smaller countries with many neighbors. As such nations begin to experiment with rain augmentation, this may be expected to generate pressures from their neighbors to work out some system of rights and responsibilities.

Efforts to develop an international code date back at least to the Bangkok Conference on World Peace Through Law, in 1969, which considered a "Convention on Weather Control". At the present time UNEP is considering an effort to develop international principles and operational guidelines on weather modification. An effort to set rules concerning the extent of liability or responsibility raises some very difficult questions of proof, of law, and of sovereignty. I would guess that any binding multilateral code is years or decades away.

Having set the stage, let me offer the Department of State's views concerning those portions of H.R. 10039 and S. 3383 which directly concern it. I will not comment on the proposed domestic programs or funding provisions in the bills.

Concerning H.R. 10039, we concur in the intent in section 2(a) (5) that "agreements and cooperative programs and policies should be developed with other nations with regard to weather modification... However, such authority is not essential to permit us to pursue such an effort, and we question whether the legislation may be necessary. There are several reasons for this view. Let me explain.

Under title IV, we assume that section 401 is not intended to supplant existing constitutional and statutory provisions authorizing the President to enter into agreements with other governments and international organizations, seeking senatorial advice and consent to ratification, or congressional appropriations as appropriate. We regard the language of section 2(a) (5) as adequate indication of Congress' intent that we continue and where possible expand efforts in international cooperation.

Section 402 raises a philosophical question as to the extent to which the U.S. Government should be expected to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens abroad, or whether we should regard this as the responsibility of the government of the country where the activity is to take place. If science is to develop an adequate data base as to weather modification activities worldwide, for use in assessing the results of such efforts, the Department believes that such information should be secured through a cooperative international effort. Data supplied only by U.S. citizens would be incomplete and of questionable value. Moreover, we would prefer not to burden private American operators abroad with such a set of reporting requirements. If a country wants to undertake a weather modification effort, there are probably firms other than American which would be happy to bid and we would prefer not to impose a reporting requirement which might place the American firm at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, insofar as this Government requires such reporting, there is some danger that others will see us as assuming responsibility.

Similarly, the Department questions the necessity for section 403, which calls for the Department of Commerce to compile and endorse a list of firms engaging in weather modification. The Department of Commerce of course already has arrangements for poviding the names of potential American suppliers, in connection with its normal export pomotion efforts. Insofar as the language of section 403 is intended

to go beyond that service and to require explicit U.S. Government endorsement of a particular firm, there may arise an implication that the U.S. Government assumes responsibility for the product. In a field in which the product is still so questionable scientifically, my Department does not believe that the United States should undertake such an implied responsibility.

Since the U.S. Government can hardly escape the responsibility for actions by its own components, and since this is an important and potentially explosive area in which the Department of Ŝtate is deeply interested, the Department endorses section 404, which requires U.S. Government agencies to obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State before undertaking weather modification efforts abroad. (We believe, incidentally, that the phrase "in any foreign nation" should be changed to "outside the U.S.", to cover operations on the high seas which might impact in foreign countries.) This provision also insures that any such actvities are integrated with our entire national and international climate program.

The other bill before you is S. 3383. This bill refers to international activities only in section 4(6) calling for "a review of the international importance and implications of weather modifications activities by the United States." Such a review would be a legitimate component of the broader study contemplated, but the Department defers to other more interested agencies as to the necessity for this study.

In any legislation concerning weather modification, we believe that participating agencies should be enumerated and that the Department of State should be included.

Finally, one technical point. H.R. 10039 correctly includes the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands within the compass of the bill. S. 3383 does not.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be delighted to answer questions.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Grant.

Your statement helps to improve our perspective on this important problem.

Mr. Winn, do you have any questions?

Mr. WINN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have two.

Mr. Grant, on page 3, you mention a bilateral agreement with Canada. Does it not seem remarkable there are not more international agreements?

Is that the only one?

Mr. GRANT. I always hate to prove that kind of fact.

There are things that happen we do not learn about.

As far as I am aware, and I did circulate this around to a number of interested specialists, this is the only one we know of where there is a formal agreement on weather modification.

There is a lot going on in the area close to what you are talking about. There is the acid rain-type problem, and various other pollution-type problems, but still very little happening formally in this

area.

Mr. WINN. Just because this is so complicated, they do not know quite how to proceed, or are there other reasons?

Mr. GRANT. I do not know.

I think that one of the things here is that a lot of this has happened sort of casually.

As I said, there are private firms going around putting silver iodide in clouds, and the perception of the kind of damage and the environmental implications of this thing, this is just growing now.

As I said, it is a new world. I do not think there is resistance, but that a lot of people have not focused on it.

I think this effort will probably lead to more focus, and as I mentioned, I think that sooner or later, we are going to find countries that might be affected will be pressing for some sort of agreements, but not much has happened yet.

Mr. WINN. If it is true that the more important results in the weather modification activities may be the unintended, does not this suggest the urgency of more basic research to resolve the unknowns?

Mr. GRANT. I would defer to the others as to that word more.

I had quite a session on this 2 weeks ago about climate. We in State really do not feel ourselves that we can state how much is enough.

I do know Dr. Todd has already testified before you. I think his testimony is interesting, and I myself pay considerable attention to that kind of informed viewpoint, as a personal matter.

I do not have an official position as to whether more is needed.
The Department of State does not have an official position.
Mr. WINN. Then you are giving us your personal opinion?

Mr. GRANT. All I am saying is that you are getting advice, you already have gotten advice from people on the executive side who are directly concerned, who know what they think is enough.

We defer to them on that kind of point.

Mr. WINN. I see. Thank you, Mr. Grant.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Myers?

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Grant, are you aware of any request by other countries for agreements with us which we have not proceeded upon?

Mr. GRANT. No.

Mr. MYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Emery?

Mr. EMERY. No questions.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Grant, are you aware of any initiatives of substance within the U.N. system to develop a framework of international agreements which covers this particular problem area?

Mr. GRANT. We are in touch with their operations, we will be very much interested in it.

We have had some preliminary discussions. There have been some texts submitted to the U.N. in that area, which embraces the legal responsibility type of problem.

I am sure we will be very much in the middle of it, as it develops. We have not tried to develop a unilateral proposal in this respect. Of course, on the operational, the experimental side, we are very much the parents of many experiments, as with the WMO experiment. Mr. BROWN. Yes, you referred to that.

Would it seem likely to you in the various activities, within UNEP, that those would include weather modification activities.

I am very happy as far as my personal knowledge is concerned on what UNEP is trying to achieve in the way of international agreements.

But there would be a certain amount of logic in trying to include weather modification as an aspect of environmental modification.

Mr. GRANT. UNEP's role is a bit difficult to understand from the outside, because they play a stimulus and funding role with other organizations.

On the operational side they will put money into this WMO effort, we hope. We expect, on the legal side, however, they will take action. At least they are considering it. There is no final decision as to whether to try to go for some sort of formal code yet, but they are looking at the idea, looking at the potential drafts, and they will be the parent themselves.

I think they do have a real responsibility in this area, and it is a legitimate part of the environmental area.

I would be misleading you if I said this is a key priority for them. As far as UNEP is concerned, the first thing we would like to get them going on is the exchange of information, better monitoring across the board on environmental phenomena, and we are pressing very hard. on this.

On the other hand, although we get along with the less developed world very well in UNEP, they still try to put the projects forward that will mean something to them, and they like something with capital benefits, so with that kind of competition, I think their weather modification code is going to be a fairly slow thing evolving.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think that is probably appropriate under the circumstances, considering the lack of the broad base of scientific knowledge.

I want to thank you again for your cooperation with the committee, Mr. Grant. If we have any further questions, we will be in communication with you in writing.

Mr. GRANT. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Our next witness this morning is Dr. Barbara C. Farhar, Human Ecology Research Service and the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.

Dr. Farhar, we appreciate your being here this morning. Again, the full text of your statement will be included in the record. You may amplify or summarize in any manner you choose.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARBARA C. FARHAR, HUMAN ECOLOGY RESEARCH SERVICES AND THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, COLO.

Dr. FARHAR. This century has produced incredible numbers of technological innovations-innovations that have been implemented and have had profound consequences for our individual lives and our society, some of them totally unanticipated.

Many of these innovations, once they were developed and introduced to the public, have been adopted by individuals. An individual can decide to plant hybrid seed corn or to use the birth control pill-adoption of these innovations is a personal matter requiring no particular decision on the part of the community, once the technology is available.

Other new technologies, such as nuclear powerplants and fluoridation, require decisionmaking at the community level for adoption to occur. We must recognize weather modifications as an innovation which was widely used by individuals by a farmer or small group of farmers, for example-early in its history. But as its application became more sophisticated, as it began to depend more on public funding, and as it was used over more extensive land areas, general awareness increased that the activity had implications for entire communities rather than only for the individual user. Weather modifications thus became a collective innovation decision, or a public decision, requiring action on the part of a community or larger social aggregate in order for it to be adopted.

I have been involved in research on the sociological aspects of whether modification since August of 1972. Our research, supported by the National Science Foundation, has focused on public response to weather modification where it has been proposed and introduced and on decision processes relative to the adoption of this technological innovation.

Four major kinds of studies have been carried out: (1) surveys of citizen attitudes, opinions, beliefs, knowledge, and evaluation of weather modification in the abstract, and of specific projects the public have experienced. (2) Monitoring of a large number of project areas in the United States across time to determine the social systemic factors associated with acceptance and rejection of the technology. (3) A survey of 551 weather modification experts concerning their opinions about the readiness of 12 weather modification technologies for operational application, about who should decide on each technology's implementation, and about the desirability of lead agency responsibility in weather modification. (4) A technology assessment of hail suppression, carried out by a multidisciplinary team of meteorologists, sociologists, legal experts, agricultural economists, and political scientists. Highlights of findings from each of these major areas of study are as follows.

Citizen Surveys-First, citizen surveys. Surveys have been carried out in Colorado, Illinois, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Florida, Oklahoma, California, Utah and New York between 1968 and 1976. The patterns of response are remarkably consistent among these diverse sections of the Nation, with the majority of respondents indicating favorable attitudes toward the development and use of cloud seeding technology, especially for the benefit of agriculture.

However, in most surveys, a sizable minority of respondents, usually one-third to 40 percent-express a "religio-natural orientation" toward the weather. That is, they believe that man should not intervene in weather processes-that these processes rightfully fall within the domain of the Supreme Being or of nature. The results of longitudinal surveys show that the proportion expressing religio-natural concerns tends to decline somewhat over time as programs are experienced.

Regarding the public's belief that cloud seeding is effective in enhancing precipitation and decreasing hail, about a fifth of respondents thought seeding was effective prior to experiencing programs. After experiencing seeding, over half of the samples indicated they thought cloud seeding to be effective. Environmental concern does not appear to be a basis of opposition to cloud seeding in heavily agricultural