tial to such a combined effort, is of sufficiently low priority within the agency's primary mission that it is always in danger of being cut and sometimes is. Without coordinated effort the individual agency programs can be leaned on more heavily for practical application than their actual scientific strength warrants. This could be dangerous in a touchy business.

What seems most important at this time is that a coherent, integrated national program of research be established, with NOAA designated as lead agency, emphasizing: (1) research on the basic processes in the formation of rain, snow, hail, etc.; (2) closely controlled and integrated field experiments; and (3) an evaluation of the legal, economic, sociological, and political aspects that should be incorporated in legislation and subsequent regulation for the control of weather modification activities in both the public and private sectors. We are not necessarily recommending that more money be put into weather modification research, but rather that the funds currently allotted to weather modification be managed more effectively by designating a lead agency, i.e., an agency with primary responsibility for coordinating and for defending a sound and balanced program.

We believe this agency should be NOAA, because it has the necessary meteorological expertise. But all must recognize the major role in this field of activity to be played by the mission agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Energy Research and Development Administration, etc. In particular, the Department of Agriculture, since food production is the principal prospective beneficiary of weather modification, is urged to undertake a substantial effort in weather modification research coordinated with the NOAA program which would include the social, economic, ecological, environmental, and institutional aspects.

As we write this, the Federal effort in weather modification is once again under review, this time by the Domestic Council Subcommittee on Climate Change. We hope that this review will, at last, be followed by action which suits the state of the art.

A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS

(By the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere)

Fifth Annual Report, June 30, 1976

WEATHER MODIFICATION

In recent years, there have been numerous studies, by NACOA and others, of the U.S. effort in weather modification. A number of carefully thought out recommendations have been made. These have been considered by the special subcommittee on Climate Change of the Environmental Resources Committee of the Domestic Council, which reviewed the situation and presented its recommendations in a report completed in December 1975.1 Among these recommendations, the subcommittee called upon the Federal Government to:

Foster a broad-based effort of research and experimentation in weather modification.

Decide upon an institutional mechanism for planning and coordinating the national weather modification research effort;

Provide increased funding for weather modification research;

Support a more vigorous program of fundamental research and experimentation in the physics and dynamics of cloud processess; and

Plan greater emphasis on developing improved methodologies for evaluating the effects of weather modification.

The subcommittee also suggested appropriate roles for the Federal Government, the States, and the private sector when and if appropriate weather modification techniques become feasible, and while finding that new Federal regulatory legislation is not now needed, recommended establishing a formal procedure for periodic reassessment of regulatory needs. The subcommittee also noted the importance of assessing the potential international implications of weather modification activities.

We believe the Domestic Council subcommittee report can serve as a basis for a decision by the Federal Government on how to proceed.

1 "The Federal Role in Weather Modification," A Report of the Subcommittee on Climate Change of the Environmental Resources Committee, Domestic Council, December 1975.

Such a decision is needed, we feel, because present budget policy has created a situation which greatly hampers further progress: (1) While some types of weather modification are operational, we have prematurely engaged in applied research directed toward other forms of weather modification without sufficient attention to badly needed basic studies. The result has been disappointment, disillusionment, and wasted funds. (2) The Federal research effort is an uncoordinated and fragmented one, carried out by a number of Federal agencies, in which certain important parts of the problem are not recognized as any one agency's responsibility. (3) Field experiments are conducted with inadequate funding and observational support, and conclusions must be drawn from incomplete information.

We understand that the position of the Office of Management and Budget is that weather modification represents one of many means by which a variety of Federal agencies may accomplish their missions, and that each agency should make its own decisions as to the kind of research it should support to develop the operational weather modification capability it needs. There is merit in this point of view, although we believe the case would be stronger were weather research further along the road than it is today. What causes us concern is that under this policy no one agency assumes the responsibility to support those basic studies that are necessary for further progress along a broad front. We are also disturbed because in many areas essential coordination and cooperation between Federal agencies are missing.

The principal need at this time is for a stepped-up effort to understand the physical processes which operate in cloud formation, precipitation, and severe storms. This requires a stronger, larger scale effort in basic research, including theoretical, laboratory, and field studies, than is currently being undertaken. We do not advocate centralization of all weather modification research within one Federal department. We do, however, urge most strongly that one agency be given the authority to examine the whole field and lay out a plan for action, to identify aspects of weather modification research in which the cooperative effort of specific agencies is required, and to identify and fund those studies which are required as a basis for further progress but which do not clearly fall within the province of any one agency and would therefore otherwise remain undone. We believe that of the concerned agencies, NOAA has the broadest range of relevant capability and expertise in the physical processes involved in both weather prediction and weather modification, and we urge that NOAA be given this lead responsibility.

This is not intended to minimize the roles of other departments and agencies. In particular, the Department of Agriculture, which has little activity in this area at present, should assume lead responsibility for assessing the impact of weather modification on crop production, and should participate in the design and analysis of field experiments aimed at using weather modification to maximize the producton of crops.

It has been suggested that the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS), which oversees the Federal effort in basic atmospheric research, might provide coordination for a Federal program of weather modification research. But an interagency coordinating committee, while it plays an important role in fostering communication between agencies, is by its nature and composition unsuited to providing coordinated management of a research program. An operating agency should be chosen to provide coordination and guidance for a coherent research effort in weather modification. There is no reason to expect matters to change under the new statutory Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. While the newly created Office of Science and Technology Policy can be expected to provide policy guidance to Federal agencies, neither it nor the Council is intended to fill the managerial function that is needed.

While we believe that the necessary steps to institute this program can be taken by Executive action, past reluctance to do this suggests that legislation may be called for. If no action is taken by the Executive Branch within a reasonable period of time, in response to the Domestic Council subcommittee report, we urge the Congress to assign NOAA statutory responsibility for developing, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, a national program of weather modification research, and for funding basic studies which are needed for progress but which do not now clearly lie within the misson of any one agency. An important element in the weather modification picture is its international aspect. The World Meteorological Organization is proceeding with its own plans

for international weather modification research program, and it is important that the United States be prepared to participate. There are also international aspects to the pursuit of our own program goals. NOAA's Stormfury project, which studies the effects of intervening in the dynamics of tropical convective storms and offers hope of a future ability to modify hurricanes, was to be moved from the Atlantic to the western Pacific for scientific reasons. Objections on the part of some western Pacific nations prevented this move and it will instead be conducted in the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic. It is important to the ultimate success of this effort that we recognize that other nations which might be affected, or which believe they might be, have a legitimate interest in understanding its expected benefits, the risks involved, and the safeguards proposed. We also recommend that greater attention be paid to the possible adverse environmental, economic, and social impacts of weather modification. The scientific and technical progress that is needed appears to be within our reach, once we organize properly to get it done. It is likely, however, the ecological, social, and legal limitations may significantly inhibit realization of the full potential of weather modification once it is available as an operational option, if we do not continue and expand our examination of these aspects, and pave the way for whatever legal and regulatory actions are required to fully exploit this potentially powerful tool. Even if we do not develop an operational weather modification capability because of socio-legal considerations, we need to pursue this research in order to understand the implications of weather modification that occurs inadvertently as a result of urbanization and industrialization.

A number of weather modification bills have been introduced in both Houses of Congress during the past year, indicating that the Congress is aware that we have not achieved our potential in understanding and utilizing weather modification. Several of these bills are specifically directed toward drought prevention and alleviation operations. It is unfortunate that we as a nation do not have the scientific basis for such measures, but the fact is we do not. It is for this reason that we reiterate our earlier recommendation to conduct the basic research needed to bring us to the point where we can undertake such prevention and alleviation efforts with reasonable hope for success.

Another of these bills, S. 3383, directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and, on the basis of this, to recommend to the President and the Congress, within 1 year, a national policy on weather modification and a national weather modification research and development program. Although such a study seems redundant at this point, if it will help the Executive Branch and the Congress to see the direction in which they should move, then NACOA supports such legislation. Should this bill be enacted, we hope the Secretary will lean heavily on the Domestic Council subcommittee report, and will proceed as soon as possible with his recommendations for a national policy and a national research program.

Mr. BROWN. Our next witness this morning is Dr. John W. Townsend, Associate Administrator of NOAA. Dr. Townsend is accompanied by one of his associates, Dr. Ronald L. Lavoie, Director of the Environmental Modification Office of NOAA.

We are very happy to have you gentlemen here, as your agency is most directly concerned with the climate and weather. You may proceed with your statement, Dr. Townsend, in whatever fashion you choose. The full text will be included in the record at this point.

STATEMENT BY DR. JOHN W. TOWNSEND, JR., ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss two bills, H.R. 10039 and S. 3383, dealing with the science and emerging technology of weather modification. However, before addressing the particulars of each bill, I wish to devote a few minutes to general comments on NOAA's background in weather modification, our current programs, our plans, and the philosophy that guides our efforts.

NOAA as a unit of the Department of Commerce is the central weather agency of the Federal Government. As such it carries out broad programs of research and development on atmospheric phenomena, many of which are pertinent to our ability to modify the weather by artificial means. For nearly 30 years, the Department

of Commerce has been an active participant in the Federal effort in weather modification. Since 1962, the Department of Commerce has greatly expanded its field experimentation in weather modification and has strongly espoused the view that well designed and conducted experiments provide the most effective means of advancing knowledge in this field and of developing a useful technology.

Accordingly, our recent emphasis in weather modification has been in three general areas: hurricane modification, tropical cloud modification, and lightning suppression.

In addition to these activities to develop and explore weather modification techniques, the Department of Commerce has conducted background research in atmospheric sciences that is important to the future development of weather modification. Included are modeling and theoretical work on the structure, dynamics, and energy processes of severe storms such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms; and the development of instrumentation for direct measurements and for remote probing of the atmosphere.

NOAA's major effort in weather modification is project STORMFURY aimed at developing effective methods for moderating the most destructive peak winds in hurricanes. This project was first undertaken in partnership with the Department of Defense in 1962. The most successful experiments were conducted in 1969 on hurricane Debbie when the storm and circumstances combined to allow a good test of the modification hypothesis. In one case maximum winds decreased by 31 percent a few hours after seeding the appointed area of the storm. In the second case, winds were observed to decay temporarily by 15 percent. Still, such changes do occur naturally at times. Greater understanding and additional successful experiments are needed to establish the capability of beneficially altering hurricane winds without affecting the valuable rainfalls associated with these storms.

In 1972, NOAA embarked on a long-range program to develop the tools needed to properly and thoroughly test the STORMFURY seeding hypothesis. Our current target date for resuming field experiments in hurricane modification is summer 1978.

Another of NOAA's important weather modification projects has been aimed at stimulating increased rainfall from tropical and subtropical cumulus clouds. In contrast with most cloud seeding activities undertaken since the mid-1940's, this project utilizes a "massive" seeding technique whereby up to one kilogram of silver iodide is introduced into every seeded cloud by dropping pyrotechnic flares from aircraft. This method is the "dynamic" approach to cloud modification. The experiment has been active in Florida since 1967 and has progressed through several milestones.

The first experiments, conducted over South Florida in 1968 and 1970, demonstrated conclusively that "dynamic" seeding of a selected individual convective cloud can be effective in increasing cloud size, prolonging its duration and, consequently, increasing its precipitation production by an average factor of three. However, the rain produced by several single cumulonimbus clouds, seeded or natural, is small. For that reason, NOAA conducted randomized multiple cloud seeding experiments to maximize cloud organization and produce cloud merger during the summers of 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1975. Evaluation of rainfall data available to date indicates that we have caused increases of rainfall from 20 to 50 percent by seeding cloud clusters. However, it has not been determined if these increases were made at the expense of the natural rain making process in the neighboring cloud systems. We anticipate that at least one summer's experiment will be required to establish whether a significant increase in rainfall over the total area has been produced with a sufficiently high level of confidence in the result. Seeding experiments have begun for the summer of 1976 in Florida.

NOAA also has a small experimental effort in lightning suppression using very fine metalized nylon fibers (chaff) as a seeding agent. This effort, based on a theoretical model developed over the past several years, was initiated as a field program in 1972 aimed at testing the chaff seeding concept and determining the effect of such seeding on the electric fields of developing thunderstorms. In the summer of 1974, this program went into a new phase that involved specific efforts to suppress lightning. In these experiments thunderstorms were seeded from below with chaff, and the number of lightning occurrences was observed to be about 25 percent of that observed in the control storms (based on an analysis of data from 10 seeded thunderstorms and 18 unseeded control storms). Although the experiments were not strictly randomized, statistical evaluation indicated that the observed difference between seeded and control storms was significant. During the Apollo-Soyuz launch in 1975, aircraft were on standby

for possible lightning suppression flights. Further experiments are planned for this summer during the research project on thunderstorm electrification at Kennedy Space Center. This is a cooperative program with NASA, DOD, NOAA, and several universities.

There is one other activity that is appropriate to mention today. Under Public Law 92-205, all nonfederally sponsored weather modification activities in the United States must be reported to the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA has administered, on behalf of the Secretary, a reporting program since November 1, 1973. Accordingly, this reporting system provides the only central source of information on weather modification projects carried out in the United States and its territories. Summaries of the reported activities are published and distributed periodically. I should mention that Public Law 92205 is currently the only Federal statute dealing with weather modification and that it is not a measure for control, but simply a means of gathering information. In planning and carrying out these programs, we are guided by the general philosophy that weather modification technology has a potential to benefit the nation. More specifically, we believe that it can become a viable option in some situations where damaging weather prevails or where additional water is needed. Under our agency charter to study the atmosphere, we feel that expertise, experience, and facilities should be used to perform experiments and studies in order to provide basic knowledge necessary to advance the state of the art of weather modification. This approach includes transfer of the technology and consultation to those who wish to apply the results of our research and development activities. Our efforts are also guided by the belief that long-term, continuous research is needed to solve the many problems impeding rapid progress in weather modification and its operational applications.

Turning now to the legislation under discussion, I think these bills require careful consideration. The first, H.R. 10039, calls for the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a program of research and development, to establish a weather modification information system, to institute a control and reporting system, and to maintain a register of qualified weather modifiers. It also encourages cooperation with other nations and repeals the reporting law, Public Law 92–205. In connection with our reporting program under this law, some recent data from CY 1975 activities may be of interest in that it helps put our national weather modification activity in perspective. There were projects at 72 separate locations during the year and at 74 in 1974. Of these totals, 14 were federally sponsored in 1975 and 9 in 1974. The number of commercial weather modifiers was 15 in 1975 and 19 in 1974. In both years the number of federal operators was 5. In 1975, 25 States had one or more projects; in 1974 the number was 22. Increased precipitation was the major goal of the activities in these and other years. Hail suppression and fog dispersal were the next most common objectives. In view of these facts, the present scope of weather modification in this country seems to be stable and limited. Our data also shows that operational projects are about four times more plentiful than research programs.

In H.R. 10039, the weather modification information system, Title II, warrants comment. Because of our experience with the reporting program, I believe that the requirement for daily reports to the Department of Commerce by the operator would place a heavy burden on him, would represent an unnecessary expense to him, and would be of doubtful use to the Department of Commerce. In addition, the present degree of monitoring under the reporting program and applicable State laws appears to be adequate.

The requirement in Section 304 (a) 3 (D) for "a description of any weather modification resulting from such activity," to be made part of the daily report is not realistic. Even the most carefully controlled, Federally sponsored field experiments often require several years before conclusive results can be determined. The average private weather modifier does not take the measurements necessary for an adequate evaluation nor can he afford to do so. The effectiveness of a given weather modification technique can only be shown by adequately funded, well designed and executed field experiments such as the National Hail Research Experiment of the National Science Foundation, Project STORMFURY of the Department of Commerce, or the High Plains Cooperative Program of the Department of Interior.

As described in the bill, the weather modification information system would be impossible to implement in a meaningful manner, even with unlimited re