Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DECISION AND PERMIT-Page Two <br /> <br />6. The Applicant has furnished proof of financial liability in that the <br />certificate of insurance tendered with the application in the amount <br />of $2,000,006, expressly includes the Western Kansas Groundwater <br />Management District #1 and the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />7. The Applicant has submitted an operation plan for the proposed project <br />which is incorporated into these findings by reference. Said plan <br />involves seeding in Colorado for up to 15 miles west of the Colorado- <br />Kansas border but with a target area downwind and east of Colorado. <br />No Colorado counties are within the planned target area. <br /> <br />Applicant, by his own admission, indicates that there may be instances <br />when seeding could unintentionally impact limited areas of Colorado just <br />west of the Colorado-Kansas border but precautions will be taken to <br />reduce or eliminate such impacts. Nevertheless, Applicant could not <br />conclusively state that such impacts would not occur. <br /> <br />8. Under the legal theory of comity, Colorado may accept the factual findings <br />rendered by another state pursuant to an applicant that applies to both <br />states by virtue of the same project. <br /> <br />Applicant has supplied to the Director a weather modification approval <br />which has been issued for this project by the Kansas State Water Board <br />on April 12, 1979. It should be noted that the Kansas statute K.S.A. <br />82a-1411 contains similar requirements to the Colorado statute, particularly <br />C.R.S. 1973, 36-20-112, <br /> <br />To the extent possible, Colorado will support the findings of the State <br />of Kansas Water Resources Board. Furthermore since the project does not <br />target areas within Colorado ,this state will not require the same element <br />of proof as n01111811y required for applications uesigned to di:cectly aHect <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />9. From examination of the documents and reports submitted as part of the <br />applicatio~ the program appears to use current state 0f tbe art techniques. <br /> <br />10. The project subject to the conditions of the permit~ does not appear to <br />involve a high degree of risk of substantial harm to land, people, health, <br />safety, property, or the environment. <br /> <br />11. The project, subject to the conditions of the permit, is designed to <br />include adequate safeguards to prevent substantial harm to land, people, <br />health, safety, property, or the environment. <br /> <br />12. The project does not appear to adversely affect another project, subject <br />to the terms and conditions of the permit as well as the measures set forth <br />in the application to insure that said project will not adversely affect <br />another projecL <br /> <br />13. The project is designed to Thinimize risk and allow for scientific gain or <br />economic benefit to the residents of the area. <br /> <br />PERMIT GRANTED <br /> <br />A weather modification permit is hereby issued to the applicant, such permit <br />being applicable solely to the operation described in the application of <br />April 25, 1979 as modified by the terms and conditions prescribed below. <br /> <br />TERMS AND CONDITIONS <br /> <br />Permit herein granted is limited by and subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />1) This permit shall be effective for the period from June 7, 1979 <br />until August 31, 1979. <br />