Laserfiche WebLink
<br />extensive testing, there was uncertainty regarding the reliability of cloud- <br />seeding. The Governor faced a classic public policy dilemma. If the cloud- <br />seeding did not work or if the weather improved (in the sense of providing <br />moisture), then any outlay for weather modification would be made to appear <br />foolish and a waste of time and money. On the other hand, if cloud-seeding <br />worked too we11--to the point that excessive moisture caused life or property <br />damage--the Governor could have been in a worse situation. There were also <br />problems with popular attitudes toward tampering with the natural processes of <br />the weather. <br /> <br />Gi ven the above parameters, the group of sci ent i sts assembled by the <br />Governor's Science and Technology Advisory Council to consult with the Governor <br />was diverse. The group inc 1 uded soci a 1 sci enti sts, c 1 imato logi sts. weather <br />modification experts, and water experts. Included in the group were those who <br />had dealt with previous droughts in either c1 imatological or administrative <br />capacities. The briefing the Governor received from the scientists culminated a <br />few days later in a meeting between the Governor and legislative leaders. The <br />Weather Modification Bill (HB 1160) was drafted, passed, and signed into law <br />and, in less than a week, HB 1160 called for a $251,200 appropriation to the <br />Department of Natural Resources for a weather modification program to be <br />implemented during the remainder of the winter season, then evaluated for the <br />purpose of undertaking a fullsca1e weather modification program during the <br />following winter. (See Appendix D, page 113, for a copy of HB 1160.) <br /> <br />2.2 THE FIR S T D R 0 UGH T C 0 U N C I L <br /> <br />On January 25, 1977, one day after hi s meet ing with the 1 eg i slat i ve <br />leadership on weather modification, Governor Lamm announced the formulation of <br />the State Drought Council. The Drought Council was composed largely of the same <br />scientists and administrators with whom the Governor had consulted during the <br />previous week. The Drought Council was to continue in the advisory capacity <br />that had begun the week before. A major focus of the Drought Council was to <br />monitor and report weather and snowpack conditions and concurrently continue to <br />develop a State drought response mechanism. (The membership and affiliations of <br />the Drought Council appear in Figure 2-0, page 26.) <br /> <br />The Drought Council met formally three times during the five weeks between <br />February 1 and March 8. During that period, the State's drought response <br />organization and activities began to form. Many of the poliCies and programs <br />devised during that period were fostered outside of the formal confines of the <br />Drought Council. Management policies and program initiatives were put together <br />by the Governor's staff--often with the advice of particular Drought Council <br />members with pertinent expertise--and were then presented formally at Drought <br />Council meetings for additional consultation. <br /> <br />For instance, during the two-week interim between the Drought Council <br />meetings on February I and February 15, plans were put together by the <br />Governor's staff and selected consultants, most of whom were Drought Council <br />members, to implement a drought management structure. The plan presented to the <br /> <br />24 <br />