-
REPORT BY THE
Comptroller GeneralOF THE UNITED STATES
Federal Weather Modification EffortsNeed Congressional
Attention
Although the Federal Government has sup-ported weather
modification programs formore than 30 years, a coordinated
Federalapproach to these programs has never beenestablished.
Numerous studies have cited theneed for coordination, including a
GAO studyin 1974.
In this report, GAO uses rainfall augmenta-tion projects to
illustrate problems of weathermodification programs. Lack of
integratedformal planning and coordination has hin-dered the
progress of these projects. Al-though progress has been made,
critical ques-tions remain.
The Congress should define national weathermodification research
and development policyand direct that a program be developed
withgoals, objectives, priorities, and milestones.The Congress
should designate one agency toadminister, maintain, and control the
pro-gram.
110752
~.~-:t? O0 7 o 6 ¢k3 CED-80-5-/C*Ccovulq NOVEMBER 1, 1979
-
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
B-133202
ChairmenSenate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation S~a- QaVSenate Committee on
Environment
and Public Works -3E;OY/Cor(House Committee on Science
andTechnology - E [S6 Sh3Se
House Committee on Interior andInsular Affairs - SC 6/d /r
This report summarizes some of the general problemsassociated
with Federal weather modification programs, asillustrated by
rainfall augmentation efforts. It containsour conclusions and
recommendations supporting the need fora congressionally mandated
weather modification policy andprogram.
We focused our review on rainfall augmentation becauseof the
interest in this most widely applied aspect ofweather
modification.
t-o; a~l We are sending copies of the report to the Director,'
Office of Management and Budget, and the Secretaries ofCommerce and
the Interior.
Comptroller Generalof the United States
-
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S FEDERAL WEATHER MODIFICATIONREPORT TO THE
EFFORTS NEED CONGRESSIONALSENATE COMMITTEE ON ATTENTIONCOMMERCE,
SCIENCE, ANDTRANSPORTATIONSENATE COMMITTEE ONENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC
WORKSHOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGYHOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERIORAND INSULAR AFFAIRS
DIGEST
A coordinated Federal approach to weathermodification has never
been establishedbut is needed badly. GAO's review sup-ports the
findings of nearly 15 years ofstudies which have identified
similarproblems, including
--lack of a national weather modificationpolicy,
--no central authority to direct theprograms,
--ineffective coordination, and
--fragmented research. (See p. 3.)
Problems of weather modification programscan be illustrated by
rainfall augmenta-tion projects. These are meant to
produceadditional useful rainfall over fixedareas. Some progress
has been made but,overall, deliberate rainfall augmentationefforts
have been disappointing and criti-cal scientific questions remain
unanswered.(See p. 12.)d / o 76
The Department of the Interior's Bureau ofReclamation and the
Department of Com- c cmerce's National Oceanic and
AtmosphericAdministration administer rainfall aug-mentation
projects. Since 1968 theseagencies have spent over $40 million
forthe projects. However, lack of integrated,
Tear Sheet. Upon removal, the reportcover date should be noted
hereon. CED-80-5
i
-
formal planning and coordination hasinhibited progress. (See p.
13.)
In an August 1974 report, GAO recommendedthat the Office of
Management and Budgetdevelop a national weather modificationprogram
with goals, objectives, priori-ties, and milestones and that it
designatean agency to administer and maintain thenational program.
GAO's recommendationwas not carried out.
The Office of Management and Budgetagreed that some
consolidation of weathermodification research was desirable, butit
did not conclude that a lead agencyapproach was preferable. It
pointed outthat each weather modification researchproject is
different and that, in recogni-tion of this, it had instructed
specificagencies to concentrate their efforts oncertain areas. For
example, the Depart-ment of the Interior would concentrateon
precipitation enhancement and theDepartment of Commerce on severe
storms.Nevertheless, Commerce has been receivingfunds, with the
Office of Management andBudget's approval, to do research
inrainfall augmentation. (See p. 6.)
In a June 30, 1978, report to the Secre-tary of Commerce,
the'Weather Modification
,o3D PV Advisory Board concluded that the out--stand'ing
characteristic of the FederalGovernment's weather modification
organi-zation is that no one is in charge andthe results of
fragmentation are clearlyunsatisfactory. The board proposed
--a congressional statement of nationalweather modification
policy,
--a 20-year research and developmenteffort with a clear focus on
learningmore about how to modify weather pre-dictably and
prudently, and
--an integrated program bringing togetherthe scattered elements
of the existingineffective effort. (See p. 7.)
-
RECOMMENDATIONS
GAO reaffirms its 1974 recommendationscalling for a national
weather modifica-tion program and plan, and it supports theWeather
Modification Advisory Board'srecommendations to establish a
nationalpolicy and develop an integrated re-search and development
program forweather modification.
The Congress should set forth a nationalweather modification
research and devel-opment policy and direct that a programbe
developed with goals, objectives,priorities, and milestones. Also,
itshould designate one agency to adminis-ter, maintain, and control
the program.
Until the Congress establishes such apolicy and program, the
Secretaries ofCommerce and the Interior should estab-lish an
integrated, formal planningprogram to help ensure coordination
oftheir respective rainfall augmentationprojects.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration said that GAO
has pro-vided an unbiased appraisal of thehistory and status of the
managementof Federal weather modification and ofrainfall
augmentation. It strongly en-dorsed the recommendation calling
forthe establishment of a consolidatednational weather modification
researchand development policy and program tobe administered by one
agency. (Seep. 10.)
The Bureau of Reclamation disagreedwith this position and said
that therealready is a national weather modifica-tion policy. The
Bureau said the Of-fice of Management and Budget has con-tinually
cited the "mission agency"approach to weather modification
andapproved agency budgets without settingrequirements for central
agency control.
Tear Sheet1
-
It added that because the Congress ac-cepted this Office of
Management andBudget policy by supporting budget re-quests, the
Congress, in effect, con-curred with the policy. (See p. 10.)
GAO does not agree that the Office ofManagement and Budget's
actionsconstitute a national policy; further-more, neither does the
Congress or theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration. In
approving the Na-tional Weather Modification PolicyAct of 1976, the
Congress obviouslyrecognized that there was no nationalpolicy and
directed work, not yetcompleted, to help develop one. Fur-ther, the
two major Federal agenciesinvolved in weather modification ef-forts
have widely differing opinionson the need for a national
policy.This, in GAO's view, makes it moreimportant that the
Congress mandatea policy.
The Bureau objected to the recommenda-tion to designate one
agency to adminis-ter, maintain, and control the program.(See p.
10) It is apparent that theBureau has interpreted the
recommenda-tion to mean that only one agency--theone in which the
program is located--will do all research. It also appearsthat the
Bureau is concerned aboutlosing its program because the
WeatherModification Advisory Board has en-dorsed the National
Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration as the agencyin which to
locate the program. GAObelieves that the responsibility
foradministering and maintaining the over-all National Weather
ModificationProgram should be centered in and con-trolled by a
single agency. However,GAO does not advocate that other agen-cies
should be precluded from workingon specific weather
modificationresearch.
Both the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and the
Bureau said that
iv
-
substantial coordination has taken placebetween them via
scientific conferences,letters, reports, and even the exchangeof
equipment. The Bureau, however, didagree that a more visible, more
formal,and higher level forum for planning andcoordination is
needed. The NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administrationdisagreed
and saw no value in attemptingto develop an integrated, formal
planningprocess until a national policy has beenestablished. (See
p. 22.)
GAO agrees that informal coordinationmay have been helpful.
However, formalplanning and Federal level coordinationwould, in
GAO's view, provide betterprogram control and would help in
de-fining measurable goals; directingproject funding to meet those
goals;achieving scientific acceptance of re-search results; and
obtaining Federal,State, and local support.
Tear Sheet
v
-
Contents
Page
DIGEST i
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTIONFederal rainfall augmentationprojects 2
Scope of review 2
2 A COORDINATED FEDERAL APPROACH TOWEATHER MODIFICATION IS
NEEDED 3
Legislation on weather modification 3Studies evaluating Federal
weathermodification research 5
GAO report recommended a nationalweather modification program
6
Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard recommended a
consolidatednational weather modificationprogram 7
Proposed Department of NaturalResources 8
Conclusions 9Agency comments and our evaluation
10Recommendations 11
3 FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION EFFORTSARE FRAGMENTED; LACK
INTEGRATED,FORMAL PLANNING; AND LEAVE CRITICALSCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS
UNANSWERED 12
Some progress has been made 12Programs are fragmented and
lack
integrated, formal planning 13Critical scientific questions
remain unanswered 17Conclusions 21Agency comments and our
evaluation 22Recommendations 22
APPENDIX
I Letter dated July 16, 1979, from theAssistant Secretary for
Administration,Department of Commerce 23
II Letter dated August 27, 1979, from theCommissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation,Department of the Interior 25
-
ABBREVIATIONS
GAO General Accounting Office
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
-
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Weather modification is the deliberate manipulation of
the constantly changing atmospheric environment with theintent
of improving it--to manage the weather 1/ for human
purposes. Weather modification research includes:
-- Precipitation enhancement.
-- Fog and cloud modification.
--Hail suppression.
-- Lightning modification.
-- Hurricane and severe storm modification.
Various activities related to inadvertent weather modifica-
tion (unintended weather changes resulting from human ac-
tions) are also generally included under the broad category
of weather modification research.
Weather modification has great potential. For example,
if weather modification research is successful, it may be
possible in future years to enhance precipitation,
reducedestructive forces of hurricanes, suppress lightning and
damaging hail, and dissipate fog.
The Federal Government has been supporting and conduct-
ing weather modification research for more than 30 years.
In 1946, American scientists first modified clouds by "seed-
ing" them with dry ice. In the ensuing years, the level
of effort for weather modification has grown sporadically
among, between, and within various Federal agencies. In
fiscal year 1978, $18 million was spent on Federal
weathermodification research projects. Periodic drought
conditions
in the United States and the resulting water shortage have
heightened congressional, regional, and local interest in
weather modification--specifically precipitation
enhancement.
Precipitation enhancement includes research projects to
explore, develop, and determine the feasibility of
applyingweather modification technology to meet the Nation's
increas-
ing demand for water through snowfall and rainfall.
1/Weather generally refers to the state of the atmosphereat any
given time.
1
-
FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION PROJECTS
The major Federal efforts in rainfall augmentation arecurrently
being conducted by the Department of the Interior'sBureau of
Reclamation and the Department of Commerce's Na-tional Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Since1968, these two agencies
have spent or obligated over $40million for rainfall augmentation
projects.
In 1961, the Congress directed the Bureau to conductresearch on
increasing rainfall by cloud seeding. TheOffice of Management and
Budget (OMB) later made the Bureauresponsible for conducting the
high plains cooperativeexperiment (high plains project), a major
field experimentwhich is a local-State-Federal research effort in
Kansas,Montana, and Texas. The high plains project was designedto
resolve the critical scientific, technical, and
social-environmental uncertainties of developing a reliable
sum-mer'cloud-seeding technology in the plains area.
The Florida area cumulus experiment (Florida project),initiated
and conducted by NOAA, is to determine whetherprecipitation from
summer clouds can be altered to in-crease rainfall over a fixed
target area. This study isbased on the results of NOAA's research
with single cloudseedings in southern Florida in 1968 and 1970. The
Floridaexperiment is attempting to determine if these results canbe
applied to seeding of multiple clouds over a fixed targetarea in
southern Florida.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
Because of the widespread interest in precipitationenhancement,
the most widely applied aspect of weathermodification, we
concentrated our review on the majorFederal rainfall augmentation
projects. The high plainsproject and the Florida project were
reviewed in detail.
Most of our fieldwork was conducted at NOAA's
WeatherModification Program Office in Boulder, Colorado; theCumulus
Group of the National Hurricane and ExperimentalMeteorology
Laboratory in Miami, Florida; and the Bureau'sDivision of
Atmospheric Water Resources Management inDenver, Colorado. We also
contacted NOAA and Bureauheadquarters personnel and officials from
the Departmentof Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, and
theNational Academy of Sciences. We contacted officialsfrom several
States and from academia and individuals andprivate organizations
interested in weather modification.We also reviewed various
research studies, documents, andpublications pertaining to weather
modification.
2
-
CHAPTER 2
A COORDINATED FEDERAL APPROACH
TO WEATHER MODIFICATION IS NEEDED
A coordinated Federal approach to weather modificationefforts
has never been established and is badly needed.Federal funding for
weather modification research projectsover the years has been
substantial. For example, totalweather modification research
funding has amounted to over$18 million a year for each of fiscal
years 1976, 1977, and1978.
Our observations of Federal weather modification effortssupport
the findings of nearly a decade and a half of studies.These
studies, conducted by scientific panels, committees,and other
interested groups, identified common problems,including lack of a
national weather modification researchpolicy, lack of a central
authority to direct the programs,ineffective coordination, and
fragmented research. Weagree with the findings of the studies that
call for anational weather modification program with one
Federalagency responsible for ensuring that
--plans and priorities are established,
-- sufficient program funding is requested,
-- research efforts are effectively managed, and
--program results are adequately reported.
In our August 1974 report to the Congress, 1/ werecommended that
OMB develop a national weather modifica-tion program and designate
a Federal agency to have majorprogram responsibility for it.
However, an effective, com-prehensive national weather modification
program still hasnot been established.
LEGISLATION ON WEATHER MODIFICATION
Over the past 25 years, the Congress has enacted anumber of laws
dealing with various aspects of weathermodification. Public Law
83-256, approved August 13, 1953,established an advisory committee
on weather control. The
1/"Need for a National Weather Modification Research Pro-gram,"
B-133202, August 23, 1974.
3
-
committee was required to study and evaluate-public andprivate
weather control experiments and determine theextent to which the
United States should experiment with,engage in, or regulate
activities designed to controlweather conditions. Its final report,
issued in 1957, wasmodestly optimistic about weather modification's
potentialsaild recommended that further research be conducted.
Following up on the committee's recommendations, theCongress
enacted Public Law 85-510 on July 11, 1958, whichauthorized and
directed the National Science Foundation toinitiate and support a
program of study, research, andevaluation on weather modification
and to report annuallyto the President and the Congress. In
addition to estab-lishing a weather modification research program,
the Na-tional Science Foundation required all commercial andprivate
weather "modifiers" to maintain records and submitreports to it on
their activities.
In 1968, the National Science Foundation's authorityunder Public
Law 85-510 was repealed. On December 18,1971, Public Law 92-205 was
enacted, which required allnonfederally sponsored weather
modification to be reportedto the Secretary of Commerce. In 1976,
Public Law 94-490(the National Weather Modification Policy Act) was
passed,which required the Secretary of Commerce to study
weathermodification activities and to recommend a national policyon
weather modification. To assist in this effort, theSecretary
established the Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard as an
independent body to advise her on a nationalweather modification
policy and program.
Recently, the Congress recognized the need toestablish an
integrated national program in a relatedarea, climatology. 1/ In
passing the National ClimateProgram Act of 1978, the Congress
established a nationalclimate program to be administered by one
agency. TheDepartment of Commerce was designated as the lead
agencyand a national climate program office was establlishedwithin
Commerce to administer the program. The programis to bring together
and utilize all research and moni-toring resources with the goal of
knowing and anticipatingthe effects of climate fluctuation.
1/Climate generally refers to the state of the atmosphere ina
region during an extended time period. This is in con-trast to
weather, which is generally defined as the stateof the atmosphere
at any given time.
4
-
STUDIES EVALUATING FEDERALWEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH
A number of scientific panels and committees havereviewed,
evaluated, and reported on Federal weather modifi-cation efforts.
The reports have not only cited a need fora national program with
single agency responsibility,authority, and control but have
highlighted problems incoordinating multiagency activities and the
lack of specificprograms. Several studies are summarized in the
followingsections.
Report of the special commission onweather modification
In 1965, a special commission on weather modificationissued a
report to the Director, National Science Founda-tion. The report
identified duplication of research activi-ties and coordination
responsibilities as problem areas.The report recommended that
developing and testing methodsfor modifying weather should be
assigned to one agency inthe executive branch to help correct some
of the problems.
Reports by the National Academyof Sciences
The National Academy of Sciences issued severalreports dealing
with weather modification: "Weather andClimate Modification
Problems and Prospects" (1966), "TheAtmospheric Sciences and Man's
Needs" (1971), and "Weatherand Climate Modification Problems'and
Progress" (1973).These reports identified administration and
managementproblems and concluded that a single agency should be
maderesponsible for all weather modification research.
Reports by the National Advisory Committeeon Oceans and
Atmosphere
The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere,established in 1971 under Public Law 92-125, is made up
ofrepresentatives appointed by the President from industry,science,
and State and local governments. The committee isrequired to assess
the status of marine and atmosphericscience programs and report
annually to the President andthe Congress. Beginning with its first
annual report issuedon June 30, 1972, 'the committee has pointed
out that weathermodification research is fragmented and
uncoordinated. Ithas been concerned that the research is not making
scienti-fic progress and that its costs are unnecessarily high
be-cause field experiments are performed by "mission" agencies
5
-
isolated from each other. The committee has recommendedthat one
agency be appointed to coordinate weather modifica-tion
research.
GAO REPORT RECOMMENDED A NATIONALWEATHER MODIFICATION
PROGRAM
In August 1974, we issued a report to the Congressentitled "Need
for a National 'Weather Modification ResearchProgram."
We identified common problems that hindered progress'in Federal
weather modification efforts. These includedlack of a central
authority to direct Federal efforts; in-effective coordination; and
insufficient resources to-achieve timely, effective results.
We recommended that OMB cooperate with the otherFederal
departments and agencies involved in weather modifi-cation research
to:
-- Develop a national program with goals,
objectives,;priorities, and milestones and designate one agencyto
have major responsibility for administering andmaintaining a
national program.
-- Develop a plan to define and reassign, if necessary,the
responsibilities of Federal departments andagencies that support or
conduct weather modifica-tion research. -
-- Develop a plan to allocate resources for the
nfationalprogram.
In replying to our recommendations, OMB agreed thatsome
consolidation of weather modification research wasdesirable, but it
did not conclude that all such researchshould be concentrated in
one agency or that' a lead agencyapproach was preferable. OMB
pointed out- that the Presiden tproposed legislation to form a
Department of Energy andNatural Resources which could, in its view,
accomplish theappropriate degree of consolidation. Subsequently,
legisla-tion to establish a Department of Energy'and Natural
Re-sources was withdrawn.
OMB also pointed out that each weather modificationresearch
project is different and that, in recognition ofthis, it had
instructed specific agencies to concentratetheir efforts on certain
areas. For example, the Depart-ment of the Interior would
concentrate on precipitationenhancement and the Department of
Commerce on severe storms.
6
-
As discussed in chapter 3, however, this delegation
ofresponsibilities has been less than effective.
WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY BOARDRECOMMENDED A CONSOLIDATED
NATIONALWEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM
The Weather Modification Advisory Board issued itsstudy entitled
"The Management of Weather Resources--Proposals for a National
Policy and Program" to the Secre-tary of Commerce on June 30, 1978.
The board concludedthat the outstanding characteristic of the
Federal Govern-ment's organization for weather modification is that
"noone is in charge" and the results of fragmentation areclearly
unsatisfactory. The board said weather modifica-tion has never
attained momentum as a program of the FederalGovernment, has been
marred by bureaucratic rivalries inthe executive branch, and has
never received more thanmarginal funding.
The board concluded that a usable technology forsignificantly
enhancing rain and snow and amelioratingsome weather damage is
scientifically possible and withinsight. The board said, however,
that the broad researchand development in weather resources
management shouldnot, at this stage, be oriented primarily to user
constit-uencies.
The board suggested three actions to accomplisheffectively the
objectives of a national weather modifica-tion program. It proposed
that
--a congressional statement of national policy beissued,
-- a 20-year research and development effort beestablished with
a clear focus on learning moreabout how to modify weather
predictably andprudently, and
-- an integrated program be formed by bringing togetherthe
scattered elements of the existing ineffectiveeffort.
The board further recommended that a national weatherresources
management board be established to define andoversee the Federal
role in weather modification.
The board considered the merits of various Federalagencies,
including the Bureau and NOAA, as the agency whichshould have
responsibility for the weather modification
7
-
program. The board pointed out that the Bureau has hada sizable
program in precipitation modification for 15years under dedicated
and highly competent leadership.It has a strong commitment to
development of weathermodification and is interested in being host
to the newprogram. On the other hand, the board said that
theBureau's desire to maintain "grass roots" support hasresulted in
emphasis on "promises of results" while tend-ing to underplay the
scientific uncertainties and risksof certain actions. The board
said the Bureau has notshown the interest in research that it
believes is centralto the new national program, although its
concern withdevelopment and application is an asset that must be
re-tained. Also, the Bureau's development activities havebeen
restricted to rain and snow enhancement, and it hasnot been
concerned with other aspects of weather modifica-tion. These
considerations led the board to set asidethe idea of assigning the
program to the Bureau.
The board said that weather modification is closelyrelated to
NOAA's central mission and concerns. NOAA hasa major weather
forecasting mission and has been assignedlead responsibility for
the National Climate Program. TheBoard pointed out that although
NOAA's past performance inweather modification was seriously
deficient,.the intentionof the present NOAA leadership is to repair
the deficien-cies and to make weather resources management an
activeand aggressive activity.
Taking into account all considerations, the boardconcluded that
the best location for the program was inNOAA. The board also noted
that if a Department of NaturalResources, combining Interior and
NOAA, were created, theweather modification program and National
Weather ResourcesManagement Board would belong in that
department.
The Secretary of Commerce is preparing a report, basedon the
board's recommendations, which will be submitted tothe President
and the Congress in accordance with PublicLaw 94-490. As of July
24, 1979, Commerce officials in-formed us that the Secretary's
report still had not beenfinalized but that it would endorse the
concept of a na-tional weather modification policy and favor
somewhat of amore centralized program.
PROPOSED DEPARTMENTOF NATURAL RESOURCES
In March 1979, the President said that he would proposecreating
a Department of Natural Resources to manage the
8
-
Nation's natural resources. The new department would in-clude
the Department of the Interior, NOAA, and several otherFederal
agencies.
In its December 1978 staff report supporting the pro-posed
Department of Natural Resources, the President'sreorganization task
force pointed out that weather modifica-tion research is going on
in several agencies, includingNOAA and Interior. The report said
that the results havebeen meager because of the dispersion of
resources andaccountability. The report stated that a Department
ofNatural Resources could enhance the Government's abilityto
address problems of work duplication and the lack ofclear
responsibility identified by the Weather ModificationAdvisory Board
in its June 1978 report to the Secretary ofCommerce. In May 1979,
the President decided not to proceedwith his plan to establish a
Department of Natural Resources.
CONCLUSIONS
A coordinated Federal approach to weather modificationefforts
has never been established but is badly needed. Ourobservations
support the findings of nearly a decade and ahalf of studies which
identified common problems, includingthe lack of a national weather
modification policy, lack ofa central authority to direct the
programs, ineffectivecoordination, and fragmented research.
In our 1974 report, we recommended that OMB developa national
weather modification program with goals, objec-tives, priorities,
and milestones and designate one agencyto be responsible for
administering and maintaining thenational program. Our
recommendation was not carried outand, to date, an effective
national weather modificationprogram has not been established.
More recently, the Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard in its
June 30, 1978, report concluded that the out-standing
characteristic of the Federal Government's organi-zation for
weather modification is that no one is in chargeand the results of
fragmentation are clearly unsatisfactory.The board proposed (1) a
congressional statement of nationalweather modification policy, (2)
a 20-year research anddevelopment effort with a clear focus on
learning more abouthow to modify weather predictably and prudently,
and (3) anintegrated program bringing together the scattered
elementsof the existing ineffective effort. Also, taking into
ac-count all considerations, the board concluded that the
bestlocation for the program is in NOAA.
9
-
We support the National Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard's
recommendations to establish a national policy anddevelop an
integrated research and development program forweather
modification. We conclude that the Congress shouldset forth a
national weather modification research anddevelopment policy and
program with goals, objectives,priorities, and milestones and
designate one agency to ad-minister, maintain, and control the
program.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
NOAA said that we have provided an interesting, infor-mative,
and unbiased appraisal of the history and status ofthe management
of Federal weather modification and of rain-fall augmentation. NOAA
strongly endorsed the recommenda-tion calling for establishment of
a consolidated nationalweather modification research and
development policy andprogram to be administered by one agency.
The Bureau said that, contrary to what our report andother
reports infer, a national weather modification policyis in effect.
The Bureau said OMB has continually citedthe "mission agency"
approach to weather modification andapproved agency budgets along
this line without calling forcentral agency control. It added that
the Congress has ac-cepted the OMB policy by supporting the budget
requests.
We do not agree that the OMB policy and practicesconstitute a
national policy. Neither does the Congressnor NOAA. Although OMB
said that certain weather modifica-tion activities were to be
carried out by specific agencies,the Department of Commerce, which
was designated to do re-search in severe-weather, has been
receiving funds withOMB's approval to do research in rainfall
augmentation,which OMB assigned to the Bureau. In passing the
NationalWeather Modification Policy Act of 1976, the
Congressrecognized that no national weather modification
policyexists. The work that the Congress directed under the 1976act
to help develop a national policy has not yet been com-pleted.
Further, it is interesting to note that the twomajor Federal
agencies involved in weather modificationefforts have widely
differing opinions on the status of anational weather modification
policy. This, in our view,further supports the need for a
congressionally mandatedpolicy.
The Bureau strongly objected to our recommendation todesignate
one agency to administer, maintain, and haveresponsibility for the
program. The Bureau supports themission agency approach that
provides several differentavenues of funding for various types of
projects and said
10
-
it should maintain its leadership role in
precipitationmanagement within a total national weather
modification ef-fort to help meet the varied water resource
missions withinthe Department of the Interior.
In its response to our recommendation calling for asingle agency
to administer, maintain, and control theweather modification
program, the Bureau has apparentlyinterpreted this to mean that
only one agency--the one inwhich the program is located--will do
all research. Italso appears that the Bureau is concerned about
losing itsprogram because the Weather Modification Advisory Board
hasendorsed NOAA as the agency in which to locate the program.We
believe that the responsibility for administering andmaintaining
the overall national weather modification pro-gram should be
centered in and controlled by one agency.However, our report does
not advocate that other agenciesshould be precluded from working on
specific weather modifi-cation research.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We reaffirm our 1974 recommendations calling for anational
weather modification program and plan and supportthe Weather
Modification Advisory Board's recommendationsto establish a
national policy and develop an integratedresearch and development
program for weather modification.We recommend that the Congress set
forth a national weathermodification research and development
policy and directthat a program be developed with goals,
objectives, priori-ties, and milestones. Also, it should designate
one agencyto administer, maintain, and control the program.
11
-
CHAPTER 3
FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION EFFORTS ARE
FRAGMENTED; LACK INTEGRATED, FORMAL PLANNING; AND
LEAVE CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS UNANSWERED
General problems associated with weather modificationprograms
are illustrated by the rainfall augmentation proj-ects. Although
the objective of rainfall augmentation ef-forts has been to produce
additional useful rainfall overa large area and some progress has
been made, overallprogress in deliberate rainfall augmentation has
been dis-appointing. Lack of integrated, formal planning and
coordi-nation has limited the progress of Federal rainfall
augmen-tation research projects, even though such projects havebeen
conducted over the past 30 years and some progress hasbeen made.
This lack of planning and coordination has con-tributed to a number
of critical scientific issues remain-ing unanswered.
SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE
Over the past 30 years, some progress has been madein weather
modification research. Specific achievementsinclude
-- the capability to dissipate cold fog and low stratusclouds,
to enhance mountain snowfall under certainconditions, and to
increase rainfall in limitedways and places;
--advances in instrumentation and technology, such asdevelopment
of more efficient cloud-seeding methods,advances in meteorological
aircraft, and moresophisticated radar to measure rainfall;
-- improved project design and evaluation techniques;
-- a cadre of well-trained atmospheric scientists toplan,
operate, and evaluate weather modificationprojects; and
--a better grasp of the types of social, economic,legal, and
institutional impacts ensuing fromweather modification.
Progress has also been made in understanding the
inherentcomplexities of managing the atmosphere versus the
overlysimplified expectations of weather modification advocatesin
the 1950s and 1960s.
12
-
PROGRAMS ARE FRAGMENTED ANDLACK INTEGRATED, FORMAL PLANNING
Rainfall augmentation projects with similar objectivesare being
conducted by separate Federal agencies with nocentral direction.
These fragmented research efforts lackintegrated, formal long-range
planning and long-term com-mitment of resources. This lack has
contributed to incon-clusive results in most experimental
projects.
Fragmented approach
The Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA are conducting orplan to
conduct research to test rainfall augmentationtechniques. The
fragmentation and lack of continuity ofFederal rainfall
augmentation efforts are illustrated inthe following table, which
shows Bureau and NOAA projectsfor 1962-78. The table includes data
on the Bureau'sprecipitation enhancement project, initiated in 1971
anddiscontinued in 1973, and NOAA's planned
precipitationaugmentation for crop experiment in Illinois project,
whichinvolves the same contractor and contains similar objec-tives
and geographical areas as the precipitation enhance-ment
project.
13
-
Bureau and NOAA Rainfall Augmentation Projects
Bureau NOAA
1962-73 In addition to the precipita-tion enhancement project
andthe high plains project, con-ducted eight separate experi-ments
to test rainfall augmen-tation techniques withoutconclusive
results
1968-69 Developed rainfall augmen-tation objectives as an
out-growth of its hurricane re-search. Initiated
Floridaproject.
1971 Contracted with the IllinoisState Water Survey to con-duct
the precipitation en-hancement project.
1972 Proposed high plains experi-ment to develop
precipitationenhancement technology forthe benefit of
agriculture.
1973 CMB directed the Bureau toinitiate the high plainsproject.
Bureau discon-tinued funding the precipi-tation enhancement
projectbefore canpletion becauseof a funding decrease.
1976 NOAA and the Illinois StateWater Survey jointly devel-oped
the precipitationaugmentation for crops ex-periment with similar
ob-jectives as the Bureau's1971 precipitation enhance-ment
project.
1978 Bureau continued high plains NOAA continued Florida
projectproject. The start of the by conducting confirmatoryfirst
randcmized experiment experiment and planned the(field test) was
delayed new Illinois project.from 1974 to 1979.
14
-
As previously mentioned, in 1973 OMB designated theBureau as the
lead agency for precipitation enhancement andNOAA as the lead
agency for severe storms. The Bureau wasdirected to manage the high
plains cooperative experiment,and NOAA was instructed to focus its
weather modificationactivities on the modification of hurricanes
and othersevere storms. According to NOAA and OMB officials,
underan oral agreement NOAA continued the Florida
rainfallaugmentation project. Recently, an OMB official statedthat
OMB continued funding to allow NOAA to complete theresearch.
The proposed Department of Natural Resources wouldhave included
the Bureau and NOAA and thus would have con-solidated rainfall
augmentation projects within one agency.However, as noted in
chapter 2, the President decided notto go forward with his plan to
establish the new department.
Lack of integrated, formallong-range planning
Formal long-range plans were not developed for NOAA'sFlorida
project. Specific experiment plans for the Bureau'shigh plains
project were not available until the spring of1979. Neither project
has met projected completion esti-mates. Formal long-range planning
is necessary to providemeasurable goals and obtain project funding
to meet thosegoals; to achieve scientific acceptance; and to
obtainFederal, State, and local support.
For the Florida project, NOAA never developed a formallong-range
plan; rather, the project was expanded on a year-to-year basis.
NOAA officials said this approach was usedbecause funding was
obtained on an annual basis and eachyear's data was used in
planning the next phase of the re-search.
In 1975, NOAA began using a different device to seedclouds in
the Florida project. Results obtained from cloud-seeding
experiments in 1976 combined with data obtained inthe past
indicated an overall increase in rainfall. How-ever, the project
director said that following the 1976 ex-periment it became
necessary to validate the results byconducting a confirmatory
experiment because the measurementtechniques were not acceptable to
the scientific communityand a hypothesis for seeding had not been
developed. Also,the concept of exploratory-confirmatory experiments
forweather modification evolved after the Florida project
wasunderway and the initial Florida efforts were exploratory.
15
-
In March 1979, the project director told us that 2 moreyears of
field experimentation, at a cost of about $1.4 mil-lion per year,
will be necessary to coxmplete the confirma-tory phase of the
project. The total cost of the Floridaproject, including the
confirmatory phase, is estimated tobe $13 million, of which $12
million will have beer 3pentor obligated through fiscal year
1979.
The Bureau developed a conceptual, long-range plan forthe high
plains project after OMB assigned it that respon-sibility in 1973.
The Bureau obtained the input of thescientific community, State and
regional interests, andthe general public through scientific design
workshops,agreements with involved States, and public meetings.The
original goals were not met, in part because of fundinglimitations.
Also, the project director said that becausethe project's approach
has changed, it was necessary toredesign the project.
Bureau officials said it was necessary to redesignthe high
plains plan due to the adverse results of otherweather modification
efforts. The original plan was basedon cloud-seeding technology
developed and used in previousBureau projects. When data produced
by the Bureau andothers proved inconclusive by the mid-70s, the
Bureaudecided that outside planning assistance was needed.
A contract with the Illinois State Water Survey wasamended to
design and provide project planning guidancebeginning in 1975.
Although this contract terminated in1978 without developing
specific experiment designs, theBureau used the Illinois water
survey recommendations asa general project design. It was also used
as input indeveloping the specific experiment design. A new
5-yearcontract (through 1984) was awarded to the South DakotaSchool
of Mines and Technology to study the impact ofvarious design
options, to periodically review the designand field operations, and
to evaluate the effects ofseeding.
The total cost for the high plains project is nowestimated at
$40 million, of which about $19 million willhave been spent or
obligated through fiscal year 1979.
NOAA plans additional projects
As previously mentioned, NOAA is planning to conducta major new
project in Illinois. The project--the precipi-tation augmentation
for crop experiment--is designed totest whether rain can be
increased to benefit agriculture
16
-
in Illinois and neighboring areas. NOAA is providing$100,000 for
preliminary Illinois project studies in 1979.
The National' Science Foundation, the Army, and the AirForce are
providing similar amounts for related studiesthat will contribute
to the Illinois project. Cost esti-mates for this project range
from $25-$50 million.
NOAA also plans to conduct a new experiment in Floridaon cumulus
dynamics and microphysics. This project wouldattempt to define the
cloud physics of the Florida areacumulus experiment type cloud
seeding. No cost projectionsfor this project are currently
available.
NOAA.and.the National Science Foundation are alsoproviding
$150,000 each in support of the United Nationsprecipitation
enhancement project'in Spain during fiscalyear 1979. Cost
projections for the U.S. contribution tothis project 'show an
increase to about $800,000 per yearwhen the seeding phase
begins.
OMB officials informed us that they do not now planto fund any
additional major rainfall augmentation projectsfor NOAA, although
they added that this could change asFederal priorities change.''
OMB has not approved the NOAAprecipitation augmentation for crops
experiment or thecumulus dynamics and microphysics'project, and it
wouldnot consider funding these projects until the Florida
areacumulus experiment is completed.
CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONSREMAIN UNANSWERED.
Specific scientific issues critical to the successof rainfall
augmentation projects have not been adequatelyaddressed by
researchers, and a degree of uncertainty hin-ders future progress.
For example:
--Basic issues.still must be answered concerning thephysical
basis for' rainfall augmentation techniques.
--The total.area effects for the target area andsurrounding area
effects'from rainfall augmentationshave not been adequately
measured or analyzed.
--The techniques and assessment standards needed toaccurately
measure the results of a rainfall augmen-tation project hav.e not
been adequately defined.
--Understanding of .the pote'ntial for cloud seeding toinduce or
aggravate severe weather is inadequate.
17
-
These questions should be addressed to permit develop-ment of
predictable, acceptable rainfall augmentation as anoperational
technology.
Fundamental knowledge of cloudprocess is lacking
Fundamental knowledge concerning the physics anddynamics of
cloud processes is inadequate, which hindersdevelopment of
deliberate, useful rainfall augmentationtechniques. NOAA's Florida
project's environmental impactstatement for 1976 states that
seeding of individual cloudsin southern Florida in 1968 and 1970
was effective in in-creasing rainfall. Yet, project officials admit
that it isnot clear whether these early experimental results can
beapplied to the seeding of many clouds over a fixed targetarea and
if the additional rainfall from an individuallyseeded cloud may be
at the expense of other clouds in theenvironment.
The Bureau's project has been delayed in part becauseof a lack
of adequate scientific knowledge. The Bureaudid not start
randomized field experiments until the sum-mer of 1979. The Bureau
said that because of the differ-ence in clouds it is using a
different seeding method thanthe "dynamic seeding" applied by
the-NOAA project.
Total area effectsremain uncertain
Total area effects of rainfall, augmentation are unde-fined, and
therefore rainfall augmentation projects areunable to predict
results outside the target area. Recentevidence from cloud-seeding
experiments suggests that theeffects of cloud seeding may extend
beyond the target area.While a few scientists have speculated that
cloud seedingcould be changing worldwide weather patterns, many
othersbelieve most important effects occur within approximatelya
300-mile radius of the target area.
Present Federal rainfall augmentation projects do notadequately
address total area effects. Usually, projectplans require total
area effects studies, but fundinglimitations preclude adequate
research for this purpose.Because adequate studies have not been
performed duringthe projects, it has been necessary to analyze
total areaeffects after projects have been completed. The
scientificcommunity is reluctant to accept results when the
evalua-tion criteria are established after the data has been
18
-
obtained. So far, after-the-fact analyses have indicatedwidely
different effects, such as:
--Additional railfall in target and surrounding areas.
-- Less rainfall in target and surrounding areas.
-- Add'itional rainfall in' target and less rainfall
insurrounding' areas.
-- Less rainfall in target and additional rainfall insurrounding
areas.
'In its 'report, the Weather Modification Advisory Boardstated
that a major concern'"of cloud seeding must be toidentify the area
and timing of seeding effects whenever theyoccur. The' board
orecommended that this concern should beproperly reflected in the
de'sign of-ail future seeding ex-periments.
The potential cost of evaluating total area effectswas cit'ed in
a workshop on extended effects of weathermodification sponsored by
the National Science Foundationin August 1977. This workshop
proposed an approach thatwould encompass an area of at'least a
300-mile radius inthe mid-United States and'would be performed over
approxi-mately a 10-year period. The cost was estimated to
be$10-$20' million per year--approximately the same as theannual
Federal weather modification budget during the lastdecade.
Assessment standards havenot been adequately defined
Assessment standards have not been established by theFederal
Government or the scientific community to evaluateproject results.
Theere is no general'agreement as to themethods of' data collection
or even the nature of data re-quired to assess'a rainfall
augmentation project adequately.Several scientists had different
opinions about the densityof r~ain gauge networks, the adequacy
of'radar and satellitemeasurement, and the validity of statistical
techniques toass~ess rainfall augmentation projects.
In its report, the Weather Modification Advisory Boardpointed
out that there are two types of
cloud-seedingexperiments--exploratory and confirmatory.
Exploratoryexperiments are conducted to explore
physical-meteorologicalrelationships and to develop
seeding'hypotheses. The endresults of a good exploratory seeding
experiment are a
19
-
physically plausible model of the weather system under
in-vestigation and of the impact of a particular seeding methodupon
it.
The objective of confirmatory seeding experiments isto establish
a particular hypothesized seeding effect withina small and
well-defined margin of error, both clearlystated before the
experiment. Confirmatory experimentsmust be precisely designed,
tightly controlled, and free ofunconscious or accidental bias.
The following sections illustrate the varying methodsof data
collection used to evaluate project results.
Bureau and NOAA projects employ radar for some evalua-tion of
rainfall augmentation experiments. Rather thanmeasuring actual
rainfall with rain gauges, scientistsestimate the amount of
rainfall by radar echo characteris-tics of cloud and precipitation
particles. Radar is usedto supplement rain gauges to minimize the
expense of in-stalling a large rain gauge network and to measure
large-scale precipitation patterns. However, the
scientificcommunity cannot agree on the adequacy of radar to
evaluaterainfall. NOAA had problems with the primary radar systemin
1971 and 1976 which caused the data collected to be nottotally
acceptable. In part because the scientific com-munity would not
fully accept the reported results of theFlorida project, NOAA is
now performing a 3-year confirma-tory experiment. For this
experiment, NOAA is employing,in addition to radar, a network
averaging one rain gaugefor every 39 square miles of target
area.
The planning for the Bureau project also clearlydemonstrates the
varying criteria used by agencies toevaluate research effects. When
NOAA proposed the highplains experiment in 1972, the primary
evaluation was tobe a network averaging one rain gauge every 10
miles oftarget area. After the Bureau was designated to performthe
high plains project, the Bureau selected radar for theprimary
evaluation technique. But after the problems withradar became
known, the Bureau decided to rely more on raingauges; plans were
changed to specify a network averagingone rain gauge every 20
square miles.
Severe weather effects are unknown
Rainfall augmentation has the potential for aggravatingsevere
weather in addition to producing rain, but an ade-quate
understanding of the relationship between cloud seedingand severe
weather has not been developed. In order for
20
-
operational rainfall augmentation projects to be consideredsafe
and acceptable, the potential for instigating or aggra-vating
severe weather must be determined.
NOAA and Bureau scientists told us that since much ofthe rain in
the Midwest and Plains States occurs with severeweather, such as
hail, strong winds, and tornados, there isconcern that artificial
augmentation of rain may also in-crease the occurrence of unwanted
severe weather. The highplains project director said that based on
the Bureau'sanalysis of past weather patterns in Kansas, 25 to 75
per-cent of the cloud-seeding opportunities would have to
beforegone because of the presence or forecast of severeweather in
the operational area.
The Florida project director told us that before apply-ing
Florida project techniques to cloud systems in Illinoisin the
precipitation augmentation for crops experiment,several serious
questions would have to be answered, includ-ing the potential for
causing severe storms. In southernFlorida, the target area
encompasses a rural area wheredaytime summer thunderstorms have
little potential for severeweather. The agricultural area, where
NOAA proposes to testthe Florida project techniques, produces
high-yielding cropswhich could be damaged as well as helped by
rainfall augmen-tation.
CONCLUSIONS
General problems associated with weather modificationprograms
are illustrated by the rainfall augmentationprojects. Although the
objective of rainfall augmentationhas been to produce additional,
useful rainfall over alarge area, and while some progress has been
made, overallprogress in deliberate rainfall augmentation has been
dis-appointing. More formalized, integrated long-range planningof
weather modification projects is needed to provide mea-sureable
goals and to direct project" funding to meet thosegoals; to achieve
scientific acceptance of the project re-sults; and to obtain
Federal, State, and local support.Lack of formal, integrated
planning and coordination continuesto inhibit the progress of
Federal rainfall augmentation re-search projects. As a result, even
though projects havebeen conducted during the past 30 years and
some progresshas been made, basic critical scientific questions
remainunanswered.
Until the Congress acts to establish a national
weathermodification policy and program, program improvements
couldbe made through more formal, integrated planning
procedures
21
-
and better coordination of rainfall augmentation projectsbetween
the Bureau and NOAA.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
The 'Bureau of Reclamation concurred that a more visible,more
formal, and higher level forum for planning and coordi-nating the
national weather modification program is needed.The Bureau said
that the forum should have representativesof all involved Federal
agencies and weather modificationinterests, including States, local
agencies, and user groups,and should cover all aspects of weather
modification. TheBureau also pointed out, however, that it believes
no waste-ful duplication or harmful lack of coordination has
occurred.The Bureau said important coordination has taken place
at-numerous scientific conferences, open reviews of plannedand
existing projects, interchange of scientific teams andequipment
between projects, open scientific discussion ofresults, joint
representation on national planning and re-view committees, and
frequent personal communication of keyscientists.
NOAA disagreed with our recommendation. NOAA saw novalue in
attempting to develop an integrated, formal plan-ning process until
the shape of the national policy has beendetermined. NOAA said that
over the years, the two agencieshave maintained a cooperative
approach in planning and con-ducting their respective projects.
Technical interaction hasbeen continuous via conferences, letters,
reports, and evenexchange of equipment. Discussion and review of
short- andlong-range plans for experiments and projects have
beencommonplace.
We agree that informal coordination can be helpful.However, we
continue to believe that formal planning andFederal level
coordination would provide better program con-trol and help in
defining measurable goals; directing proj-ect funding to meet those
goals; achieving scientific ac-ceptance of research results; and
obtaining Federal, State,and local support. Also, the Bureau,
notwithstanding itsposition that there has been substantial
coordination,agrees that a more visible, more formal, and higher
levelforum for planning and coordination is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that until the Congress establishes anational
weather modification policy and program, theSecretaries of Commerce
and the Interior establish anintegrated, formal planning program to
help ensure coordi-nation of their respective rainfall augmentation
projects.
22
-
APPENDIX I APPENDIX
fijN UITEID STATUS 0PARTTMUT OF CoMMUsThe A"Ismnt Secretary fsr
Admlnliutra im
EI· Washington, D.C. 20230
1 6 JUL 1979
Mr. Henry EschwegeDirector, Community and Economic
Development DivisionU. S. General Accounting OfficeWashington,
D. C. 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1979
requestingcomments on the draft report entitled "A
CongressionallyMandated Weather Modification Policy and Program is
Needed".
We have reviewed the enclosed comments of the
AssociateAdministrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administrationand believe they are responsive to the matters
discussed in thereport.
Xce ly,
. Porter oistant Secretary rfor Administration
Enclosure
23
-
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and
Atmospheric AdministrationRockville, Md. 20852OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
RD2:MTC
Mr. Henry EschwegeDirectorCommunity and Economic Development
DivisionU.S. General Accounting Office441 G St., N.W. - Rm.
6146Washington, D. C. 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
Secretary Kreps has asked me to reply to your letter of June 4,
1979,that requested a review and comments on the draft of a
proposed report, "ACongressionally Mandated Weather Modification
Policy and Program is Needed".
The draft report has been reviewed thoroughly by appropriate
membersof this agency. Several general comments are provided below,
and specificsuggestions for changes in the draft report are
included in an enclosureto this letter.
Our overall reaction to the draft report is favorable. The
GeneralAccounting Office investigators have provided an
interesting, informativeand unbiased appraisal of the history and
status of the management ofFederal weather modification and of
rainfall augmentation. The recommenda-tion calling for the
establishment of a consolidated National WeatherModification
Research Policy and Program to be administered by one agencyis
consistent with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's(NOAA) recent view on this matter and we strongly
endorse this position.
On the other hand, NOAA does not support the report's other
recom-mendation that, in the interim, the Secretaries of Commerce
and Interiorestablish an integrated formal planning program and
Federal levelcoordination of their respective rainfall augmentation
projects. Overthe years, the two agencies have maintained a
cooperative approach inplanning and conducting their respective
projects. Technical interactionhas been continuous via conferences,
letters, reports and even exchangeof equipment. Discussion and
review of short and long range plans forexperiments and projects
have been commonplace. We see no value in attempt-ing to develop an
integrated, formal planning process until the shape of thenational
policy has been determined.
Thank you for sending the draft report to us for review. I trust
thatour comments will be useful to you.
Sincerely yours,
George S. BentonAssociate Administrator "
Enclosure
24
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
United States Department of the InteriorBUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
DI " v 1900
am* To. AUG 27 1979
Mr. Henry EschwegeDirector, Community and EconomicDevelopment
Division
United States General Accounting OfficeWashington DC 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
On June 19, 1979, a meeting was held, as you requested,
betweenmembers of our respective staffs to discuss the draft report
"ACongressionally Mandated Weather Modification Policy and Program
isNeeded." This letter transmits our formal comments on the
reviseddraft report by your office subsequent to that meeting and
madeavailable to us on August 1, 1979. These comments should be
thebasis for any agency comments cited in the final report. Our
views,on this matter of great importance to the Bureau of
Reclamation,will be best represented if these comments, in their
entirety, areincorporated as part of the final report.
The Nation's largest weather modification program is conductedby
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Thefiscal
year 1980 funding for our research program is $9,371,000, allof
which is devoted to developing practical precipitation
managementtechniques for both winter orographic snowfall and summer
rain to.augment the Nation's water supplies from renewable
atmosphericsources. I have a strong interest in continued
vigorousresearch in cloud seeding, and, as soon as
scientificallyand socially feasible, I plan to integrate this
technologyinto the Bureau's comprehensive system for managing
waterand energy resources. This is becoming especially importantat
a time when growing demands are being made on existingwater
resources.
I am proud of the progress made in this scientifically complex
andsocially controversial field, much of it occurring through
theBureau's research program which I believe has been responsive to
therepeated confidence and increasing resources given it. Many of
thecurrent operational cloud seeding projects in the Western States
byState and local sponsorship can be directly attributed to the
scien-tific findings from our "Project Skywater" program and our
fosteringof local expertise by the cooperative research that has
enabled their
25
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
responsible management. The Bureau's research has, I believe,
been amajor contributor to the main finding of the Weather
ModificatinnAdvisory Board in their report to the Secretary of
Commerce th. "thekey conclusion in this report is that a usable
technology forsignificantly enhancing rain and snow and
ameliorating some damageis scientifically possible and within
sight." Precipitation enhance-ment research in general and the
Bureau's programs on augmentingwinter snowpack and summer rainfall
in particular are at the fore-front of the Board's recommendations
for A Twenty-Year Program ofAction.
In this regard, the achievements and high regard of the
Bureau,which the Board recognized on page 200 of its report, should
bepointed out:
"The Bureau of Reclamation has had a sizable program in
precipita-tion modification for 15 years under dedicated and
highlycompetent leadership. It has a strong commitment to
developmentof weather modification. It is interested in being the
host ofthe new National Weather Resources Management Program. This
maybe a natural choice if a new Department of Natural Resources
isformed with the Department of the Interior as the core. TheBureau
of Reclamation has viewed weather modification asan integral part
of water resources management, a logicalperspective on a new
technology."
"Much of the R&D supported by the Bureau of Reclamation has
beenperformed by the private sector and university and state
agencies,largely in the Western United States. Useful
scientificdiscoveries relating to snowfall modification in the
mountainshave resulted. Through the strong organizational regional
tiesof the Bureau of Reclamation, its weather modification
programhas focused on technology transfer and a strong interaction
withusers. This is a valuable characteristic of the Agency."
In view of this background and the expanding interest in
weathermodification, we had expected a more positive and
constructivereport by the General Accounting Office that would
focus moreclearly on how to accelerate the Nation's weather
modificationefforts. The following general comments are offered on
the majorissues raised in the report which should be considered in
any ofthe forthcoming decisions on this important technology:
26
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
1. The GAO report repeats and stresses the allegation of
"fragmentedresearch." It reviews the Bureau's High Plains project
and NOAA'sFlorida project and contends that the findings for these
two rainfallaugmentation projects are relevant to the entire
Federal weathermodification program. In fiscal year 1979 there are
only threeFederal agencies involved in research on deliberate
weather modifica-tion, and these two projects represent a major
portion of the totalprogram. The total budget of $12.8 million
consists of $8.6 millionin the Department of the Interior for snow
and rain augmentationresearch, $3.1 million in the Department of
Commerce for rainaugmentation research and hurricane amelioration
research, and$1.1 million in the National Science Foundation which
does not havea specific budget for weather modification but devotes
this amountof their atmospheric sciences funding to basic research
directlyrelated to weather modification. More than half of the
total budgetis devoted to rain augmentation research, about a third
for snowaugmentation research, and the remainder to hurricane
ameliorationresearch and other small weather modification efforts.
Where morethan one rain and snow augmentation research program
exists, theyare conducted in different climatic regions with
differentprecipitation-producing conditions. Recognizing the
scientific andeconomic importance of precipitation enhancement, the
WeatherModification Advisory Board recommended a program of
experimentaltests, some operated in parallel in different regions
to expediteprogress. There is little or no federally supported
research on theother areas of weather modification mentioned in the
report, namelyfog and cloud modification, hail suppression,
lightning modification,and severe storm modification. We,
therefore, fail to see thebasis for the repeated charge of
"fragmented research."
2. The GAO report also reiterates the allegation of
"ineffectivecoordination," a charge that has been made in many of
the pastweather modification reviews. Yet there has never been a
specificinstance cited or facts presented to substantiate these
charges.The Bureau believes that there has been no wasteful
duplicationor harmful lack of coordination. We, in fact, contend
that therehas been substantial coordination. Important coordination
has takenplace at numerous scientific conferences, open reviews of
plannedand existing projects, interchange of scientific teams and
equipmentbetween projects, open scientific discussion of results,
jointrepresentation on national planning and review committees,
andfrequent personal communication of key scientists. The 1974
GAOreport, "Need for a National Weather Modification Research
Program,"was faulted by the Office of Management and Budget and the
Departmentof Agriculture for lack of substance in the criticism of
coordination.This report, as drafted, is similarly lacking in
substance.
27
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX IIAPPENDIX II
4
3. Statements in the reports on the "lack of formal
planning"overlook a, great deal of coordinated detailed planning,
review,and preproject study by the Bureau. We have gone to great
lengthsto include all groups - Federal scientists, State agencies,
universi-ties, private industry, local groups, concerned
individuals, etc.,in our planning and review process. Thirteen
Skywater conferenceshave been held, formal reviews of the
environmental impact statementsconducted, and many scientific
workshops and progress review meetingshave been convened. In 1966
the Bureau prepared a formal plan foran $800 million nationwide
precipitation management program "Plan toDevelop Technology for
Increasing Water Yield from AtmosphericSources." This was presented
to Congress and OMB and funds wereprovided by Congress to initiate
the planned program. The Bureau isstill operating under this plan
and mission assignment and hasfollowed specific directives from the
Congress to accelerate portionsof the overall plan.
The High Plains Cooperative Program began in January 1973 witha
formal assignment from OMB and a $1 million budget. The Governorsof
the involved states were informed and invited to enter theplanning
by formal letter. Many public meetings were held, includingthose in
local areas as part of a site-selection process, and
formalagreements were negotiated with each state prior to start of
researchin the state. Several scientific design workshops were held
toincorporate the most current and pertinent ideas into the
developmentof plans and designs. Plans, designs, and detailed
budgets havebeen presented to OMB and the Congress and funds have
been approved.
These and other actions reflect the Bureau's sincere effort
tomake the planning of "Project Skywater" as open and formal
aspossible and include the input of the scientific community,
regionalinterests, and the general public in the planning andreview
process.
4. The repeated statements of "disappointing progress in
weathermodification" do not reflect an appreciation for the very
realscientific complexity of the problem and the substantial
progressthat has been made. Modern weather modification is a
relativelyyoung (33 years old) applied meteorological science whose
progressis intimately dependent on advances in meteorological
understandingin general. Progress during this period on describing
and predictingthe diverse and complex behavior of clouds and their
environment hasbeen very slow but meaningful. The oversimplified
expectations ofrainmaking promoters in the 1950's and 1960's have
been replaced bya realization of the problem's true complexity and
the length of
28
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
5
time and magnitude of resources required to develop the
conceptsinto a verified, responsible technology. Viewed in this
perspec-tive and considering the relatively recent start and meager
resourcesapplied to weather modification research and development,
the factthat substantial progress has been made is very noteworthy.
Thisprogress was recognized by the Weather Modification Advisory
Board.
The real issue is what can we do to accelerate this progress.To
state that ". . . lack of formal planning and coordinationcontinues
to inhibit the progress of Federal rainfall augmenta-tion research
projects. As a result, even though such projectshave been conducted
over the past 30 years and some progress hasbeen made, critical
scientific questions remain unanswered" ismisleading and fails to
recognize that resources commensurate withthe complexity of the
problem and the benefits to be gained havenever been provided for
this research. Failure to appreciate andremedy this has led to
frustration and the resulting charges offragmented research,
ineffective coordination, etc. In our opinion,budgets and funding
do not relate as much to organizational manage-ment as to national
needs, priorities, and public support. In thisregard, it should be
recognized that weather modification is not anend in itself but is
a potentially valuable technology for managingthe atmosphere to
serve many of society's important needs.
5. Contrary to what the GAO report states, there is a
nationalweather modification policy in operation. OMB instituted a
missionagency approach in 1971 and has continually supported it.
OMBinstructed specific agencies to concentrate their efforts on
certainareas of weather modification and, for example, they
designated theBureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for
precipitation enhance-ment and NOAA as the lead agency for
hurricanes and severe storms.OMB reiterated this policy in their
response to the 1974 GAO report.This policy was restated and
reinforced by the White House in their1975 statement on Federal
weather modification policy (reply ofNorman E. Ross, Assistant
Director, Domestic Council to HonorableGilbert Gude, House of
Representatives - Congressional Record June 17,1975):
". . . we believe that the agency which is chargedwith a
particular national problem should be giventhe latitude to seek the
best approach or solution tothe problem. In some instances this may
involve aform of weather modification, while in other
instancesother approaches may be more appropriate."
29
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
6
"While we would certainly agree that some level of
coordinationof weather modification research efforts is logical, we
do notbelieve that a program under the direction of any one
singleagency's leadership is either necessary or desirable."
a series of lead agencies have been established toconcentrate
efforts in particular areas: Interior in precipita-tion;
Agriculture in lightning suppression; Commerce in severestorms,
including hurricanes; NSF in hail research; andTransportation in
fog suppression."
OMB and Congress have essentially implemented this policy
andapproved budget requests in accordance with this approach.
TheBureau has been very conscientious in following this
policy.Justification of research funds in budget requests is based
onthis policy and actual use of funds follows these budgets.
Concerning the two major recommendations of the report, we offer
thefollowing comments:
1. The Bureau strongly objects to the recommendation to
"desig-nate one agency to administer, maintain, and have
responsibilityfor the program." The Bureau strongly supports the
missionagency approach that also provides several different avenues
offunding for various types of projects. The Bureau should
thusretain its role of leadership in precipitation management
withina total national weather modification effort to help meet
thevaried water resource missions within the Department of
Interior.
Recommendations of past review committees, some
incompletelycited in the GAO report and some not mentioned at all,
support therole of mission agencies in weather modification
research. A feware cited below to counter-balance the exaggerated
remarks in thereport that "GAO's review support the findings of
nearly a decadeand a half of studies ."
In connection with the proposed NOAA Organic Act, the role ofthe
Federal agencies in atmospheric research and development
wasdiscussed in the Boston Workshop of October 1978 sponsored bythe
Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of theHouse
Committee on Science and Technology jointly with the
SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The
draftreport of this workshop states the following conclusion:
30
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
"Succinctly expressing the nearly unanimous view of
Federalagencies (including NOAA) on this issue, Dr. Bernard
Silvermanof the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation
contendedthat: The overriding principle in this issue is that
missionagencies need strong research and development programs
toenhance the specific Federal policy goals that have been
entrustedto them. There is no single or universal model for
organizing,managing, and conducting an R&D program. What makes
sense forone agency may be unworkable for another. The
interrelationshipand interaction between policy planning, the
R&D function, andtransferring any resulting technology into
practice are allagency-specific, requiring agency-specific
strategies for theirsuccessful accomplishment. All the atmospheric
research anddevelopment requirements of the various mission
agencies cannot,in short, be satisfied by the program of one
Federal entity nomatter how comprehensive it may be. "
National Academy of Sciences report "Weather and
ClimateModification: Problem and Prospects" (1966) states:
". . . major responsibility for weather modification should
becentered in a single agency; at the same time, however, a
degreeof delegated responsibility should be maintained that will
allowother agencies to meet mission requirements for work on
thisfield."
National Academy of Sciences report "Weather and Climate
Modifica-tion: Problems and Progress" (1973) states:
". ·. .the mission oriented agencies must maintain theirweather
modification programs."
ICAS (Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences)
reportNo. 10a, "A Recommended National Program in Weather
Modification"(1966) states:
"It is desirable to maintain a multi-agency approach toweather
modification, and each agency's basic mission shoulddetermine its
role in weather modification, but not to theexclusion of basic
research."
"A formal procedure must be developed to achieve
continuingvisibility and coordination of the total weather
modificationprogram."
U.S. Domestic Council, Environmental Resources Committee,
Subcommit-tee on Climate Change, "The Federal Role in Weather
Modification"(1975) recommended:
31
-
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
"Continued coordination and planning through ICAS, with
eachagency following its mission directed role, ."
2. In regard to the final recommendation, the Bureau concursthat
a more visible, more formal, and higher level forum forplanning and
coordinating the national weather modification programis needed. It
should have representatives of all involved Federalagencies and
weather modification interests (including States andlocal agencies
and user groups) and cover all aspects of weathermodification. The
forum could provide substance to the existingnational policy that
is responsive to national and regional needsthrough the mission
agency approach. It could develop a consolidatedbudget for 5-year
R&D programs on an annual basis for a highlycoordinated and
synergistic combination of mission agency efforts.The Bureau
believes that such a forum is the only new ingredientthat is
required to extend the existing and highly desirable missionagency
approach into a more visibly coordinated and more formallyplanned
national modification program.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the report in
draftform.
Sincerely yours,
R. Keith HigginsonCommissioner
(142060)
32
-
Single copies of GAO reports are availablefree of charge.
Requests (except by Membersof Congress) for additional quantities
shouldbe accompanied by payment of $1.00 percopy.
Requests for single copies (without charge)should be sent
to:
U.S. General Accounting OfficeDistribution Section, Room 1518441
G Street, NW.Washington, DC 20548
Requests for multiple copies should be sentwith checks or money
orders to:
U.S. General Accounting OfficeDistribution SectionP.O. Box
1020Washington, DC 20013
Checks or money orders should be madepayable to the U.S. General
Accounting Of-fice. NOTE: Stamps or Superintendent ofDocuments
coupons will not be accepted.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH
To expedite filling your order, use the re-port number and date
in the lower rightcorner of the front cover.
GAO reports are now available on micro-fiche. If such copies
will meet your needs,be sure to specify that you want
microfichecopies.
-
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A
UNITED STATESUNITED STATES POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDGENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U.S.MAIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,S300