REPORT BY THE

Comptroller GeneralOF THE UNITED STATES

Federal Weather Modification EffortsNeed Congressional Attention

Although the Federal Government has sup-ported weather modification programs formore than 30 years, a coordinated Federalapproach to these programs has never beenestablished. Numerous studies have cited theneed for coordination, including a GAO studyin 1974.

In this report, GAO uses rainfall augmenta-tion projects to illustrate problems of weathermodification programs. Lack of integratedformal planning and coordination has hin-dered the progress of these projects. Al-though progress has been made, critical ques-tions remain.

The Congress should define national weathermodification research and development policyand direct that a program be developed withgoals, objectives, priorities, and milestones.The Congress should designate one agency toadminister, maintain, and control the pro-gram.

110752

~.~-:t? O0 7 o 6 ¢k3 CED-80-5-/C*Ccovulq NOVEMBER 1, 1979

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

B-133202

ChairmenSenate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation S~a- QaVSenate Committee on Environment

and Public Works -3E;OY/Cor(House Committee on Science andTechnology - E [S6 Sh3Se

House Committee on Interior andInsular Affairs - SC 6/d /r

This report summarizes some of the general problemsassociated with Federal weather modification programs, asillustrated by rainfall augmentation efforts. It containsour conclusions and recommendations supporting the need fora congressionally mandated weather modification policy andprogram.

We focused our review on rainfall augmentation becauseof the interest in this most widely applied aspect ofweather modification.

t-o; a~l We are sending copies of the report to the Director,' Office of Management and Budget, and the Secretaries ofCommerce and the Interior.

Comptroller Generalof the United States

COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S FEDERAL WEATHER MODIFICATIONREPORT TO THE EFFORTS NEED CONGRESSIONALSENATE COMMITTEE ON ATTENTIONCOMMERCE, SCIENCE, ANDTRANSPORTATIONSENATE COMMITTEE ONENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKSHOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGYHOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIORAND INSULAR AFFAIRS

DIGEST

A coordinated Federal approach to weathermodification has never been establishedbut is needed badly. GAO's review sup-ports the findings of nearly 15 years ofstudies which have identified similarproblems, including

--lack of a national weather modificationpolicy,

--no central authority to direct theprograms,

--ineffective coordination, and

--fragmented research. (See p. 3.)

Problems of weather modification programscan be illustrated by rainfall augmenta-tion projects. These are meant to produceadditional useful rainfall over fixedareas. Some progress has been made but,overall, deliberate rainfall augmentationefforts have been disappointing and criti-cal scientific questions remain unanswered.(See p. 12.)d / o 76

The Department of the Interior's Bureau ofReclamation and the Department of Com- c cmerce's National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration administer rainfall aug-mentation projects. Since 1968 theseagencies have spent over $40 million forthe projects. However, lack of integrated,

Tear Sheet. Upon removal, the reportcover date should be noted hereon. CED-80-5

i

formal planning and coordination hasinhibited progress. (See p. 13.)

In an August 1974 report, GAO recommendedthat the Office of Management and Budgetdevelop a national weather modificationprogram with goals, objectives, priori-ties, and milestones and that it designatean agency to administer and maintain thenational program. GAO's recommendationwas not carried out.

The Office of Management and Budgetagreed that some consolidation of weathermodification research was desirable, butit did not conclude that a lead agencyapproach was preferable. It pointed outthat each weather modification researchproject is different and that, in recogni-tion of this, it had instructed specificagencies to concentrate their efforts oncertain areas. For example, the Depart-ment of the Interior would concentrateon precipitation enhancement and theDepartment of Commerce on severe storms.Nevertheless, Commerce has been receivingfunds, with the Office of Management andBudget's approval, to do research inrainfall augmentation. (See p. 6.)

In a June 30, 1978, report to the Secre-tary of Commerce, the'Weather Modification

,o3D PV Advisory Board concluded that the out--stand'ing characteristic of the FederalGovernment's weather modification organi-zation is that no one is in charge andthe results of fragmentation are clearlyunsatisfactory. The board proposed

--a congressional statement of nationalweather modification policy,

--a 20-year research and developmenteffort with a clear focus on learningmore about how to modify weather pre-dictably and prudently, and

--an integrated program bringing togetherthe scattered elements of the existingineffective effort. (See p. 7.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

GAO reaffirms its 1974 recommendationscalling for a national weather modifica-tion program and plan, and it supports theWeather Modification Advisory Board'srecommendations to establish a nationalpolicy and develop an integrated re-search and development program forweather modification.

The Congress should set forth a nationalweather modification research and devel-opment policy and direct that a programbe developed with goals, objectives,priorities, and milestones. Also, itshould designate one agency to adminis-ter, maintain, and control the program.

Until the Congress establishes such apolicy and program, the Secretaries ofCommerce and the Interior should estab-lish an integrated, formal planningprogram to help ensure coordination oftheir respective rainfall augmentationprojects.

AGENCY COMMENTS

The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration said that GAO has pro-vided an unbiased appraisal of thehistory and status of the managementof Federal weather modification and ofrainfall augmentation. It strongly en-dorsed the recommendation calling forthe establishment of a consolidatednational weather modification researchand development policy and program tobe administered by one agency. (Seep. 10.)

The Bureau of Reclamation disagreedwith this position and said that therealready is a national weather modifica-tion policy. The Bureau said the Of-fice of Management and Budget has con-tinually cited the "mission agency"approach to weather modification andapproved agency budgets without settingrequirements for central agency control.

Tear Sheet1

It added that because the Congress ac-cepted this Office of Management andBudget policy by supporting budget re-quests, the Congress, in effect, con-curred with the policy. (See p. 10.)

GAO does not agree that the Office ofManagement and Budget's actionsconstitute a national policy; further-more, neither does the Congress or theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration. In approving the Na-tional Weather Modification PolicyAct of 1976, the Congress obviouslyrecognized that there was no nationalpolicy and directed work, not yetcompleted, to help develop one. Fur-ther, the two major Federal agenciesinvolved in weather modification ef-forts have widely differing opinionson the need for a national policy.This, in GAO's view, makes it moreimportant that the Congress mandatea policy.

The Bureau objected to the recommenda-tion to designate one agency to adminis-ter, maintain, and control the program.(See p. 10) It is apparent that theBureau has interpreted the recommenda-tion to mean that only one agency--theone in which the program is located--will do all research. It also appearsthat the Bureau is concerned aboutlosing its program because the WeatherModification Advisory Board has en-dorsed the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration as the agencyin which to locate the program. GAObelieves that the responsibility foradministering and maintaining the over-all National Weather ModificationProgram should be centered in and con-trolled by a single agency. However,GAO does not advocate that other agen-cies should be precluded from workingon specific weather modificationresearch.

Both the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and the Bureau said that

iv

substantial coordination has taken placebetween them via scientific conferences,letters, reports, and even the exchangeof equipment. The Bureau, however, didagree that a more visible, more formal,and higher level forum for planning andcoordination is needed. The NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administrationdisagreed and saw no value in attemptingto develop an integrated, formal planningprocess until a national policy has beenestablished. (See p. 22.)

GAO agrees that informal coordinationmay have been helpful. However, formalplanning and Federal level coordinationwould, in GAO's view, provide betterprogram control and would help in de-fining measurable goals; directingproject funding to meet those goals;achieving scientific acceptance of re-search results; and obtaining Federal,State, and local support.

Tear Sheet

v

Contents

Page

DIGEST i

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTIONFederal rainfall augmentationprojects 2

Scope of review 2

2 A COORDINATED FEDERAL APPROACH TOWEATHER MODIFICATION IS NEEDED 3

Legislation on weather modification 3Studies evaluating Federal weathermodification research 5

GAO report recommended a nationalweather modification program 6

Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard recommended a consolidatednational weather modificationprogram 7

Proposed Department of NaturalResources 8

Conclusions 9Agency comments and our evaluation 10Recommendations 11

3 FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION EFFORTSARE FRAGMENTED; LACK INTEGRATED,FORMAL PLANNING; AND LEAVE CRITICALSCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS UNANSWERED 12

Some progress has been made 12Programs are fragmented and lack

integrated, formal planning 13Critical scientific questions

remain unanswered 17Conclusions 21Agency comments and our evaluation 22Recommendations 22

APPENDIX

I Letter dated July 16, 1979, from theAssistant Secretary for Administration,Department of Commerce 23

II Letter dated August 27, 1979, from theCommissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,Department of the Interior 25

ABBREVIATIONS

GAO General Accounting Office

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Weather modification is the deliberate manipulation of

the constantly changing atmospheric environment with theintent of improving it--to manage the weather 1/ for human

purposes. Weather modification research includes:

-- Precipitation enhancement.

-- Fog and cloud modification.

--Hail suppression.

-- Lightning modification.

-- Hurricane and severe storm modification.

Various activities related to inadvertent weather modifica-

tion (unintended weather changes resulting from human ac-

tions) are also generally included under the broad category

of weather modification research.

Weather modification has great potential. For example,

if weather modification research is successful, it may be

possible in future years to enhance precipitation, reducedestructive forces of hurricanes, suppress lightning and

damaging hail, and dissipate fog.

The Federal Government has been supporting and conduct-

ing weather modification research for more than 30 years.

In 1946, American scientists first modified clouds by "seed-

ing" them with dry ice. In the ensuing years, the level

of effort for weather modification has grown sporadically

among, between, and within various Federal agencies. In

fiscal year 1978, $18 million was spent on Federal weathermodification research projects. Periodic drought conditions

in the United States and the resulting water shortage have

heightened congressional, regional, and local interest in

weather modification--specifically precipitation enhancement.

Precipitation enhancement includes research projects to

explore, develop, and determine the feasibility of applyingweather modification technology to meet the Nation's increas-

ing demand for water through snowfall and rainfall.

1/Weather generally refers to the state of the atmosphereat any given time.

1

FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION PROJECTS

The major Federal efforts in rainfall augmentation arecurrently being conducted by the Department of the Interior'sBureau of Reclamation and the Department of Commerce's Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Since1968, these two agencies have spent or obligated over $40million for rainfall augmentation projects.

In 1961, the Congress directed the Bureau to conductresearch on increasing rainfall by cloud seeding. TheOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) later made the Bureauresponsible for conducting the high plains cooperativeexperiment (high plains project), a major field experimentwhich is a local-State-Federal research effort in Kansas,Montana, and Texas. The high plains project was designedto resolve the critical scientific, technical, and social-environmental uncertainties of developing a reliable sum-mer'cloud-seeding technology in the plains area.

The Florida area cumulus experiment (Florida project),initiated and conducted by NOAA, is to determine whetherprecipitation from summer clouds can be altered to in-crease rainfall over a fixed target area. This study isbased on the results of NOAA's research with single cloudseedings in southern Florida in 1968 and 1970. The Floridaexperiment is attempting to determine if these results canbe applied to seeding of multiple clouds over a fixed targetarea in southern Florida.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

Because of the widespread interest in precipitationenhancement, the most widely applied aspect of weathermodification, we concentrated our review on the majorFederal rainfall augmentation projects. The high plainsproject and the Florida project were reviewed in detail.

Most of our fieldwork was conducted at NOAA's WeatherModification Program Office in Boulder, Colorado; theCumulus Group of the National Hurricane and ExperimentalMeteorology Laboratory in Miami, Florida; and the Bureau'sDivision of Atmospheric Water Resources Management inDenver, Colorado. We also contacted NOAA and Bureauheadquarters personnel and officials from the Departmentof Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, and theNational Academy of Sciences. We contacted officialsfrom several States and from academia and individuals andprivate organizations interested in weather modification.We also reviewed various research studies, documents, andpublications pertaining to weather modification.

2

CHAPTER 2

A COORDINATED FEDERAL APPROACH

TO WEATHER MODIFICATION IS NEEDED

A coordinated Federal approach to weather modificationefforts has never been established and is badly needed.Federal funding for weather modification research projectsover the years has been substantial. For example, totalweather modification research funding has amounted to over$18 million a year for each of fiscal years 1976, 1977, and1978.

Our observations of Federal weather modification effortssupport the findings of nearly a decade and a half of studies.These studies, conducted by scientific panels, committees,and other interested groups, identified common problems,including lack of a national weather modification researchpolicy, lack of a central authority to direct the programs,ineffective coordination, and fragmented research. Weagree with the findings of the studies that call for anational weather modification program with one Federalagency responsible for ensuring that

--plans and priorities are established,

-- sufficient program funding is requested,

-- research efforts are effectively managed, and

--program results are adequately reported.

In our August 1974 report to the Congress, 1/ werecommended that OMB develop a national weather modifica-tion program and designate a Federal agency to have majorprogram responsibility for it. However, an effective, com-prehensive national weather modification program still hasnot been established.

LEGISLATION ON WEATHER MODIFICATION

Over the past 25 years, the Congress has enacted anumber of laws dealing with various aspects of weathermodification. Public Law 83-256, approved August 13, 1953,established an advisory committee on weather control. The

1/"Need for a National Weather Modification Research Pro-gram," B-133202, August 23, 1974.

3

committee was required to study and evaluate-public andprivate weather control experiments and determine theextent to which the United States should experiment with,engage in, or regulate activities designed to controlweather conditions. Its final report, issued in 1957, wasmodestly optimistic about weather modification's potentialsaild recommended that further research be conducted.

Following up on the committee's recommendations, theCongress enacted Public Law 85-510 on July 11, 1958, whichauthorized and directed the National Science Foundation toinitiate and support a program of study, research, andevaluation on weather modification and to report annuallyto the President and the Congress. In addition to estab-lishing a weather modification research program, the Na-tional Science Foundation required all commercial andprivate weather "modifiers" to maintain records and submitreports to it on their activities.

In 1968, the National Science Foundation's authorityunder Public Law 85-510 was repealed. On December 18,1971, Public Law 92-205 was enacted, which required allnonfederally sponsored weather modification to be reportedto the Secretary of Commerce. In 1976, Public Law 94-490(the National Weather Modification Policy Act) was passed,which required the Secretary of Commerce to study weathermodification activities and to recommend a national policyon weather modification. To assist in this effort, theSecretary established the Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard as an independent body to advise her on a nationalweather modification policy and program.

Recently, the Congress recognized the need toestablish an integrated national program in a relatedarea, climatology. 1/ In passing the National ClimateProgram Act of 1978, the Congress established a nationalclimate program to be administered by one agency. TheDepartment of Commerce was designated as the lead agencyand a national climate program office was establlishedwithin Commerce to administer the program. The programis to bring together and utilize all research and moni-toring resources with the goal of knowing and anticipatingthe effects of climate fluctuation.

1/Climate generally refers to the state of the atmosphere ina region during an extended time period. This is in con-trast to weather, which is generally defined as the stateof the atmosphere at any given time.

4

STUDIES EVALUATING FEDERALWEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH

A number of scientific panels and committees havereviewed, evaluated, and reported on Federal weather modifi-cation efforts. The reports have not only cited a need fora national program with single agency responsibility,authority, and control but have highlighted problems incoordinating multiagency activities and the lack of specificprograms. Several studies are summarized in the followingsections.

Report of the special commission onweather modification

In 1965, a special commission on weather modificationissued a report to the Director, National Science Founda-tion. The report identified duplication of research activi-ties and coordination responsibilities as problem areas.The report recommended that developing and testing methodsfor modifying weather should be assigned to one agency inthe executive branch to help correct some of the problems.

Reports by the National Academyof Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences issued severalreports dealing with weather modification: "Weather andClimate Modification Problems and Prospects" (1966), "TheAtmospheric Sciences and Man's Needs" (1971), and "Weatherand Climate Modification Problems'and Progress" (1973).These reports identified administration and managementproblems and concluded that a single agency should be maderesponsible for all weather modification research.

Reports by the National Advisory Committeeon Oceans and Atmosphere

The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,established in 1971 under Public Law 92-125, is made up ofrepresentatives appointed by the President from industry,science, and State and local governments. The committee isrequired to assess the status of marine and atmosphericscience programs and report annually to the President andthe Congress. Beginning with its first annual report issuedon June 30, 1972, 'the committee has pointed out that weathermodification research is fragmented and uncoordinated. Ithas been concerned that the research is not making scienti-fic progress and that its costs are unnecessarily high be-cause field experiments are performed by "mission" agencies

5

isolated from each other. The committee has recommendedthat one agency be appointed to coordinate weather modifica-tion research.

GAO REPORT RECOMMENDED A NATIONALWEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM

In August 1974, we issued a report to the Congressentitled "Need for a National 'Weather Modification ResearchProgram."

We identified common problems that hindered progress'in Federal weather modification efforts. These includedlack of a central authority to direct Federal efforts; in-effective coordination; and insufficient resources to-achieve timely, effective results.

We recommended that OMB cooperate with the otherFederal departments and agencies involved in weather modifi-cation research to:

-- Develop a national program with goals, objectives,;priorities, and milestones and designate one agencyto have major responsibility for administering andmaintaining a national program.

-- Develop a plan to define and reassign, if necessary,the responsibilities of Federal departments andagencies that support or conduct weather modifica-tion research. -

-- Develop a plan to allocate resources for the nfationalprogram.

In replying to our recommendations, OMB agreed thatsome consolidation of weather modification research wasdesirable, but it did not conclude that all such researchshould be concentrated in one agency or that' a lead agencyapproach was preferable. OMB pointed out- that the Presiden tproposed legislation to form a Department of Energy andNatural Resources which could, in its view, accomplish theappropriate degree of consolidation. Subsequently, legisla-tion to establish a Department of Energy'and Natural Re-sources was withdrawn.

OMB also pointed out that each weather modificationresearch project is different and that, in recognition ofthis, it had instructed specific agencies to concentratetheir efforts on certain areas. For example, the Depart-ment of the Interior would concentrate on precipitationenhancement and the Department of Commerce on severe storms.

6

As discussed in chapter 3, however, this delegation ofresponsibilities has been less than effective.

WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY BOARDRECOMMENDED A CONSOLIDATED NATIONALWEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM

The Weather Modification Advisory Board issued itsstudy entitled "The Management of Weather Resources--Proposals for a National Policy and Program" to the Secre-tary of Commerce on June 30, 1978. The board concludedthat the outstanding characteristic of the Federal Govern-ment's organization for weather modification is that "noone is in charge" and the results of fragmentation areclearly unsatisfactory. The board said weather modifica-tion has never attained momentum as a program of the FederalGovernment, has been marred by bureaucratic rivalries inthe executive branch, and has never received more thanmarginal funding.

The board concluded that a usable technology forsignificantly enhancing rain and snow and amelioratingsome weather damage is scientifically possible and withinsight. The board said, however, that the broad researchand development in weather resources management shouldnot, at this stage, be oriented primarily to user constit-uencies.

The board suggested three actions to accomplisheffectively the objectives of a national weather modifica-tion program. It proposed that

--a congressional statement of national policy beissued,

-- a 20-year research and development effort beestablished with a clear focus on learning moreabout how to modify weather predictably andprudently, and

-- an integrated program be formed by bringing togetherthe scattered elements of the existing ineffectiveeffort.

The board further recommended that a national weatherresources management board be established to define andoversee the Federal role in weather modification.

The board considered the merits of various Federalagencies, including the Bureau and NOAA, as the agency whichshould have responsibility for the weather modification

7

program. The board pointed out that the Bureau has hada sizable program in precipitation modification for 15years under dedicated and highly competent leadership.It has a strong commitment to development of weathermodification and is interested in being host to the newprogram. On the other hand, the board said that theBureau's desire to maintain "grass roots" support hasresulted in emphasis on "promises of results" while tend-ing to underplay the scientific uncertainties and risksof certain actions. The board said the Bureau has notshown the interest in research that it believes is centralto the new national program, although its concern withdevelopment and application is an asset that must be re-tained. Also, the Bureau's development activities havebeen restricted to rain and snow enhancement, and it hasnot been concerned with other aspects of weather modifica-tion. These considerations led the board to set asidethe idea of assigning the program to the Bureau.

The board said that weather modification is closelyrelated to NOAA's central mission and concerns. NOAA hasa major weather forecasting mission and has been assignedlead responsibility for the National Climate Program. TheBoard pointed out that although NOAA's past performance inweather modification was seriously deficient,.the intentionof the present NOAA leadership is to repair the deficien-cies and to make weather resources management an activeand aggressive activity.

Taking into account all considerations, the boardconcluded that the best location for the program was inNOAA. The board also noted that if a Department of NaturalResources, combining Interior and NOAA, were created, theweather modification program and National Weather ResourcesManagement Board would belong in that department.

The Secretary of Commerce is preparing a report, basedon the board's recommendations, which will be submitted tothe President and the Congress in accordance with PublicLaw 94-490. As of July 24, 1979, Commerce officials in-formed us that the Secretary's report still had not beenfinalized but that it would endorse the concept of a na-tional weather modification policy and favor somewhat of amore centralized program.

PROPOSED DEPARTMENTOF NATURAL RESOURCES

In March 1979, the President said that he would proposecreating a Department of Natural Resources to manage the

8

Nation's natural resources. The new department would in-clude the Department of the Interior, NOAA, and several otherFederal agencies.

In its December 1978 staff report supporting the pro-posed Department of Natural Resources, the President'sreorganization task force pointed out that weather modifica-tion research is going on in several agencies, includingNOAA and Interior. The report said that the results havebeen meager because of the dispersion of resources andaccountability. The report stated that a Department ofNatural Resources could enhance the Government's abilityto address problems of work duplication and the lack ofclear responsibility identified by the Weather ModificationAdvisory Board in its June 1978 report to the Secretary ofCommerce. In May 1979, the President decided not to proceedwith his plan to establish a Department of Natural Resources.

CONCLUSIONS

A coordinated Federal approach to weather modificationefforts has never been established but is badly needed. Ourobservations support the findings of nearly a decade and ahalf of studies which identified common problems, includingthe lack of a national weather modification policy, lack ofa central authority to direct the programs, ineffectivecoordination, and fragmented research.

In our 1974 report, we recommended that OMB developa national weather modification program with goals, objec-tives, priorities, and milestones and designate one agencyto be responsible for administering and maintaining thenational program. Our recommendation was not carried outand, to date, an effective national weather modificationprogram has not been established.

More recently, the Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard in its June 30, 1978, report concluded that the out-standing characteristic of the Federal Government's organi-zation for weather modification is that no one is in chargeand the results of fragmentation are clearly unsatisfactory.The board proposed (1) a congressional statement of nationalweather modification policy, (2) a 20-year research anddevelopment effort with a clear focus on learning more abouthow to modify weather predictably and prudently, and (3) anintegrated program bringing together the scattered elementsof the existing ineffective effort. Also, taking into ac-count all considerations, the board concluded that the bestlocation for the program is in NOAA.

9

We support the National Weather Modification AdvisoryBoard's recommendations to establish a national policy anddevelop an integrated research and development program forweather modification. We conclude that the Congress shouldset forth a national weather modification research anddevelopment policy and program with goals, objectives,priorities, and milestones and designate one agency to ad-minister, maintain, and control the program.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

NOAA said that we have provided an interesting, infor-mative, and unbiased appraisal of the history and status ofthe management of Federal weather modification and of rain-fall augmentation. NOAA strongly endorsed the recommenda-tion calling for establishment of a consolidated nationalweather modification research and development policy andprogram to be administered by one agency.

The Bureau said that, contrary to what our report andother reports infer, a national weather modification policyis in effect. The Bureau said OMB has continually citedthe "mission agency" approach to weather modification andapproved agency budgets along this line without calling forcentral agency control. It added that the Congress has ac-cepted the OMB policy by supporting the budget requests.

We do not agree that the OMB policy and practicesconstitute a national policy. Neither does the Congressnor NOAA. Although OMB said that certain weather modifica-tion activities were to be carried out by specific agencies,the Department of Commerce, which was designated to do re-search in severe-weather, has been receiving funds withOMB's approval to do research in rainfall augmentation,which OMB assigned to the Bureau. In passing the NationalWeather Modification Policy Act of 1976, the Congressrecognized that no national weather modification policyexists. The work that the Congress directed under the 1976act to help develop a national policy has not yet been com-pleted. Further, it is interesting to note that the twomajor Federal agencies involved in weather modificationefforts have widely differing opinions on the status of anational weather modification policy. This, in our view,further supports the need for a congressionally mandatedpolicy.

The Bureau strongly objected to our recommendation todesignate one agency to administer, maintain, and haveresponsibility for the program. The Bureau supports themission agency approach that provides several differentavenues of funding for various types of projects and said

10

it should maintain its leadership role in precipitationmanagement within a total national weather modification ef-fort to help meet the varied water resource missions withinthe Department of the Interior.

In its response to our recommendation calling for asingle agency to administer, maintain, and control theweather modification program, the Bureau has apparentlyinterpreted this to mean that only one agency--the one inwhich the program is located--will do all research. Italso appears that the Bureau is concerned about losing itsprogram because the Weather Modification Advisory Board hasendorsed NOAA as the agency in which to locate the program.We believe that the responsibility for administering andmaintaining the overall national weather modification pro-gram should be centered in and controlled by one agency.However, our report does not advocate that other agenciesshould be precluded from working on specific weather modifi-cation research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We reaffirm our 1974 recommendations calling for anational weather modification program and plan and supportthe Weather Modification Advisory Board's recommendationsto establish a national policy and develop an integratedresearch and development program for weather modification.We recommend that the Congress set forth a national weathermodification research and development policy and directthat a program be developed with goals, objectives, priori-ties, and milestones. Also, it should designate one agencyto administer, maintain, and control the program.

11

CHAPTER 3

FEDERAL RAINFALL AUGMENTATION EFFORTS ARE

FRAGMENTED; LACK INTEGRATED, FORMAL PLANNING; AND

LEAVE CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS UNANSWERED

General problems associated with weather modificationprograms are illustrated by the rainfall augmentation proj-ects. Although the objective of rainfall augmentation ef-forts has been to produce additional useful rainfall overa large area and some progress has been made, overallprogress in deliberate rainfall augmentation has been dis-appointing. Lack of integrated, formal planning and coordi-nation has limited the progress of Federal rainfall augmen-tation research projects, even though such projects havebeen conducted over the past 30 years and some progress hasbeen made. This lack of planning and coordination has con-tributed to a number of critical scientific issues remain-ing unanswered.

SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE

Over the past 30 years, some progress has been madein weather modification research. Specific achievementsinclude

-- the capability to dissipate cold fog and low stratusclouds, to enhance mountain snowfall under certainconditions, and to increase rainfall in limitedways and places;

--advances in instrumentation and technology, such asdevelopment of more efficient cloud-seeding methods,advances in meteorological aircraft, and moresophisticated radar to measure rainfall;

-- improved project design and evaluation techniques;

-- a cadre of well-trained atmospheric scientists toplan, operate, and evaluate weather modificationprojects; and

--a better grasp of the types of social, economic,legal, and institutional impacts ensuing fromweather modification.

Progress has also been made in understanding the inherentcomplexities of managing the atmosphere versus the overlysimplified expectations of weather modification advocatesin the 1950s and 1960s.

12

PROGRAMS ARE FRAGMENTED ANDLACK INTEGRATED, FORMAL PLANNING

Rainfall augmentation projects with similar objectivesare being conducted by separate Federal agencies with nocentral direction. These fragmented research efforts lackintegrated, formal long-range planning and long-term com-mitment of resources. This lack has contributed to incon-clusive results in most experimental projects.

Fragmented approach

The Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA are conducting orplan to conduct research to test rainfall augmentationtechniques. The fragmentation and lack of continuity ofFederal rainfall augmentation efforts are illustrated inthe following table, which shows Bureau and NOAA projectsfor 1962-78. The table includes data on the Bureau'sprecipitation enhancement project, initiated in 1971 anddiscontinued in 1973, and NOAA's planned precipitationaugmentation for crop experiment in Illinois project, whichinvolves the same contractor and contains similar objec-tives and geographical areas as the precipitation enhance-ment project.

13

Bureau and NOAA Rainfall Augmentation Projects

Bureau NOAA

1962-73 In addition to the precipita-tion enhancement project andthe high plains project, con-ducted eight separate experi-ments to test rainfall augmen-tation techniques withoutconclusive results

1968-69 Developed rainfall augmen-tation objectives as an out-growth of its hurricane re-search. Initiated Floridaproject.

1971 Contracted with the IllinoisState Water Survey to con-duct the precipitation en-hancement project.

1972 Proposed high plains experi-ment to develop precipitationenhancement technology forthe benefit of agriculture.

1973 CMB directed the Bureau toinitiate the high plainsproject. Bureau discon-tinued funding the precipi-tation enhancement projectbefore canpletion becauseof a funding decrease.

1976 NOAA and the Illinois StateWater Survey jointly devel-oped the precipitationaugmentation for crops ex-periment with similar ob-jectives as the Bureau's1971 precipitation enhance-ment project.

1978 Bureau continued high plains NOAA continued Florida projectproject. The start of the by conducting confirmatoryfirst randcmized experiment experiment and planned the(field test) was delayed new Illinois project.from 1974 to 1979.

14

As previously mentioned, in 1973 OMB designated theBureau as the lead agency for precipitation enhancement andNOAA as the lead agency for severe storms. The Bureau wasdirected to manage the high plains cooperative experiment,and NOAA was instructed to focus its weather modificationactivities on the modification of hurricanes and othersevere storms. According to NOAA and OMB officials, underan oral agreement NOAA continued the Florida rainfallaugmentation project. Recently, an OMB official statedthat OMB continued funding to allow NOAA to complete theresearch.

The proposed Department of Natural Resources wouldhave included the Bureau and NOAA and thus would have con-solidated rainfall augmentation projects within one agency.However, as noted in chapter 2, the President decided notto go forward with his plan to establish the new department.

Lack of integrated, formallong-range planning

Formal long-range plans were not developed for NOAA'sFlorida project. Specific experiment plans for the Bureau'shigh plains project were not available until the spring of1979. Neither project has met projected completion esti-mates. Formal long-range planning is necessary to providemeasurable goals and obtain project funding to meet thosegoals; to achieve scientific acceptance; and to obtainFederal, State, and local support.

For the Florida project, NOAA never developed a formallong-range plan; rather, the project was expanded on a year-to-year basis. NOAA officials said this approach was usedbecause funding was obtained on an annual basis and eachyear's data was used in planning the next phase of the re-search.

In 1975, NOAA began using a different device to seedclouds in the Florida project. Results obtained from cloud-seeding experiments in 1976 combined with data obtained inthe past indicated an overall increase in rainfall. How-ever, the project director said that following the 1976 ex-periment it became necessary to validate the results byconducting a confirmatory experiment because the measurementtechniques were not acceptable to the scientific communityand a hypothesis for seeding had not been developed. Also,the concept of exploratory-confirmatory experiments forweather modification evolved after the Florida project wasunderway and the initial Florida efforts were exploratory.

15

In March 1979, the project director told us that 2 moreyears of field experimentation, at a cost of about $1.4 mil-lion per year, will be necessary to coxmplete the confirma-tory phase of the project. The total cost of the Floridaproject, including the confirmatory phase, is estimated tobe $13 million, of which $12 million will have beer 3pentor obligated through fiscal year 1979.

The Bureau developed a conceptual, long-range plan forthe high plains project after OMB assigned it that respon-sibility in 1973. The Bureau obtained the input of thescientific community, State and regional interests, andthe general public through scientific design workshops,agreements with involved States, and public meetings.The original goals were not met, in part because of fundinglimitations. Also, the project director said that becausethe project's approach has changed, it was necessary toredesign the project.

Bureau officials said it was necessary to redesignthe high plains plan due to the adverse results of otherweather modification efforts. The original plan was basedon cloud-seeding technology developed and used in previousBureau projects. When data produced by the Bureau andothers proved inconclusive by the mid-70s, the Bureaudecided that outside planning assistance was needed.

A contract with the Illinois State Water Survey wasamended to design and provide project planning guidancebeginning in 1975. Although this contract terminated in1978 without developing specific experiment designs, theBureau used the Illinois water survey recommendations asa general project design. It was also used as input indeveloping the specific experiment design. A new 5-yearcontract (through 1984) was awarded to the South DakotaSchool of Mines and Technology to study the impact ofvarious design options, to periodically review the designand field operations, and to evaluate the effects ofseeding.

The total cost for the high plains project is nowestimated at $40 million, of which about $19 million willhave been spent or obligated through fiscal year 1979.

NOAA plans additional projects

As previously mentioned, NOAA is planning to conducta major new project in Illinois. The project--the precipi-tation augmentation for crop experiment--is designed totest whether rain can be increased to benefit agriculture

16

in Illinois and neighboring areas. NOAA is providing$100,000 for preliminary Illinois project studies in 1979.

The National' Science Foundation, the Army, and the AirForce are providing similar amounts for related studiesthat will contribute to the Illinois project. Cost esti-mates for this project range from $25-$50 million.

NOAA also plans to conduct a new experiment in Floridaon cumulus dynamics and microphysics. This project wouldattempt to define the cloud physics of the Florida areacumulus experiment type cloud seeding. No cost projectionsfor this project are currently available.

NOAA.and.the National Science Foundation are alsoproviding $150,000 each in support of the United Nationsprecipitation enhancement project'in Spain during fiscalyear 1979. Cost projections for the U.S. contribution tothis project 'show an increase to about $800,000 per yearwhen the seeding phase begins.

OMB officials informed us that they do not now planto fund any additional major rainfall augmentation projectsfor NOAA, although they added that this could change asFederal priorities change.'' OMB has not approved the NOAAprecipitation augmentation for crops experiment or thecumulus dynamics and microphysics'project, and it wouldnot consider funding these projects until the Florida areacumulus experiment is completed.

CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONSREMAIN UNANSWERED.

Specific scientific issues critical to the successof rainfall augmentation projects have not been adequatelyaddressed by researchers, and a degree of uncertainty hin-ders future progress. For example:

--Basic issues.still must be answered concerning thephysical basis for' rainfall augmentation techniques.

--The total.area effects for the target area andsurrounding area effects'from rainfall augmentationshave not been adequately measured or analyzed.

--The techniques and assessment standards needed toaccurately measure the results of a rainfall augmen-tation project hav.e not been adequately defined.

--Understanding of .the pote'ntial for cloud seeding toinduce or aggravate severe weather is inadequate.

17

These questions should be addressed to permit develop-ment of predictable, acceptable rainfall augmentation as anoperational technology.

Fundamental knowledge of cloudprocess is lacking

Fundamental knowledge concerning the physics anddynamics of cloud processes is inadequate, which hindersdevelopment of deliberate, useful rainfall augmentationtechniques. NOAA's Florida project's environmental impactstatement for 1976 states that seeding of individual cloudsin southern Florida in 1968 and 1970 was effective in in-creasing rainfall. Yet, project officials admit that it isnot clear whether these early experimental results can beapplied to the seeding of many clouds over a fixed targetarea and if the additional rainfall from an individuallyseeded cloud may be at the expense of other clouds in theenvironment.

The Bureau's project has been delayed in part becauseof a lack of adequate scientific knowledge. The Bureaudid not start randomized field experiments until the sum-mer of 1979. The Bureau said that because of the differ-ence in clouds it is using a different seeding method thanthe "dynamic seeding" applied by the-NOAA project.

Total area effectsremain uncertain

Total area effects of rainfall, augmentation are unde-fined, and therefore rainfall augmentation projects areunable to predict results outside the target area. Recentevidence from cloud-seeding experiments suggests that theeffects of cloud seeding may extend beyond the target area.While a few scientists have speculated that cloud seedingcould be changing worldwide weather patterns, many othersbelieve most important effects occur within approximatelya 300-mile radius of the target area.

Present Federal rainfall augmentation projects do notadequately address total area effects. Usually, projectplans require total area effects studies, but fundinglimitations preclude adequate research for this purpose.Because adequate studies have not been performed duringthe projects, it has been necessary to analyze total areaeffects after projects have been completed. The scientificcommunity is reluctant to accept results when the evalua-tion criteria are established after the data has been

18

obtained. So far, after-the-fact analyses have indicatedwidely different effects, such as:

--Additional railfall in target and surrounding areas.

-- Less rainfall in target and surrounding areas.

-- Add'itional rainfall in' target and less rainfall insurrounding' areas.

-- Less rainfall in target and additional rainfall insurrounding areas.

'In its 'report, the Weather Modification Advisory Boardstated that a major concern'"of cloud seeding must be toidentify the area and timing of seeding effects whenever theyoccur. The' board orecommended that this concern should beproperly reflected in the de'sign of-ail future seeding ex-periments.

The potential cost of evaluating total area effectswas cit'ed in a workshop on extended effects of weathermodification sponsored by the National Science Foundationin August 1977. This workshop proposed an approach thatwould encompass an area of at'least a 300-mile radius inthe mid-United States and'would be performed over approxi-mately a 10-year period. The cost was estimated to be$10-$20' million per year--approximately the same as theannual Federal weather modification budget during the lastdecade.

Assessment standards havenot been adequately defined

Assessment standards have not been established by theFederal Government or the scientific community to evaluateproject results. Theere is no general'agreement as to themethods of' data collection or even the nature of data re-quired to assess'a rainfall augmentation project adequately.Several scientists had different opinions about the densityof r~ain gauge networks, the adequacy of'radar and satellitemeasurement, and the validity of statistical techniques toass~ess rainfall augmentation projects.

In its report, the Weather Modification Advisory Boardpointed out that there are two types of cloud-seedingexperiments--exploratory and confirmatory. Exploratoryexperiments are conducted to explore physical-meteorologicalrelationships and to develop seeding'hypotheses. The endresults of a good exploratory seeding experiment are a

19

physically plausible model of the weather system under in-vestigation and of the impact of a particular seeding methodupon it.

The objective of confirmatory seeding experiments isto establish a particular hypothesized seeding effect withina small and well-defined margin of error, both clearlystated before the experiment. Confirmatory experimentsmust be precisely designed, tightly controlled, and free ofunconscious or accidental bias.

The following sections illustrate the varying methodsof data collection used to evaluate project results.

Bureau and NOAA projects employ radar for some evalua-tion of rainfall augmentation experiments. Rather thanmeasuring actual rainfall with rain gauges, scientistsestimate the amount of rainfall by radar echo characteris-tics of cloud and precipitation particles. Radar is usedto supplement rain gauges to minimize the expense of in-stalling a large rain gauge network and to measure large-scale precipitation patterns. However, the scientificcommunity cannot agree on the adequacy of radar to evaluaterainfall. NOAA had problems with the primary radar systemin 1971 and 1976 which caused the data collected to be nottotally acceptable. In part because the scientific com-munity would not fully accept the reported results of theFlorida project, NOAA is now performing a 3-year confirma-tory experiment. For this experiment, NOAA is employing,in addition to radar, a network averaging one rain gaugefor every 39 square miles of target area.

The planning for the Bureau project also clearlydemonstrates the varying criteria used by agencies toevaluate research effects. When NOAA proposed the highplains experiment in 1972, the primary evaluation was tobe a network averaging one rain gauge every 10 miles oftarget area. After the Bureau was designated to performthe high plains project, the Bureau selected radar for theprimary evaluation technique. But after the problems withradar became known, the Bureau decided to rely more on raingauges; plans were changed to specify a network averagingone rain gauge every 20 square miles.

Severe weather effects are unknown

Rainfall augmentation has the potential for aggravatingsevere weather in addition to producing rain, but an ade-quate understanding of the relationship between cloud seedingand severe weather has not been developed. In order for

20

operational rainfall augmentation projects to be consideredsafe and acceptable, the potential for instigating or aggra-vating severe weather must be determined.

NOAA and Bureau scientists told us that since much ofthe rain in the Midwest and Plains States occurs with severeweather, such as hail, strong winds, and tornados, there isconcern that artificial augmentation of rain may also in-crease the occurrence of unwanted severe weather. The highplains project director said that based on the Bureau'sanalysis of past weather patterns in Kansas, 25 to 75 per-cent of the cloud-seeding opportunities would have to beforegone because of the presence or forecast of severeweather in the operational area.

The Florida project director told us that before apply-ing Florida project techniques to cloud systems in Illinoisin the precipitation augmentation for crops experiment,several serious questions would have to be answered, includ-ing the potential for causing severe storms. In southernFlorida, the target area encompasses a rural area wheredaytime summer thunderstorms have little potential for severeweather. The agricultural area, where NOAA proposes to testthe Florida project techniques, produces high-yielding cropswhich could be damaged as well as helped by rainfall augmen-tation.

CONCLUSIONS

General problems associated with weather modificationprograms are illustrated by the rainfall augmentationprojects. Although the objective of rainfall augmentationhas been to produce additional, useful rainfall over alarge area, and while some progress has been made, overallprogress in deliberate rainfall augmentation has been dis-appointing. More formalized, integrated long-range planningof weather modification projects is needed to provide mea-sureable goals and to direct project" funding to meet thosegoals; to achieve scientific acceptance of the project re-sults; and to obtain Federal, State, and local support.Lack of formal, integrated planning and coordination continuesto inhibit the progress of Federal rainfall augmentation re-search projects. As a result, even though projects havebeen conducted during the past 30 years and some progresshas been made, basic critical scientific questions remainunanswered.

Until the Congress acts to establish a national weathermodification policy and program, program improvements couldbe made through more formal, integrated planning procedures

21

and better coordination of rainfall augmentation projectsbetween the Bureau and NOAA.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

The 'Bureau of Reclamation concurred that a more visible,more formal, and higher level forum for planning and coordi-nating the national weather modification program is needed.The Bureau said that the forum should have representativesof all involved Federal agencies and weather modificationinterests, including States, local agencies, and user groups,and should cover all aspects of weather modification. TheBureau also pointed out, however, that it believes no waste-ful duplication or harmful lack of coordination has occurred.The Bureau said important coordination has taken place at-numerous scientific conferences, open reviews of plannedand existing projects, interchange of scientific teams andequipment between projects, open scientific discussion ofresults, joint representation on national planning and re-view committees, and frequent personal communication of keyscientists.

NOAA disagreed with our recommendation. NOAA saw novalue in attempting to develop an integrated, formal plan-ning process until the shape of the national policy has beendetermined. NOAA said that over the years, the two agencieshave maintained a cooperative approach in planning and con-ducting their respective projects. Technical interaction hasbeen continuous via conferences, letters, reports, and evenexchange of equipment. Discussion and review of short- andlong-range plans for experiments and projects have beencommonplace.

We agree that informal coordination can be helpful.However, we continue to believe that formal planning andFederal level coordination would provide better program con-trol and help in defining measurable goals; directing proj-ect funding to meet those goals; achieving scientific ac-ceptance of research results; and obtaining Federal, State,and local support. Also, the Bureau, notwithstanding itsposition that there has been substantial coordination,agrees that a more visible, more formal, and higher levelforum for planning and coordination is needed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that until the Congress establishes anational weather modification policy and program, theSecretaries of Commerce and the Interior establish anintegrated, formal planning program to help ensure coordi-nation of their respective rainfall augmentation projects.

22

APPENDIX I APPENDIX

fijN UITEID STATUS 0PARTTMUT OF CoMMUsThe A"Ismnt Secretary fsr Admlnliutra im

EI· Washington, D.C. 20230

1 6 JUL 1979

Mr. Henry EschwegeDirector, Community and Economic

Development DivisionU. S. General Accounting OfficeWashington, D. C. 20548

Dear Mr. Eschwege:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1979 requestingcomments on the draft report entitled "A CongressionallyMandated Weather Modification Policy and Program is Needed".

We have reviewed the enclosed comments of the AssociateAdministrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationand believe they are responsive to the matters discussed in thereport.

Xce ly,

. Porter oistant Secretary rfor Administration

Enclosure

23

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRockville, Md. 20852OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

RD2:MTC

Mr. Henry EschwegeDirectorCommunity and Economic Development

DivisionU.S. General Accounting Office441 G St., N.W. - Rm. 6146Washington, D. C. 20548

Dear Mr. Eschwege:

Secretary Kreps has asked me to reply to your letter of June 4, 1979,that requested a review and comments on the draft of a proposed report, "ACongressionally Mandated Weather Modification Policy and Program is Needed".

The draft report has been reviewed thoroughly by appropriate membersof this agency. Several general comments are provided below, and specificsuggestions for changes in the draft report are included in an enclosureto this letter.

Our overall reaction to the draft report is favorable. The GeneralAccounting Office investigators have provided an interesting, informativeand unbiased appraisal of the history and status of the management ofFederal weather modification and of rainfall augmentation. The recommenda-tion calling for the establishment of a consolidated National WeatherModification Research Policy and Program to be administered by one agencyis consistent with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's(NOAA) recent view on this matter and we strongly endorse this position.

On the other hand, NOAA does not support the report's other recom-mendation that, in the interim, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interiorestablish an integrated formal planning program and Federal levelcoordination of their respective rainfall augmentation projects. Overthe years, the two agencies have maintained a cooperative approach inplanning and conducting their respective projects. Technical interactionhas been continuous via conferences, letters, reports and even exchangeof equipment. Discussion and review of short and long range plans forexperiments and projects have been commonplace. We see no value in attempt-ing to develop an integrated, formal planning process until the shape of thenational policy has been determined.

Thank you for sending the draft report to us for review. I trust thatour comments will be useful to you.

Sincerely yours,

George S. BentonAssociate Administrator "

Enclosure

24

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

United States Department of the InteriorBUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

DI " v 1900

am* To. AUG 27 1979

Mr. Henry EschwegeDirector, Community and EconomicDevelopment Division

United States General Accounting OfficeWashington DC 20548

Dear Mr. Eschwege:

On June 19, 1979, a meeting was held, as you requested, betweenmembers of our respective staffs to discuss the draft report "ACongressionally Mandated Weather Modification Policy and Program isNeeded." This letter transmits our formal comments on the reviseddraft report by your office subsequent to that meeting and madeavailable to us on August 1, 1979. These comments should be thebasis for any agency comments cited in the final report. Our views,on this matter of great importance to the Bureau of Reclamation,will be best represented if these comments, in their entirety, areincorporated as part of the final report.

The Nation's largest weather modification program is conductedby the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. Thefiscal year 1980 funding for our research program is $9,371,000, allof which is devoted to developing practical precipitation managementtechniques for both winter orographic snowfall and summer rain to.augment the Nation's water supplies from renewable atmosphericsources. I have a strong interest in continued vigorousresearch in cloud seeding, and, as soon as scientificallyand socially feasible, I plan to integrate this technologyinto the Bureau's comprehensive system for managing waterand energy resources. This is becoming especially importantat a time when growing demands are being made on existingwater resources.

I am proud of the progress made in this scientifically complex andsocially controversial field, much of it occurring through theBureau's research program which I believe has been responsive to therepeated confidence and increasing resources given it. Many of thecurrent operational cloud seeding projects in the Western States byState and local sponsorship can be directly attributed to the scien-tific findings from our "Project Skywater" program and our fosteringof local expertise by the cooperative research that has enabled their

25

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

responsible management. The Bureau's research has, I believe, been amajor contributor to the main finding of the Weather ModificatinnAdvisory Board in their report to the Secretary of Commerce th. "thekey conclusion in this report is that a usable technology forsignificantly enhancing rain and snow and ameliorating some damageis scientifically possible and within sight." Precipitation enhance-ment research in general and the Bureau's programs on augmentingwinter snowpack and summer rainfall in particular are at the fore-front of the Board's recommendations for A Twenty-Year Program ofAction.

In this regard, the achievements and high regard of the Bureau,which the Board recognized on page 200 of its report, should bepointed out:

"The Bureau of Reclamation has had a sizable program in precipita-tion modification for 15 years under dedicated and highlycompetent leadership. It has a strong commitment to developmentof weather modification. It is interested in being the host ofthe new National Weather Resources Management Program. This maybe a natural choice if a new Department of Natural Resources isformed with the Department of the Interior as the core. TheBureau of Reclamation has viewed weather modification asan integral part of water resources management, a logicalperspective on a new technology."

"Much of the R&D supported by the Bureau of Reclamation has beenperformed by the private sector and university and state agencies,largely in the Western United States. Useful scientificdiscoveries relating to snowfall modification in the mountainshave resulted. Through the strong organizational regional tiesof the Bureau of Reclamation, its weather modification programhas focused on technology transfer and a strong interaction withusers. This is a valuable characteristic of the Agency."

In view of this background and the expanding interest in weathermodification, we had expected a more positive and constructivereport by the General Accounting Office that would focus moreclearly on how to accelerate the Nation's weather modificationefforts. The following general comments are offered on the majorissues raised in the report which should be considered in any ofthe forthcoming decisions on this important technology:

26

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

1. The GAO report repeats and stresses the allegation of "fragmentedresearch." It reviews the Bureau's High Plains project and NOAA'sFlorida project and contends that the findings for these two rainfallaugmentation projects are relevant to the entire Federal weathermodification program. In fiscal year 1979 there are only threeFederal agencies involved in research on deliberate weather modifica-tion, and these two projects represent a major portion of the totalprogram. The total budget of $12.8 million consists of $8.6 millionin the Department of the Interior for snow and rain augmentationresearch, $3.1 million in the Department of Commerce for rainaugmentation research and hurricane amelioration research, and$1.1 million in the National Science Foundation which does not havea specific budget for weather modification but devotes this amountof their atmospheric sciences funding to basic research directlyrelated to weather modification. More than half of the total budgetis devoted to rain augmentation research, about a third for snowaugmentation research, and the remainder to hurricane ameliorationresearch and other small weather modification efforts. Where morethan one rain and snow augmentation research program exists, theyare conducted in different climatic regions with differentprecipitation-producing conditions. Recognizing the scientific andeconomic importance of precipitation enhancement, the WeatherModification Advisory Board recommended a program of experimentaltests, some operated in parallel in different regions to expediteprogress. There is little or no federally supported research on theother areas of weather modification mentioned in the report, namelyfog and cloud modification, hail suppression, lightning modification,and severe storm modification. We, therefore, fail to see thebasis for the repeated charge of "fragmented research."

2. The GAO report also reiterates the allegation of "ineffectivecoordination," a charge that has been made in many of the pastweather modification reviews. Yet there has never been a specificinstance cited or facts presented to substantiate these charges.The Bureau believes that there has been no wasteful duplicationor harmful lack of coordination. We, in fact, contend that therehas been substantial coordination. Important coordination has takenplace at numerous scientific conferences, open reviews of plannedand existing projects, interchange of scientific teams and equipmentbetween projects, open scientific discussion of results, jointrepresentation on national planning and review committees, andfrequent personal communication of key scientists. The 1974 GAOreport, "Need for a National Weather Modification Research Program,"was faulted by the Office of Management and Budget and the Departmentof Agriculture for lack of substance in the criticism of coordination.This report, as drafted, is similarly lacking in substance.

27

APPENDIX II APPENDIX IIAPPENDIX II

4

3. Statements in the reports on the "lack of formal planning"overlook a, great deal of coordinated detailed planning, review,and preproject study by the Bureau. We have gone to great lengthsto include all groups - Federal scientists, State agencies, universi-ties, private industry, local groups, concerned individuals, etc.,in our planning and review process. Thirteen Skywater conferenceshave been held, formal reviews of the environmental impact statementsconducted, and many scientific workshops and progress review meetingshave been convened. In 1966 the Bureau prepared a formal plan foran $800 million nationwide precipitation management program "Plan toDevelop Technology for Increasing Water Yield from AtmosphericSources." This was presented to Congress and OMB and funds wereprovided by Congress to initiate the planned program. The Bureau isstill operating under this plan and mission assignment and hasfollowed specific directives from the Congress to accelerate portionsof the overall plan.

The High Plains Cooperative Program began in January 1973 witha formal assignment from OMB and a $1 million budget. The Governorsof the involved states were informed and invited to enter theplanning by formal letter. Many public meetings were held, includingthose in local areas as part of a site-selection process, and formalagreements were negotiated with each state prior to start of researchin the state. Several scientific design workshops were held toincorporate the most current and pertinent ideas into the developmentof plans and designs. Plans, designs, and detailed budgets havebeen presented to OMB and the Congress and funds have been approved.

These and other actions reflect the Bureau's sincere effort tomake the planning of "Project Skywater" as open and formal aspossible and include the input of the scientific community, regionalinterests, and the general public in the planning andreview process.

4. The repeated statements of "disappointing progress in weathermodification" do not reflect an appreciation for the very realscientific complexity of the problem and the substantial progressthat has been made. Modern weather modification is a relativelyyoung (33 years old) applied meteorological science whose progressis intimately dependent on advances in meteorological understandingin general. Progress during this period on describing and predictingthe diverse and complex behavior of clouds and their environment hasbeen very slow but meaningful. The oversimplified expectations ofrainmaking promoters in the 1950's and 1960's have been replaced bya realization of the problem's true complexity and the length of

28

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

5

time and magnitude of resources required to develop the conceptsinto a verified, responsible technology. Viewed in this perspec-tive and considering the relatively recent start and meager resourcesapplied to weather modification research and development, the factthat substantial progress has been made is very noteworthy. Thisprogress was recognized by the Weather Modification Advisory Board.

The real issue is what can we do to accelerate this progress.To state that ". . . lack of formal planning and coordinationcontinues to inhibit the progress of Federal rainfall augmenta-tion research projects. As a result, even though such projectshave been conducted over the past 30 years and some progress hasbeen made, critical scientific questions remain unanswered" ismisleading and fails to recognize that resources commensurate withthe complexity of the problem and the benefits to be gained havenever been provided for this research. Failure to appreciate andremedy this has led to frustration and the resulting charges offragmented research, ineffective coordination, etc. In our opinion,budgets and funding do not relate as much to organizational manage-ment as to national needs, priorities, and public support. In thisregard, it should be recognized that weather modification is not anend in itself but is a potentially valuable technology for managingthe atmosphere to serve many of society's important needs.

5. Contrary to what the GAO report states, there is a nationalweather modification policy in operation. OMB instituted a missionagency approach in 1971 and has continually supported it. OMBinstructed specific agencies to concentrate their efforts on certainareas of weather modification and, for example, they designated theBureau of Reclamation as the lead agency for precipitation enhance-ment and NOAA as the lead agency for hurricanes and severe storms.OMB reiterated this policy in their response to the 1974 GAO report.This policy was restated and reinforced by the White House in their1975 statement on Federal weather modification policy (reply ofNorman E. Ross, Assistant Director, Domestic Council to HonorableGilbert Gude, House of Representatives - Congressional Record June 17,1975):

". . . we believe that the agency which is chargedwith a particular national problem should be giventhe latitude to seek the best approach or solution tothe problem. In some instances this may involve aform of weather modification, while in other instancesother approaches may be more appropriate."

29

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

6

"While we would certainly agree that some level of coordinationof weather modification research efforts is logical, we do notbelieve that a program under the direction of any one singleagency's leadership is either necessary or desirable."

a series of lead agencies have been established toconcentrate efforts in particular areas: Interior in precipita-tion; Agriculture in lightning suppression; Commerce in severestorms, including hurricanes; NSF in hail research; andTransportation in fog suppression."

OMB and Congress have essentially implemented this policy andapproved budget requests in accordance with this approach. TheBureau has been very conscientious in following this policy.Justification of research funds in budget requests is based onthis policy and actual use of funds follows these budgets.

Concerning the two major recommendations of the report, we offer thefollowing comments:

1. The Bureau strongly objects to the recommendation to "desig-nate one agency to administer, maintain, and have responsibilityfor the program." The Bureau strongly supports the missionagency approach that also provides several different avenues offunding for various types of projects. The Bureau should thusretain its role of leadership in precipitation management withina total national weather modification effort to help meet thevaried water resource missions within the Department of Interior.

Recommendations of past review committees, some incompletelycited in the GAO report and some not mentioned at all, support therole of mission agencies in weather modification research. A feware cited below to counter-balance the exaggerated remarks in thereport that "GAO's review support the findings of nearly a decadeand a half of studies ."

In connection with the proposed NOAA Organic Act, the role ofthe Federal agencies in atmospheric research and development wasdiscussed in the Boston Workshop of October 1978 sponsored bythe Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of theHouse Committee on Science and Technology jointly with the SenateCommittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The draftreport of this workshop states the following conclusion:

30

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

"Succinctly expressing the nearly unanimous view of Federalagencies (including NOAA) on this issue, Dr. Bernard Silvermanof the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation contendedthat: The overriding principle in this issue is that missionagencies need strong research and development programs toenhance the specific Federal policy goals that have been entrustedto them. There is no single or universal model for organizing,managing, and conducting an R&D program. What makes sense forone agency may be unworkable for another. The interrelationshipand interaction between policy planning, the R&D function, andtransferring any resulting technology into practice are allagency-specific, requiring agency-specific strategies for theirsuccessful accomplishment. All the atmospheric research anddevelopment requirements of the various mission agencies cannot,in short, be satisfied by the program of one Federal entity nomatter how comprehensive it may be. "

National Academy of Sciences report "Weather and ClimateModification: Problem and Prospects" (1966) states:

". . . major responsibility for weather modification should becentered in a single agency; at the same time, however, a degreeof delegated responsibility should be maintained that will allowother agencies to meet mission requirements for work on thisfield."

National Academy of Sciences report "Weather and Climate Modifica-tion: Problems and Progress" (1973) states:

". ·. .the mission oriented agencies must maintain theirweather modification programs."

ICAS (Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences) reportNo. 10a, "A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification"(1966) states:

"It is desirable to maintain a multi-agency approach toweather modification, and each agency's basic mission shoulddetermine its role in weather modification, but not to theexclusion of basic research."

"A formal procedure must be developed to achieve continuingvisibility and coordination of the total weather modificationprogram."

U.S. Domestic Council, Environmental Resources Committee, Subcommit-tee on Climate Change, "The Federal Role in Weather Modification"(1975) recommended:

31

APPENDIX II APPENDIX II

"Continued coordination and planning through ICAS, with eachagency following its mission directed role, ."

2. In regard to the final recommendation, the Bureau concursthat a more visible, more formal, and higher level forum forplanning and coordinating the national weather modification programis needed. It should have representatives of all involved Federalagencies and weather modification interests (including States andlocal agencies and user groups) and cover all aspects of weathermodification. The forum could provide substance to the existingnational policy that is responsive to national and regional needsthrough the mission agency approach. It could develop a consolidatedbudget for 5-year R&D programs on an annual basis for a highlycoordinated and synergistic combination of mission agency efforts.The Bureau believes that such a forum is the only new ingredientthat is required to extend the existing and highly desirable missionagency approach into a more visibly coordinated and more formallyplanned national modification program.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the report in draftform.

Sincerely yours,

R. Keith HigginsonCommissioner

(142060)

32

Single copies of GAO reports are availablefree of charge. Requests (except by Membersof Congress) for additional quantities shouldbe accompanied by payment of $1.00 percopy.

Requests for single copies (without charge)should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting OfficeDistribution Section, Room 1518441 G Street, NW.Washington, DC 20548

Requests for multiple copies should be sentwith checks or money orders to:

U.S. General Accounting OfficeDistribution SectionP.O. Box 1020Washington, DC 20013

Checks or money orders should be madepayable to the U.S. General Accounting Of-fice. NOTE: Stamps or Superintendent ofDocuments coupons will not be accepted.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH

To expedite filling your order, use the re-port number and date in the lower rightcorner of the front cover.

GAO reports are now available on micro-fiche. If such copies will meet your needs,be sure to specify that you want microfichecopies.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A

UNITED STATESUNITED STATES POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDGENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U.S.MAIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,S300