WMOD00235

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

VI. HAIL DISTRIBUTION

Figure #17 relates to the statewide crop hail claim information
from each COW1ty for 1986. The numbers of crop hail insurance claims
were tabulated from periodic reports sent to WKWM by the Kansas -
Okla~~ma Hail Loss Service in Wichita.

The crop-hail reports specify the 'date of occurrence of crop
damage claims due to hail and the location of t~e 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 #17 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 #20
which is an analysis of the combined ~~tal number of hail instance
claims for April through September 15th.

Looking at Figures #18,#19! and #20, it appears that target erea
hail instances are centered in nearly the same general area in each of
the months ,~f I'lay, .June, .JlJly, and' August. Oddly enouqh, that same
phenomenon seemed to hold true as well over Sheridan County---well
n'~I.th of the tal'get al'e".

It is of interest to compare the combined total of hail instances
for 1986 to those recorded in 1985 as presented last year in the final.
rep?rt (Fiqure #21). On B target area for target area basis, it is
seen ther's was less damage inside the target area this year compared
to last year. In Table #2 the hail damage claims are listed by month
f'~l' 19:36 (t.hpc'u'::Jh ~=;'?pt.. 15t.h) iCl1'1d t.oted.s 1,194. inst.ances. L~'5t. yeaI',
in 1985, t.he total number of instances within the target area was
2,243. However, target areas were different in 1985 and 1986 and we
s~~uld 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 19:35 against 1,294 in 1986, (397
less) for a 23.6% reduct.ion in hall 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 redLlctions inside
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 requir'ed before
statistical verifications of any effect can be made.

If one closely looks at the 1986 rail1fall departure from its
long-ter'm average (Figure #16) and compares that to the h~il maximum
in..Figure #20J it appears, subjectivelYJ there may be some
relationship between the occurrence of heil 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
yeal"'s Final Rt~pol"t. Whe~t. rnight. be impliedJ j.f t.t"l.JeJ j.5 t.hat. whilt?
the target. area r~ceived a greater number of storms in 1986 than in

31