STATEMENT OF STANLEY A. CHANGNON, JR., WEATHER Mr. CHANGNON. Thank you, Congressman Brown. It is a considerable pleasure to appear before this subcommittee to address the general issues of weather modification and to offer comments on the two bills under consideration. As an atmospheric scientist, I have been involved in both planned and inadvertent weather modification research and operations for more than 10 years. Currently, I am the president of the Weather Modification Association, an association of some 200 members, plus some 20 corporate members largely drawn from weather modification industry, the Federal Government and from the research community. This association basically focuses on operational applications in weather modification and on setting of operational standards of application of the technology. I am also the chairman of the Illinois Weather Modification Board which advises the State of Illinois on the permits, licensing, monitoring and evaluation of weather modification in Illinois. I have also served as chairman of the Committee on Weather Modification of the American Meteorological Society and am currently the head of the atmospheric research group of Illinois State Weather Survey, a State agency that has been involved in weather modification related research for about 10 years. I will try to speak both for that agency's viewpoint and as president of the WMA. Being one of the last to testify presents one with a somewhat unique opportunity and a dilemma in trying to say something original or to try to summarize the many key issues relevant to weather modification. From the time the scientific approach to weather modification came out in the middle 1940's, the focus has really been on trying to prove whether it can be done with the implicit belief that it would be worthwhile. Thirty years now of experimentation have provided a variety of scientific outcomes ranging from success to total failure with the outcomes too often dictated by the typical uncertainties associated with the vagaries of nature coupled with poorly conducted projects that were often too brief in their duration. Because we knew too little, the focuses had to be on statistical evaluations based mainly on what occurred at the ground. This has always forced long and expensive experiments and has resulted in a slowly developing technology. During the last 8 to 10 years, as certain types of weather modification have become established, such as snow fall enhancement in the Rockies and cold fog abatement at certain airports, important new issues have arisen about the true value of modifying the weather, at least at the capability levels that we had or could foresee. Although full scientific explanations have not been derived as to how much weather could be modified, demands for the potential benefits in weather modification have led to simultaneous adoption. As you have heard before, by the early 1970's more than 100,000 square miles in the United States were being seeded in a variety of projects supported by private funds. The weather modification industry in this country in recent years has comprised some 15 firms each with seeding equipment, aircraft, and expertise on their staffs. I have estimated their 1975 net income of around $15 million. There have been really three major classes of entities supporting operational programs in this country. First, of course, have been those communities ranging from parts of counties up to nearly a whole State. Second, we have had the industry, the power industry and others involved, and of course finally we have had the Federal Government involved in operations as well as research and development. My guess would be that Government support of weather modification over the last 20 years is something like 70 percent of the total U.S. expenditure. One also cannot ignore the worldwide use of weather modification technology that has been developed here and the roles that American industry and our Government have played in exploiting this technology. As Dr. Battan mentioned, practically every nation, including the Soviet Union, in the world has employed weather modification during the past 30 years. American firms have operated projects in at least eight or nine countries. Interestingly, we seem to be in a degree of competition with the Soviet Union who is actively, as Dr. Battan indicated, selling their technology. Thus, I think international concerns over weather modification go well beyond those possible conflicts between adjacent neighbors that we hear about. They also relate to national interests involving help to less well developed nations, economic gains to American industry, and potential competition with the Soviet Union. We have also applied rain modification techniques in Southeast Asia. The Federal agencies have performed weather modification programs in Portugal, Panama, and the Philippines. Mr. BROWN. May I interrupt at that point? Your reference to Southeast Asia, is that the military effort which enhanced the rainfall on the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Mr. CHANGNON. True. Research in weather modification is what I would like to mention next. Of course, as you are now well aware after 4 days of testimony, research has largely been sponsored by Federal agencies in this country. There has been some State input such as in Illinois, but I would estimate that at least 90 percent of total research funding comes from the Federal Government. Research has focused on a variety of experiments mostly in the Western United States. I think there have been some real significant accomplishments in recent years including the development of new evaluation techniques and certainly some new cloud probing equipment. Also during the last 5 years there has been a host of major reviews of weather modification by a variety of august scientific bodies. In every case their recommendations pointed toward the value of weather modification and second called for rather ambitious increases in Federal research. These, of course, have largely gone unheeded. The user was not listening. Mr. BROWN. Probably the timing was very poor also. Mr. CHANGNON. Interestingly, during this period of growth in the field, even without the funding which scientists seem to desire plus the recommendations that we had for greater expenditure, the Federal 75-308 O-76-23 investment in research and development dropped about 20 percent in 1973, and really without any subsequent growth has effectively decreased due to inflation. However, at the peak of Federal spending in fiscal year 1973 with about $17 million into weather modification plus a figure of about $9 million in private funds, the U.S. total reached about $26 million, only about one-fourth of what was being reportedly spent in the Soviet Union. I think the important point is the cuts in budget uncertainties are really critical problems to weather modification progress, since much of the field in laboratory experimentation requires multiyear rather steady funding commitment to achieve meaningful and statistically significant answers. If one starts at the premise that both the economic and social analyses show that existing and attainable weather modification capabilities will have measurable benefits for agriculture, for water resources and for energy applications, then one must focus on a host of problems that have limited orderly and adequate progress in the field. This is a key issue and one that is certainly addressed in both of the bills under consideration. There appears to be a host of reasons for the lack of Federal interest, commitment and critical support of weather modification and I will submit a paper for the record addressing these various problems. Mr. BROWN. Without objection, that will be included in the record. Mr. CHANGNON. Thank you, sir. [Material referred to above appears on p. 357.] There has been too often a lack of commitment both by the Federal agencies and by the scientific community, I will add, to weather modification. Unfortunately, weather modification has occasionally been assigned a rather picturesque glamour role when it appeared to be a providential answer to a major problem. For instance during the droughts of the early 1970's when the Governors of Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma called upon the executive branch for assistance, Federal agencies were directed to conduct operational seeding programs in weather situations which were certainly nearly impossible to produce any alterations with existing facilities, technology, and knowledge. Another factor in limited growth has been certainly a host of controversies in the field. For example the concern about the Rapid City flood, the concern over the use of weather modification by the military forces in Southeast Asia. The controversy naturally has surrounded an emerging complex technology like weather modification where we have had scientific debates for 20 years. I think in summary of these problems, there are really three reasons for inadequate and irregular Federal attention for research and development in weather modification. First, weather modification, I believe, is still an immature, basically uncertain technology unable yet to demonstrate sizable weather alterations and economic benefits in many areas in the United States. Second, its decisionmakers have had a lack of good information about the social, economic, environmental, and legal impacts of weather modification in most areas of the United States. Thus there has been no firm basis for the development of policy and higher support levels, indeed if they are justified. Finally, I think these two reasons coupled together with a third factor which would be less than optimum management both at the Federal and scientific levels have augered to keep things where they are. I think there are probably four ways in which weather modification might achieve a higher support level and maybe more attention. First, the development of a major weather related problem such as a widespread drought would bring forth sizable interest and support. It has in the past, it will again. Unfortunately, weather modification maybe rushed into an area of disaster with the technology unable to effectively address this major drought. This type of input from such an event would probably be temporary and indeed I believe would probably hurt the field more than it would help it. The second factor which I think would lead to increased weather modification support would be again major claims by foreign nations relating to successful breakthroughs in weather modification. Such claims particularly by the Soviets in the past have brought forth new Federal incentives in the field. Third, some very dramatic breakthroughs in the field that would have clear scientific acceptance and attract public attention would also encourage major new confidence and support. The fourth way that I think weather modification could be helped would be to establish a rather prestigious commission with strong congressional or Presidential support, having the aim of getting forth national goals in a program for weather modification. Now I would like to comment on the two bills being considered. First, I believe that S. 3383 reflects a very desirable overall activity. It is clear that the current Federal approach to weather modification is not producing the proper scientific focus nor levels of support at least commensurate with the potential value of the field. Second, urgings by the National Academy of Sciences, NACOA and others to define a lead agency have met with conflicting views among the scientific community and the Federal agencies. None of them involved in weather modification have been able to exhibit a clear desire or rationale for being a lead agency. The called for development of a national policy toward weather modification and a program of R. & D. through the mechanism of S. 3383 is in my opinion in the right direction to achieve new orientation. However, as you have noted, others have feared for the 1-year duration and I do too, feeling it is too short, particularly to possibly spend a million dollars wisely. I am also concerned that the field of inadvertent weather modification is omitted from the proposed comprehensive review, and I would encourage inclusion of this subject under section 4. Finally, I think that to have this review done under the auspices of the Department of Commerce will not achieve the setting of a truly national policy toward weather modification. First, the Department of Commerce has a major stake. If the proposed investigative group appointed by the Secretary of Commerce develops a major recommendation for that program within Commerce, I do not think it would have the credibility or the support it needs. Therefore, an impartial national commission appointed by the Congress or the President would remove this questionable situation and give the ultimate policy statement more viability. I would urge that the Congress establish a temporary national weather modification commission to develop over a 2-year period a national policy on weather modification. H.R. 10039 does contain some good features. It addresses some of the research and policy actions that will be needed in the future if and when the technology is better established and more widely used. However, the bill raises certain rather serious questions for the weather modification industry some of which relate to rather impractical situations. For example, how can the bill be effectively handled in those States where there are certainly no laws at this time? The Weather Modification Association reviewed H.R. 10039 and passed a resolution which I will submit for the record. Mr. BROWN. Without objection that will be included in the record. [The resolution referred to above follows:] A RESOLUTION PROPOSED AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WEATHER MODIFICATION ASSOCIATION, DECEMBER 3, 1975 Whereas the Weather Modification Association is an international organization formed in 1950 for purposes of promoting research and operational weather modification programs, disseminating related publications, encouraging and promoting the highest standards of professional conduct, increasing public understanding of the aims of those working in the various fields of weather modification, and certifying individual members qualified to execute field experiments and operations in weather modification, and Whereas the Weather Modification Association is composed of some 250 members representing all aspects to the operational and research weather modification community, and Whereas the Weather Modification Association recognizes the potential benefits from cloud physics research and operational weather modification programs conducted by experienced professional level personnel, and Whereas the Weather Modification Association further recognizes the need to protect, maintain and improve the environment of the United States in order to safeguard the lives, property and economic pursuits of all American citizens, and Whereas modification of the weather potentially affects the health and welfare of American citizens, and Whereas provisions should be made to encourage continued weather modification research, experiments and operations to achieve orderly and beneficial use of weather modification, and Whereas the Weather Modification Association has now reviewed and considered H.R. 10039 as introduced by Mr. Evans of Colorado in the House of Representatives of the United States on October 6, 1975, and Whereas this careful examination indicates the content of the Bill fails to recognize the present technological level of weather modification, and, Whereas the Bill is not responsive to present weather modification efforts in the United States, either research or operations, and Whereas the Bill does not reflect the needs of our current and future users of weather modification technology, and Whereas the Bill ignores the adequate existing mechanisms for state regulation of weather modification activities, and Whereas the Bill further ignores the existing reporting functions within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which adequately monitors weather modification activities, and Whereas the Bill fails to recognize the conduct of present professional level weather modification operations conducted by citizens of the United States in foreign nations, and Whereas the provisions of the Bill seriously restrain and restrict the beneficial and orderly advancement of weather modification research and operations throughout the United States and other countries, now therefore, be it |