Mr. BROWN. Our last witness this morning is Dr. Edmund R. Hill, associate professor of earth sciences and geography, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pa. He is also a member of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board, and he is obviously well acquainted with this field. We welcome you, Dr. Hill. STATEMENT OF DR. EDMUND R. HILL, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EARTH SCIENCES AND GEOGRAPHY, GETTYSBURG COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA. Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to read my prepared statement because what I am going to say in the prepared statement also represents the wishes of six people on the Weather Modification Board in Pennsylvania. I am Dr. Edmund R. Hill, a professor at Gettysburg College teaching earth sciences and geography. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has adopted legislation in the form of Act 449 of 1968, copy attached, under which the Governor appoints a Weather Modification Board. I have been a member of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board since 1968 by appointment of the Governor for two successive terms. I officially represent six of the seven members of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board at these hearings to present their position and to request favorable inclusion of their comments in bills H.R. 10039 and S. 3383. The seventh board member, Dr. Charles Hosler, informed the board that he was presenting testimony to this subcommittee on his own behalf, and wished to be disassociated from this testimony. As early as 1957 weather modification was actually accomplished in south central Pennsylvania and in adjoining Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia. This is documented in the hearings before the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, 1966 with reference to bills S. 23 and S. 2916, part 1, page 265; and in a report, No. 1139, on weather modification which was prepared in 1966 at the request of Senator Magnuson. At that time the purpose of the weather modification in the Potomac Valley was for hail suppression to protect fruit trees from hail damage. Unfortunately, the operations not only suppressed hail but, at the same time, the amounts of normal precipitation were significantly diminished. Public objection to the practice resulted in the passing of township and county ordinances which were upheld in the Fulton County courts with a cease and desist order prohibiting the practice of weather modification. The limited resources of local government are ineffective in enforcing the local laws and court rulings. The relative simplicity of weather modification techniques combined with the possibility of clandestine operations by an operator in violation of local ordinances precludes effective local enforcement. Our suspicions of continued weather modification remain and year after year of dry summers continued. An aroused citizenry called for action at the level of State government. The outcome in 1968 was Pennsylvania Act 449 which provided for the regulation and control of weather modification and the establishment of a Weather Modification Board. Since 1968 the board has conducted hearings, directed the State police to make investigations, and gather information. Unfortunately, the results have not been encouraging and may be attributed to a combination of circumstances; conflicting interests; unfamiliarity with background scientific literature; apathy or disbelief in the science; and ineffective enforcement due to lack of time, resources, or priorities. Additionally, the very nature of weather modification makes enforcement and regulation extremely difficult. The scientific and technical literature indicates that anyone who owns a plane can invest as little as $3,000 and he is in business to operate as a cloud seeder. He can take off in his plane from a secluded airfield at the border of one State and modify the weather over an area in the adjoining State. The Pennsylvania Weather Modification Act requires publicity, a license, and bonding before any operation or research is done. In addition, it is illegal to own equipment or chemicals for conducting weather modification unless it is registered with the board. After 8 years with this law not one application for a license has been received by the board and only one equipment and chemical registration has been received. Another question that has been of concern to the board is how dangerous is silver iodide? This compound is used in the vast majority of weather modification projects and is a concern of the board. Much of the information gathered has been confusing and contradictory and we have been unable to reach conclusive results. Some authorities say that silver iodide particles dissociate rapidly in sunlight and are relatively short lived and harmless. Yet, in February 1975, the board received a communication from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to the board's inquiry which stated, "it-silver iodide is a very stable compound and lasts in the atmosphere for a long period of time." The letter further stated that, "it would be difficult to know whether any particular sample of the chemical monitored-silver iodide in the State was of local origin or came from someplace far removed from Pennsylvania." Weather modification operations and research are a subject of national and worldwide concern and are the subject of treaties and United Nations deliberations. We in Pennsylvania have been concerned since 1957 about the possible detrimental effects on plant and animal life as well as climate and weather, and we feel strongly that weather modification operations and research should be controlled by both the Federal and State Governments Because of the state-of-the-science of weather modification, the board believes that the following points should be included in Federal legislation: First, all weather modification operations and research should be given mandatory publicity. Such publicity should be by legal notice in local newspapers of general circulation in the immediate area to be affected and should include: (1) The purpose and nature of the project. (2) The dates the project will begin and end. (3) The name of the organization sponsoring and conducting the project. (4) The name or names of the person or persons in charge. (5) The identity of the aircraft, if used, and its complete flight plan, and any other equipment, including ground-based generators, rockets, and so forth. (6) The chemicals or agents to be applied. This publicity should be given to every project unless the Federal Government has proclaimed a state of emergency. Second, before any new weather modification project is licensed and implemented, a public hearing should be held in the area affected. Third, a substantial period of time should elapse between any application for weather modification operation or research before a permit is issued. Fourth, it should be mandatory that the Federal agency issuing the permit should secure approval of the county commissioners of the county to be affected by the project. Fifth, any Federal authority over weather modification operation and research should require that permits be secured from both the Federal Government and any State affected by the project that has legislation. Sixth, if the Federal regulatory agency receives an application for a weather modification operation or research, it should notify the State affected and all adjoining States thereto of such application and permit. Seventh, attempts should be made at the Federal level to collect, research, and assess data to determine the effects of weather modification and the chemicals used on the total environment. Eighth, we, of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board, support and prefer the general provisions embodied in H.R. 10039 over S. 3383, and we ask that the specifics enumerated above be included in this bill. Mr. BROWN. That concludes your statement, Dr. Hill? Dr. HILL. Yes; as far as the weather modification board is concerned. Mr. BROWN. Your testimony is somewhat different from that of most of the other witnesses, and obviously is based on your own experience. Dr. HILL. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. You feel it is time for fairly stringent Federal regulation over this field? Dr. HILL. Yes, sir, I do. I am speaking also for the other members of the weather modification board except Dr. Hosler. Mr. BROWN. He has a different point of view on this? Dr. HILL. Apparently so. The statement that he gave to the Department of Agriculture that administers the Weather Modification Board is that he wished not to participate. I know Dr. Hosler. After we passed the law in Pennsylvania, Dr. Hosler as a researcher and meteorologist told me sometime back around 1969-70 that under the law he would not be able to carry out any research in Pennsylvania. I asked Dr. Hosler, "Why can't you since the law does not prohibit weather modification, it only regulates it?" I further stated if you follow the points of the law I personally will give my sanction to any request that you make and I am sure that the other members of the board will be just as cooperative. For some reason he never gave me an explanation. He said he could not carry out his research. Then in 1971 during a committee hearing on H.R. 6893 and H.R. 9547, this was in June 1971, Professor Blackadar, who was an assistant to Dr. Hosler, made the statement that Pennsylvania prohibits weather modification. According to Pennsylvania law, and a copy of the law is attached to my statement, we do not prohibit weather modification in Pennsylvania. Should anyone make application, I am sure all members will vote to provide approval because we are aware that we need research in this area and if we are going to keep our place in the world and abreast of the rest of the world, we are going to have to do it. Our feeling is, in view of the trouble that we have had in Pennsylvania, that it should be strictly regulated. I feel that there are three kinds of, let us say, groups of people interested in weather modification. You have the conservative researcher who feels he has a moral obligation. He studies and very carefully prepares his program hoping to learn something. This is the first type. Then you have another type of researcher who really is out to try to win a Nobel Prize, regardless of what happens. He is determined to prove his hypothesis. Well, sometimes this can be disastrous, particularly to the grassroots people, and the general public. Then the third type are those interested in weather modification such as the practitioners. Cloud seeding is their business, and they are being paid to carry out operations: whether for orchardists or for someone else just to stop hail, regardless of what happens. He is being paid to do a job. I am not concerned about the conservative researcher, because he feels he has a moral obligation, but I am concerned about categories 2 and 3 listed above. Mr. BROWN. Well, I am sure that that concern is shared by all Members of Congress. I am interested that your State actually did have weather modification programs as early as 1957. Can you describe anything more about that program that you have indicated? Dr. HILL. Well, Mr. Chairman, that program at that time when it started was promoted by private interests. It was not a research program, and I am referring to south central Pennsylvania. It was a private operation where some of the large fruit growers employed the Blue Ridge Weather Modification Service and their purpose was to diminish the hail. Subsequently this Blue Ridge Weather Modification Service got into some type of difficulty and then about 1962 or 1963 W. E. Howell Associates, from Lexington, Mass. took over the operation of the Blue Ridge Weather Modification Service. I would say that the Howell Associates were extremely efficient because they never let one thunderstorm get through. When they said, we will diminish hail, these fellows meant what they said, they diminished the hail. Mr. BROWN. I gather, they diminished everything. Dr. HILL. Yes, sir, they did, and this was where the trouble always started. The small fruit grower more or less objected to this because with a decrease in rainfall, the small fruit grower was not able to irrigate, whereas the large operator who had large ponds and who had enormous amount of equipment could offset the effects if the rainfall was drastically reduced. The large operator preferred diminished rainfall because he could irrigate. This worked two ways for him. First, he did not have the risk of hail and, second, when he sprayed the fruit trees, the diminished rain did not wash the spray from the leaves. Mr. BROWN. I gather this left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people in Pennsylvania. Dr. HILL. Very much so, very much so. Mr. BROWN. This led to the enactment of the statute that you referred to. Dr. HILL. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. Apparently it has had a damaging effect on weather modification activities in the State since then, is that right? Dr. HILL. Well, let us say that we have never had an application for a license. However, when the weather modification board asked for a registration of equipment and chemicals used in weather modification, the State university registered their equipment and chemicals but I am sure and I suspect that perhaps some privately owned equipment over the State has never been registered. Mr. BROWN. Do you have any reason to think that there are some unregistered operators either within the State or some other States? Dr. HILL. According to the complaints that we get, the pattern is still remaining as it did in the early 1960's. When a thunderstorm appears to the west or is starting to build up a plane will move in mysteriously out of nowhere, and maybe fly once or twice along the leading edge of the thunderstorm, disappear, and the thunderstorm just practically dissipates. Mr. BROWN. Well, that is certainly an interesting report, Dr. Hill, and we are very pleased to have this testimony representing the experience of your own State in regard to this matter. I can assure you that it will be carefully considered in developing any legislation that the committee may want to go ahead with. Thank you very much. Dr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The attachment to Dr. Hill's statement follows:] |