the case, probably about double---l to 75~ Initially, the study concluded even a very slight increase of rain would warrant State support. However, they found out there are many factors wl1ich make rainfall of practical economic significancec rainfall intensity, soil moisture levels and timing ot rainfall events, Also, crop moisture needs and temperatures may be much more important factors than simply the average' seasonal precipitation. Although there was an insignificant change in rainfall, albeit A decrease, found when comparing to a "control" group of eight Northwestern Kansas counties plus fiVe in eastern ColorA~o, they found the amount was noto! practical economic s1gp1t1cancl. If this had heen purely a program to increase rain, we should have $.en siqnifio~nt increases as found on other programs operated that w~y. Other factors make this number suspect and, therefore, le88 reliable. If the cost-sharing portion of the Wat:er Office budget is approved, the program will be able to make significant improvements in its cloud seeding oapability. The Water Office also assured us they will work with Colorado authorities to extend our permit to seed clouds west into Colorado beyond the previous lO-mile limit. Altho~gh we will never stop all orop-hail damage, it 1s realistio to expect greater long-term reduction, possibly 40\ - SOt, or more with improved seeding capability.