Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0035;)5 <br /> <br />APPENDIX B <br /> <br />Potential Benefits and Disadvantages of Seeding <br /> <br />Many scientists, but certainly not all (Katz and Glantz, 1979; <br />Morel-Seytoux, 1977) believe that cloud seeding can augment mountain <br />sllOwpack provided that it is conducted under well-defined conditions <br />(Weather Modification Advisory Board, 1978:35). Costjbenefit ratios <br />irdicate that seeding is cost effective (Weather Modification Advisory <br />Board, 1978:129), especially when benefits are corrpared to operational <br />costs. The Briefing D:lcument for the Colorado River Enhaoced Snowpack <br />Test (CREST) estimates that a basin-wide operational seeding program would <br />return between $7 and $10 in benefits for every dollar spent (CREST <br />Briefing D:lcument, 1982:3).* <br /> <br />Weather modification compares favorably to other methods of <br />iocreasing water supply. In refereoce to augmenting the flow of the <br />Coloratlo River, the Westside Study Report (1975) coocludes that "weather <br />modification appears to be the JOOst promising source of new water supply <br />in the Western United States." This report, authorized by Title II of <br />Public Law 90-537, analyzes critical water problems facing 11 western <br />states and considers such augmentation measures as importation, desalting <br />seawater or geothermal brines, and vegetation management. Unlike these <br />other alternatives, weather modification does not require major permanent <br />construction, and it can be tecninated on a year-to-year or even <br />storm-to-stoIlll basis, should hydrology, weather patterns, or public <br />response dictate (CREST Briefing D:lcument, 1982:10). <br /> <br />*CREST is an eight-year demonstration program proposed by the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, Department of the Interior, to confiIlll the capability of <br />cloud seeding to augment the Colorado River. <br /> <br />46 <br />