WMOD00188 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DFJ:ISION AND PERMIT-Page Two 4. The Applicant has denDnstrated that the persons in control of the project ~ega~ding seeding within Colorado will be strictly limited to Mr. William J. Car ley and Mr. English Hamrond who possess valid Colorado weather modification licenses. \ 5. The Applicant must furnish a peonit fee, as specified in Article 20, Title 36, C.R.S. 1973, before any permit can be issued. The total permit fee, in this case $100, has been paid. 6. The Applicant has furnished proof of financial liability in that the certificate of insurance tendered with the application in the amount of $2,000,000 expressly includes the Western Kansas Groundwater Management Dist~ict #1 and the State of Colorado. 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 15 miles west of the Colorado-Kansas border but with a target area downwind and east of Colo~ado. No Colorado counties are within the planned target area. Applicant, by his own admissions, indicates that there may be instances when seeding could unintentionally linpact limited areas 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 will supply to the Director a weather modification approval which has been issued for this project by the Kansas State Water fuard on April 27, 1982. It should be noted that the Kansas statute K.S.A. 82a-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 to directly affect Colorado. 9. From examination of the docunents and reports submi tted as part of the application. the program appears to use current state of the art techniques. 10. The project subject to the conditions of the permit, does not appear to involve a high degree of risk of substantial harm to land, people, health, safety, property, or the environment. 11. The project, subject to the conditions of the permit, is designed to include adequate safeguards to prevent substantial harm to land, people, hea~th, safety, property, or the environment. 12. The project does not appear to adversely affect another project, subject to the terms and conditions of the permit as well as the measure set forth in the application to insure that said project will not adversely affect another project. 13. The project is designed to minimize risk and allow for scientific gain or economic benefit to the residents of the area.