Laserfiche WebLink
<br />An attractive aspect of cloud seeding programs is that they can be implemcnted and. if <br />needed. terminated comparatively quickly, since they generally do not involvc the developmcnt <br />of large pennanent infrastructure. Further. opcrations can rcadi1y be suspended during vcry wet <br />periods and restarted \vhen appropriate. <br /> <br />No significant negative environmental impacts arc anticipatcd from the conduct of such <br />programs. based upon the findings from a number of largc scale ofticc and field environmental <br />programs funded by the Denver offices of the Bureau of Reclamation. Several of the Iicld <br />programs havc been conductcd in the winter em'ironments of California. Colorado. Utah and <br />Wyoming. <br /> <br />When objcctivc assessmcnts of various water resollrce managcment and supply options <br />arc conducted in similar situations. thl.' wl.'ather modilication option typically emerges as a most <br />attractivc avenue. It appears {hat this is tnle for the Colorado River system. This \Vhite Paper <br />describes various aspects of the wintcr cloud seeding option in some detail including a list of <br />recommendations in Section 18. <br /> <br />Rccommendations shown in the text are also listed here. <br /> <br />. New operational winter cloud sceding programs should be establishcd in suitable areas in <br />the states of Arizona. Colorado. Utah and Wyoming that arc currently not part of active <br />opcrational programs. This will enhancc runurf into thc Colorado River Basin. The tcrm <br />"operational"' is uscd to dcnote programs whose primary goal is to producc additional <br />precipitation. In other words. these programs would not be research oriented. although <br />some research activities might be .'piggybacked" on sume of thesc programs should <br />additional Fedcral or state funding become available. There is precedent for this <br />approach in carlier "piggyback" research activities being added to operational programs <br />in Colorado. Nevada and Utah through Federal funding. <br />. Thc dcvclopment ofncv..- programs should follow the existing regulations that are <br />concerned with weather modification activities within each State in which the program is <br />to he conducted. All four states (Arizona. Colorado. Utah and "'.'yoming) have such <br />regulations. <br />. Design studies should be conducted to guide the developmcnt of potential projects in new <br />arcas. Such studies will allow a customized approach to the development of cach ncw <br />program. taking into considcration area-spccifie factors such as climatology. topography. <br />prescnce and frcqucncy of secdablc conditions. and seeding targeting and social <br />considerations. The State of Wyoming. through their Water Resources Dcvelopmcnt <br />Commission. has recently adopted this approach in their consideration ofncw programs <br />in the Wind River. Sicrra Madre. Medicinc Bow. Salt and Wyoming Mountain Ranges. <br />. Existing operational programs within the Upper Colorado River Basin could be <br />potentially enhanccd. t\leans or enhancing thesc etlccts should bc coordinated by the <br />existing program sponsors and operators. Modifications might include additional secding <br />cquipment. different types of seeding equipment (e.g. aircraft in addition to ground <br />seeding and/or rcmotely controlled ground generators). and longer operational pcriods if <br />the full seasonal window of seeding opportunity is not currently being seedcd. <br />