WMOD00235

• Applicant: Western Kansas Groundwater Management
• Project Name: Cloud Seeding
• Date: 4/15/1986
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

VI. HAIL DISTRIBUTION

Fi~ure #17 relates to the statewide crop hail claim information
from each county for 1986. The numbers of crop hail insurance claims
were tabulated from periodic reports sent to WKWM by the Kansas -
Oklahoma Hail Loss Service in Wichita.

The crop-hail reports specify the ~ate of occurrence of crop
damage claims due to hail and the location of the damage, nothing
else. Crop-Hail Insurance Actuarial Association officials indicate,
for different reasons, the amount of crops being insured in 1986 is
substantially less than in 1985. One reason for this, undoubtedly, is
that crop prices are so low. In any event, we see in Figure 817 there
are relatively higher numbers of hail instances in the Haskell/Finney/
Gray/Grant counties area---Gray County being outside the target area.
This is also portrayed in the lower of the two maps of Figure 820
which is an analysis of the combined total number of hail instance
claims for April through September 15th.

~~oking at Figures 818,819, and 820, it appears that target area
hail instances are centered in nearly the same general area in each of
the months of May, June, July, and. August. Oddly enough, that same
phenomenon seemed to hold true as well over Sheridan County---well
north of the target area.

It is of interest to compare the cc~bined total of hail instances
for 1986 to those recorded in 1985 as presented last year in the final.
rep?rt (Figure 121). On a target area for target area basis, it is
seen there was less damage inside the target area this year compared
to last year. In Table 12 the hail damage claims are listed by month
for 1986 (through Sept. 15th) and totals 1,294 instances. L~st year,
in 1985, the total nu~ber of instances within the target area was
2,243. However, target areas were different in 1985 and 1986 and we
should therefore compare the same counties for both years by omitting
Stanton and Hodgeman counties. Comparing in this manner, we have
target area instances of 1,691 in 1985 against 1,294 in 1986, (397
less) for a 23.5% reduction in hail instances in 1986 over 1985. In
1985 there were non-target area hail instances of 11,771 versus 9,024
non-target area instances in 1986, or 23.3% less in 1986, amazingly
similar. Almost expectedly, total statewide crop damage claims in 1986
which numbered 10,318 versus 13,462 in 1985 turned out to be 23.4%
less in 1986. The similarity of year~to-year hail reductions illside
and outside the target area show little that can suggest discernible
hail suppression effectiveness. Because an effect is difficult to
find in a given year, several years are usually required before
statistical verifications of any effect can be made.

If one closely looks at the 1986 rainfal.l departure from its
long-term average (Figure #16) and compares that to the hail ma~(imum
in Figure 120, it appears, subjectively, there may be some
relationship between the occurrence of hail and increased convective
summertime rainfall. That is, the greater the rainfall the greater is
the occurrence of hail---the same effect that was described in last
year's Final Report. What might be implied, if true, is that while
the target area received a greater number of storms in 1986 than in