WMOD00213

• Applicant: North American Weather Consultants
• Sponsor Name: Upper Colorado River Commission
• Project Name: The Potential Use of Winter Cloud Seeding Programs to Augment the Flow of the Colorado River
• Title: The Potential Use of Winter Cloud Seeding Programs to Augment the Flow of the Colorado River
• Prepared For: Upper Colorado River Commission
• Prepared By: Don Griffith, NAWC
• Date: 3/1/2006
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

Table I Existing Target Areas

Colorado Utah
1. Upper Arkansas t 11. Fishlake Mtlls.
2. Gunnison North 12. Boulder rvltn~
13. Uinta Mtns.
3. Gunnison South South
14. Dixie Nat!.
4.Vail Forcstt
5.Ueaver Creek
6. Grand Mesa North
7. Grand Mesa South
8. San ~li2uel Mtns.
9. Western Sail Juans
10. Eastcrn San
Juans
.

Portion of area olltslde Colorado RI\er Basin

Table 2. Potelllial Tar~et Areas

Colorado Utah W,..amino Arizona
20. Uinta ~ltns. 24. Wyoming Range 26. Kaibab N.F.
15. Park Ran1!e North S IODC
21. La Sal Mts. 25. Wind River Mtns. 27. Chuska Mts.
16. Elkhcad Mis. Wcstjj 'AZINM)
17. White R. 22. ~tt. ElIenjj 28. White Mts.
Plateau
18. Uncompahgre 23. Ahajo Pk. . 29. San Francisco
Plateau peaksll
19. Central
Rock ies @

# Areas not identified in CREST document
@ Area was operationally seeded in previous )'ears b) Denver Water utility

11.0 Could the Effecls from Exislin~ Cloud Seeding Programs in the Colorado
Rh.er Basin be Enhanced with Additional Fundin~'!

Figure 3 (from section 10) indicates that scvcral potential arcas for wintcr cloud sceding
programs in the upper Colorado River Basin arc already bcing targeted by existing programs. An
obyious question is whethcr there could bc additions made to these existing programs in ordcr to
provide higher amounts of precipitation and runoff? The short answer to this question is yes.
Operational programs seldom enjoy the luxury ofha\'ing enough funds to optimize the effects of
cloud seeding within their target areas. Possible additions would generally fall undc:r two