Mr. HAYES. I might just proceed in one other area, Mr. Sisk. Is it really in the public interest to allow the decisionmaking on weather modification to take place without very specific rules, regulations, and a direct responsiveness on the part of the Federal Government. You have advocated Federal preemption of the area, but it seems to me you are also advocating the decisionmaking process as to whether to modify or not be left in a local area so that for example in your constituency or in that of Congressman Evans almost purely local or regional considerations would be taken into account. Can you discuss a little bit about how we are going to separate out the interests that various people have in weather modification if we do not prescribe very careful administrative procedures and we have both State and Federal Government involved, we have strict licensing and heavy penalties. Mr. SISK. If I can just explain the way I would visualize it. I think basically I agree with what I think you are saying. Let's say for example that, in my own situation, if we were starting today we would start under a set of procedures which at least I would visualize as being best and basically preemptive or controlled by the Federal Government. It is a program which would then be submitting a proposal citing the various things for example that we at present are dealing with certain kinds of instrumentation of snowpack. Then as a part of what we call weather modification, it has to do with actual knowledge of the area. It is things that we have to get exceptions by virtue of the fact that some of these are located in wilderness areas or primitive areas. Also a proposal for certain kinds of cloud seeding and that proposal be made to that agency of government. Let us assume it is the Department of Commerce for final approval. Now I am visualizing that we would have established a license procedure. We would have established even penalties, and so then the proposal is made and then it is viewed by what I would consider knowledgeable, expert people in that department, and it will either be approved or disapproved. Now, it seems to me that all of you are going to do is kind of muddy up the water or kind of complicate the problem if in fact you have to go through a county agency and then through a State agency or go directly to a State agency and it can turn you down. It may be, I don't know. I am not an expert in this field other than just observing what is going on, but again looking to my particular feeling on Federal preemption, once a proposal is made then you have to sell it to that Federal agency having control, whether it is the Department of Commerce or Department of HUD, and you have either got it or you haven't got it. Now if you cannot justify it, if you in fact cannot prove that you are not going to hurt someone, and in fact it is going to be a good program, then it is a question whether you should be permitted to involve yourself in the program. That is oversimplification maybe, but that basically is the way I visualize it. Mr. HAYES. I understand your point. I think what concerns me specifically is this: As Congressman Evans asked; how much water can be squeezed out of clouds, and how much should you consider the fact under normal unmodified circumstances that moisture could move over his constituency. More specifically move over the upper Colorado Basin into Iowa and out to Indiana. Mr. SISK. I was just going to mention that one thing. Let us say in my case, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, as you gentlemen know, is a range of mountains running along the eastern border of California. Now, once we are permitted to involve ourselves in the program we are squeezing, to the extent that we can, snow out of those clouds as they move across the Sierra Nevada. Now to what extent is that affecting the State of Nevada? Should this in fact then be an interstate problem? Isn't it a Federal problem? Should California say well sure fine, because this is going to help California, I don't know what it is going to do to Nevada. I want to cite this again as maybe an oversimplification, but I think it deals to some extent because you squeeze it out over the Rockies do you not deny Iowa corngrowers the benefits of the water? Mr. HAYES. The other question is: If water appropriations in the Colorado Basin are being demanded by the eastern slope in the city of Denver, for example, because of the crush of people moving in, aren't we trying somehow or other to bend the environment around and abuse the environment to accommodate people who have not been here in the first place? Should we really be allowed to turn the desert green at the expense of Iowa. Mr. ŠISK. This is a very complicated subject. Mr. HAYES. Thank you very much. Mr. SISK. Thank you very much. Mr. HAYES. Thank you for your testimony and for coming back and answering questions. The committee stands in recess for about 10 minutes. [Whereupon the committee was in recess for 10 minutes.] AFTER RECESS Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will reconvene for a brief announcement. Due to the problems of today's schedule, it is obviously going to be impossible to hear all the witnesses scheduled for today. We will therefore reschedule two of the witnesses for tomorrow morning. The subcommittee meeting will be rescheduled for 9 a.m. tomorrow morning in an effort to catch up, and will continue with the remaining witnesses as they have been previously scheduled. We apologize for this inconvenience, but it is due to circumstances over which we have no control. We will try to do a better job tomorrow. The subcommittee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. [Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned at 12 noon.] WEATHER MODIFICATION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1976 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., chairman, presiding. Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will come to order. This is the second day in our current series of hearings on the subject of weather modification. Yesterday, the subcommittee took testimony from two of our colleagues, Congressman Frank Evans of Colorado, the author of one of the bills under consideration, and Congressman B. F. Sisk of California. Unfortunately, the House convened at 10 a.m. yesterday, 2 hours earlier than usual, and the subcommittee was interrupted by several quorum calls and votes. For this reason, we were unable to receive testimony from three witnesses that we had scheduled for yesterday's session. Two of those witnesses have been rescheduled to appear this morning, and we will attempt to hear the other witnesses on today's original agenda as well. Our first witness will be Dr. Edward P. Todd, Chairman of the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, who can give us a good overview of the Federal Government's program in weather modification. We are very apologetic, Dr. Todd, for the necessity of rescheduling your appearance, and generally fouling up your activities. We appreciate your willingness to cooperate with us. You may proceed with your statement, the full text of which will be inserted in the record at this point. You may proceed as you see fit. (71) |