turns from money going to States for the purpose of research unless those States have institutions or agencies that are quite competent in the field. It is the same question always found in research, if the problem is difficult you must put it in the most competent hands you can find.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Senator Schoeppel, have you any questions? Senator SCHOEPPEL. I have no further questions at this time, I believe.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What do you think of the amount, Dr. Waterman, of money recommended in Senate bill 86, and the period of time over which it is to be spread, $5 million, to be spread over 5 years for research?

Dr. WATERMAN. That seems to be reasonable to me, sir.

The basic research which can be done in laboratories is often quite inexpensive. On the other hand, if extensive research facilities have to be built or research laboratories, this can be expensive.

The major expenses in such a research program would be field experiments, which can require fairly large sums. I think this amount would be a reasonable one over 5 years, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You recommend in your statement that this research be done by a permanent department and agency of the Federal Government. In your opinion where could that best be done? Dr. WATERMAN. I think that the agencies that support basic research in the field could very well carry out that research. We in the foundation can support basic research very easily, as we are now doing in this field. Any time that events take a turn toward developing a practical method, then that would rule out the National Science Foundation, because we do not have authority for support of development, nor do we wish it.

The other Government agencies have already been mentioned that have an interest in the subject, the Department of Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture, and they could very well carry on basic research, to the extent that they are authorized, and also any developmental work that might come up.

I think the most logical way of carrying this out, in principle, Mr. Chairman, would be to have some agency take charge of this in the spirit of the act, namely, to accept general supervision of research plans.

Such an agency should then have a steering committee available to the director of the program, composed of the most competent meteorologists that we can find, to determine the direction that the research should take, what basic problems should be explored, what applied research should be undertaken, etc. And in short, monitor the program and give the agency the benefit of its scientific advice. Then the recommendation of this committee should form an agenda for an interagency committee of governmental agencies of the interested departments and offices of the Government.

In this way the agencies would be enabled to plan their own share of the program, this in a cooperative manner, and be sure that coordination would exist.

Senator YARBOROUGH. In reading the statements of several witnesses there seems to run through, not yours, but several others, this thread of thought: That certain types of cloud seeding are either

feasible or not feasible for cloud modification and modification of rainfall. It isn't expressed in that exact language, but that seems to be the trend of thought.

Let me ask you has research proceeded to the point that we could say that that method of cloud modification either would or would not succeed and that was it?

Isn't there a possibility that there might be other means of cloud modifications, not yet tested, perhaps not thought of, or if thought of, not even experimented on in the laboratories?

Dr. WATERMAN. I think any scientists would always admit that possibility, Mr. Chairman.

е

It certainly would be true here. I did not go into that sort of detail in my statement, but I believe it is generally felt-and I would agree that the type of formation where moisture-laden air is lifted up over a mountain range is more likely to have the present technique succeed, than the kinds which we find in flat country. But much more work is needed to study other types of meteorological situations, other types of clouds. What we badly need to make a large improvement is good understanding of how it is that a droplet forms in the air somewhere, how nature does it. What is the nature of the nucleus on which moisture condenses? We don't know that yet.

And how does additional moisture succeed in building the drop larger?

If we knew that, then we could begin to prescribe what we might do to duplicate nature's processes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Research has not yet determined how it is formed in clouds?

Dr. WATERMAN. We don't understand that process at all thoroughly. That to me is the greatest problem, if we knew that, then we would be in a much stronger situation in going into nature, and trying to find out how nature does it.

Of course, at the time like this we want to do both, we want to understand how nature produces these things, in the natural process, and we want to do it under the microscope, so to speak, in the laboratory, so that we can prescribe better.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you concur in Dr. Schaefer's conclusion that at this time it seems more likely that success would tend to efforts to modify or alleviate the damage from tornadoes and thunderstorms and hail and lightning than from relieving from drought?

Do you think that man is closer on the trail of preventing lightning damage and preventing tornadoes than he is in solving the drought problem?

Dr. WATERMAN. That would be a very hard question to answer, Mr. Chairman. I think I would agree with Dr. Schaefer for this reason: That a drought condition extends over a large part of the country for a long time, that is, one where there just is no moisture anywhere near. To try to provide moisture when none is present would seem like a pretty hopeless task. But to discover the situation whereby a tornado is generated, and try to change that situation, or the origin of a hurricane and see if it can be broken, or the same kind of thing with thunderstorms, would seem to be promising. It is still most difficult. Senator SCHOEPPEL. I have one question here with reference to your letter of March 8, 1957, directed to Capt. Howard T. Orville, United States Navy, retired, as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on

Weather Control, the beginning of the fourth paragraph in your letter-you may recall it-you make this statement:

Insofar as the National Science Foundation may be involved in future planning, it would be contrary to foundation policy to conduct or support a general plan in cooperation with the States or in any other manner aimed at development of practical means for weather modification, or in operational plans for proceeding toward this end.

And you say:

In acordance with its established policy, however, the foundation would, if requested, consider taking the lead among Federal agencies in establishing and carrying out a research program for a better understanding of the subject.

I mention that because it has been drawn to my attention that it might be susceptible of some misunderstanding. Do you think that it is inconsistent with the position you have taken here?

Dr. WATERMAN. No; I think not. That letter to the chairman of the committee was in answer to a request as to what the National Science Foundation might do with respect to this problem. And our act gives us authority to support basic research-not to conduct it— in a variety of ways, and to conduct evaluations to determine policy. When it comes to the practical side, which I call development or operations, we not only are not authorized to do this, but would prefer as a policy not to.

So that the latter part of such a problem we would handle by making arrangements with another agency to carry on. I think that is consistent with my letter.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I see. That clarifies it. I wanted to get that into the record in view of this letter.

Dr. WATERMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I have no further questions, Senator Yarborough.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You may be excused, Dr. Waterman.

Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Washington, D. C., May 21, 1957.

Chairman, Special Subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: This letter relates to S. 86, a bill to provide for an experimental program in cloud modification.

My interest in the bill derives from my concern with meteorology, and from my hope that something positive be accomplished to alleviate the water shortage in the dry regions of our country. This interest is, in part, reflected in my membership in the Committee on Meteorology of the National Academy of SciencesNational Research Council, and in my being an alternate member, from the National Science Foundation, of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control. I was not present at the hearing on Monday, May 13, but on the basis of oral reports, I believe it appropriate to present or emphasize certain aspects of the matter that I am sure your committee will wish to consider in connection with S. 86.

The first point that calls for comment is that in February 1956 the Advisory Committee on Weather Control issued its first interim report, in which the Committee determined upon a termination date of June 30, 1958, and so recommended; and the Congress responded by extending its life to that date from June 30, 1956. In coming to this decision, the Committee felt certain that the 2-year extension would, with good planning and management, enable it to complete its assignment. It recognizes that it is an advisory, not an operating committee, and that there are existing agencies of Government that are qualified and authorized under the law to conduct and support experimental work in cloud physics, and to receive and use appropriations for the purpose. S. 86 would, in effect, extend the life

of the Advisory Committee for a number of years, and make it an operating committee. It is my belief, based on the report, the Committee does not desire this. It involves duplication of functions and additional administrative expense, and tends to perpetuate a temporary committee.

My second concern is this: The Committee in its first interim report repeatedly referred to the serious lack of our basic knowledge and emphasized the importance of a better understanding of atmospheric phenomena, so that the probability of success in practical efforts to increase (or otherwise control) precipitation might become greater.

The number of competent researchers in this field is extremely limited. For example, there are only about 10 universities in the United States that undertake to carry on training and research in meteorology. The supply of qualified scientists in this field should be increased so that experiments in cloud modification. to produce unequivocal results, may be done only by competent persons. There are exceedingly few of them at the colleges and universities in the arid States. Under S. 86, the desperate need for more water in the dry areas could easily lead to poorly planned and hurriedly executed attempts at cloud seeding that would neither advance our knowledge of the science nor result in tangible benefits. On the contrary, it could lead to fruitless expenditure of a substantial part of the funds that might be appropriated under the authorization of the proposed law.

The third point to emphasize is that the areas of our country that are and have been dry throughout the years for which records are available have low rainfall because of their physiographical features and their patterns of atmospheric circulation. They are dry because the air passing over them is deficient in maisture; its relative humidity is generally very low. Most of the clouds that are formed appear to be so "dry" that very little water from them can reach the ground. Until a way might be found of bringing about the natural transport of more water by the air, and consequently clouds richer in water, there can be little hope of long-term increase, either natural or artificially induced, in average annual rainfall over the areas involved. That there are sporadic and occasional deviations from the average does not alter the facts of the general situation. However, on such rare occasions when, in a dry area, clouds appear that by competent judgment are a prospective source of rainfall in a particular area if seeded, it would be not merely justifiable but most desirable that seeding be done, from considerations of temporary local benefit if the operation were successful. Such seeding, however, would not be likely to contribute much to basic knowledge, nor could it readily be planned as part of a research and development program. For this reason, it would seem more logical, when there is a reasonable expectation of a positive result, that the seeding be undertaken as a local operation rather than as a research project.

It should be stressed that no fully acceptable, unbiased evidence exists that seeding of clouds results in appreciable increase in rain or snow over what would have fallen without seeding. One exception comes out of the careful study of data made by the scientific staff of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control, from which it could be deduced that in a fraction of the seeded storms that were analyzed, increases in actual above expected precipitation over the periods analyzed ranged from 7 to 19 percent. These were selected situations, during cold seasons, in mountainous areas where the topography caused an updraft of moisture-laden air. The results cannot be taken to imply that such results would follow in level terrain, or with warm clouds, where the conditions are so completely different.

My final point is that the Advisory Committee's interim report expresses findings that are rational and realistic with reference to the research, both basie and applied, that is needed. This must be done both in laboratories and in the field. In keeping with these findings, the National Science Foundation is already encouraging and supporting research in atmospheric physics, in both the laboratory and the field, and is cooperating with other Federal agencies to the end that research results may be quickly tested and applications developed. Moreover, it is in process of expanding its program in this field, with the advice of a competent panel of scientists now being established.

We must be under no illusions that modification of clouds, to achieve specific. planned results, can be accomplished in our present state of knowledge. Even with every resource that we can intelligently apply to the problem, its solution is not in sight. In the meantime, we must not allow efforts to increase the water supply in dry areas by any other promising methods to lag, in the expectation that cloud seeding will be the complete, reliable answer.

It would be my view, therefore, that your committee should determine, before recommending action on S. 86, whether the objectives of the bill could not be attained through existing, permanent agencies, without special authorization, rather than adding such responsibility to the present duties of the Advisory Committee on Weather Control.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL E. KLOPSTEG, Associate Director.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Mr. Morrison Cunningham, of Oklahoma City, Okla.

STATEMENT OF MORRISON CUNNINGHAM, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, my name is Morrison Cunningham, director of public works, city of Oklahoma City.

I filed more or less just a general statement, but I would rather make a verbal statement for the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Please proceed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My interest in this subject has been accumulating over a period of several years, especially beginning with the drought. I had occasion to enlarge my interest several years ago, when I served as president of the American Water Works Association, and have been active on the Advisory Committee on Pollution Control. That gave me an opportunity to observe rainfall deficiencies around the United States, and its effect on all water users.

In Oklahoma City, we have a shortage of municipal water, it started in 1952.

I was directed by our city officials to go into the matter of cloud seeding or weather modification. I made a rather extensive investigation to try to find the experience that they had had on a number of projects as well as to try to determine an organization that would more likely be in position to have the scientific knowledge, as well as the experience, that would be able to get results and an organization of that type then was selected.

We had very good results from the first project that we had, in 1953. We skipped a year on account of our supply being relatively filled. Then in 1955, as we were short of water again, we renewed the contract.

Last year, 1956, the river didn't have any flow in it for 16 months. This year, we have renewed our contract, this brings out a point that I would like to make, and that is we went into the question of long-range weather forecasting to determine what the weather was likely to be and the seeding opportunities. After all, if there were no seeding opportunities, then there is very little benefit from a project. We started getting forecasts in February 1957.

We got the forecasts which looked pretty good up through June. So, we entered into a contract and so far the results have been more than the report originally showed. In other words, the original forecast was really on the conservative side.

We feel that we definitely received benefits from cloud seeding even though this is in the plains area, Central Plains. And certainly, that part needs research. There seems to be some doubt as to just how effective cloud seeding is. Maybe it is less effective in that area. But we do feel though that there are certain storms, certain cloud