WMOD00234

• Contract/Permit #: #93-5
• Applicant: Western Kansas Groundwater
• Project Name: Kansas Weather Modification
• Date: 1/1/1993
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
: I
I
I
I
I
I

Fig. 15 is a display of various ranges of hail reduction,
including hay production versus Crop Saved. The value of the
assumed hail reduction ranges in Fig. 15 show tremendous year-to-
year variability in some cases as one might expect by examining
crop losses in Fig. 14. Most yearly operating budgets have been
around $250,000, so the 8-year total costs approach $2 million.
Even at the low percentage reduction of 10%., all years show a
greater than even benefit-to-cost ratio; the high was in 1990, near
12 to 1 ($12 dollars payback for $1 cost). However, at the high
end of the hail reduction range the benefit-to-cost ratios spread
from a low of about 6 to 1 up to around 54 to 1 with Crop Saved
values ranging from near $1.5 million to a high approaching nearly
$14 million. No one can tell exactly how effective in reducing hail
our program was in any given year.

Fig. 16 shows the savings over the 8-year period if all year~~
percentages of equal value were accumulated. For instance, ~J:
assumed we had only a 10% effect for the entire 8 years, the amount
of saved crop would be nearly $10 million, at 25% it would be near
$30 million; the highest expected, at a uniform 35% reduction, is
near $49 million.

When all 8-year costs are added together and matched against
the accumulated Crop Saved values in Figure 16, the minimum
benefit-to-cost ratio is 5 to 1; the highest is 24.5 to 1. This
means the increase in Farm Value for each $1 put into the WKWM
Program ranges from a low of $5 to a high of nearly $25.

It should be pointed out also, these fiaures are only from the
hail suppression aspect alone. Not added are any values of
increased crop yield from increased rainfall, decreased property
damage or even decreases in long-term crop-hail insurance, all of
which our operations has some likelihood of affecting.

Evaluators have been trying to accurately assess weather
modification programs for decades. ,But, there are often serious
questions about the validity of the results. Our approach assumes
a beneficial effect to Farm Value from less hail, then it attempts
to define realistic ranges in which added values will most likely
fit. No two years will see the same beneficial effect from cloud
seeding, i.e., you shouldn't expect to see duplicate results in the
target area year to year, any more than you should expect to
experience duplicate amounts of hail or rainfall in the target area
year to year.

48