Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002718 <br /> <br />Thirty-one states, at one time or another, have enacted statutes on <br /> <br /> <br />weather modification, currently there are thirty states with statutes on the <br /> <br /> <br />books. In the area of the Colorado River Basin Demonstration Project, all <br /> <br /> <br />the states have legislation. People are increasingly looking to the Legis- <br /> <br /> <br />latures as the court of last resort with problems on weather modification, <br /> <br /> <br />for example, in Texas. Opponents have found that the courts are not a good <br /> <br /> <br />vehicle for getting their views across. Changes in the Colorado legislation <br /> <br /> <br />in 1972 and '1973 were the direct results of people reaching their Legislators <br /> <br /> <br />and getting "useful" laws passed. There are four areas in which Legislatures <br /> <br /> <br />and legislative agreements can effect weather modification projects. <br /> <br />a. The pocket book legislation: funding operations through Federal <br />or state funds (authorizing statutes and appropriations). <br /> <br />b. Regulation of operations and operatives (note that all states <br />in the Colorado River Basin have regulatory legislation): there <br />is reporting legislation at the federal level - reporting to <br />NOAA. There is other legislation, for example, wilderness <br />legislation is especially important with reference to orographic <br />cloud seeding. If it is interpreted as restricting, it could <br />have a significant negative effect on the Colorado River Basin <br />Project. Dr. Kahan's office feels that this legislation cannot <br />be legitimately interpreted as prohibiting cloud seeding. An <br />alternate view is held by some Forest Service regional solicitors. <br /> <br />c. Allocations of water resources: Colorado and Utah have laws on <br />this, neither has been authoritatively interpreted by the Court. <br />Personally, I think that in Colorado, it is likely people could <br />file on identifiable water produced by cloud seeding, the problem <br />is to identify it. <br /> <br />d. Assessment of liability: for example, in Colorado if someone <br />believes they have been harmed by weather modification they can <br />take it up with the Colorado Advisory Committee of the Department <br />of Natural Resources. The resulting findings of fact can be used <br />in judicial proceedings as evidence. <br /> <br />There are various approaches that could be taken legislatively with re- <br /> <br /> <br />ference to weather modification. The simplest is to Federalize everything to <br /> <br /> <br />avoid jurisdictional problems. I believe the states would oppose that (although <br /> <br /> <br />they would not oppose accepting Federal funds). An alternative is a Federal <br /> <br /> <br />Corporation like the Tennessee Valley Authority, but this is not likely politi- <br /> <br /> <br />cally. Efforts for Federal legislation began a year after Vincent Shaeffer's <br /> <br /> <br />experiment and we have yet to have a full-fledged Federal law. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />. <br />, <br />l <br /> <br />. <br />t- <br />o <br />[ <br />t <br /> <br />I <br />