WEATHER MODIFICATION TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico; Frank Church, of Idaho; Frank E. Moss, of Utah; Gordon Allott, of Colorado; Len B. Jordan, of Idaho; and Paul J. Fannin, of Arizona. Also present: Senator George McGovern, of South Dakota. Professional staff present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart French, chief counsel; Roy M. Whitacre, professional staff member; Frederick O. Frederickson, special counsel, and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel. Senator ANDERSON. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Vincent J. Schaefer, director, Atmospheric Sciences Research Center. Dr. Schaefer, I am glad to welcome you back to the fold after all these years. Dr. SCHAEFER. Thank you very much, Senator. It is a great delight to be here. Senator ANDERSON. I will never forget the trips we had under the administration of Dr. Von Neumann. I very much appreciated them then and I very much appreciate it now. STATEMENT OF DR. VINCENT J. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ALBANY, N.Y. Dr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you. In the nearly 20 years that have elapsed since November 13, 1946, when I seeded a supercooled cloud in the sky near Greylock Mountain in western Massachusetts, I have witnessed many fascinating developments in the field of experimental meteorology. The tremendous flare of publicity which followed this activity led some to believe that man had finally achieved a major control over atmospheric processes. Some entrepreneurs took advantage of this opportunity and played on the naivete and gulliability of the uninformed public. Others started the long and often frustrating path of research in a sincere attempt to establish the scientific facts about experimental meteorology. For many years, many long years the more conservative individuals and groups among the scientific community were totally unimpressed with the findings and claims of the enthusiastic persons conducting commercial and experimental operations in the field of cloud modification. Such conservative individuals are necessary and important in science as well as other fields of endeavor, since they force their more enthusiastic and daring colleagues to a fuller exertion toward establishing the validity of their observations. Unfortunately there are also those who become biased and antagonistic toward new ideas, often refusing to look at the evidence. This field of experimental meteorology, I fear, has had more than its share of such persons. Fortunately for science, it is not the prerogative of any nation or individual to long control an idea or a natural phenomenon. As a result, we are now in serious danger of losing our original initiative in the important area of weather modification and control. Fifteen years ago in mid-March and early April 1951, Dr. Suits of the G. E. Research Laboratory in testifying at a hearing before this same committee, which then was considering S. 5, S. 222, and S. 798, all concerned in some manner with cloud modification, pointed out the possible high potential importance of this subject. Part of his testimony reads: It is my considered opinion, however, that the results of most recent work are of the very greatest importance to the Nation. We have at hand a means of exerting a very considerable degree of control of weather phenomena. Precisely how much control can be accomplished will come from further study. Much work remains to be done and it would be a national tragedy if legislation did not provide a proper framework for developing the full potentialities of weather modification and control. It cannot be said that this result is assured by any means but the results to date give great promise in this direction. Dr. Vonnegut and I also testified at length and were subsequently questioned by Senators Anderson, Cordon, Hunt, Case, and Smathers. A portion of my testimony: On the basis of the results of the flight operations and the laboratory and field studies, it is obvious to me that further activities in this field justify an increased activity on the part of the Federal Government, both in exploratory basic research, as well as a well formulated program designed to apply and evaluate the discoveries in this field which are the basis of our present knowledge. Despite our difficulty in defining the very complex interrelationships which exist in the atmosphere between air, pressure, radiation, moisture, and suspended particles, the reactions which occur are, in general, physical and chemical in nature and therefore should be susceptible to an eventual understanding. As in any of the experimental sciences, unstable conditions occur which, if properly recognized and exploited, may be forced to yield results of a very specific nature. It is of the utmost importance that a broad study be made to establish the nature and degree of these instabilities and of the possible reaction which may be initiated by trigger actions and other mechanisms which may be quite minor in their magnitude but lead to major reactions as they run their course. Since the movement of storms and other weather phenomena show no respect for State or even national boundaries, it seems reasonable to anticipate that the Federal Government should concern itself through Congress with the establishment of a commission to institute a broad program of basic and applied research toward reaching a better understanding and utilization of weather processes. Such activities may lead to results conducive to the advancement of the economic welfare of our Nation through the better utilization and conservation of atmospheric moisture, as well as the prevention or moderation of the intense storms such as produce torrential rain, lightning, hail, and high winds. Our studies show that great variabilities occur in the concentration of ice crystal nuclei in the atmosphere. These variations cover a range of at least a millionfold and are probably directly related to the great difficulties which weather forecasters encounter when they attempt to predict icing hazards for aircraft due to supercooled clouds. This variation in ice nuclei is probably intimately related to the sudden development of intense storms, including thunderstorms, hail, and tornadoes, since such types of storms develop in areas which favor the development of large vertical thicknesses of supercooled clouds. As is well known, such storms are also difficult to forecast except in general terms. If such factors were not of common experience, it would be foolish, indeed, to urge that an intensified research and development program be sponsored by the Federal Government. Since it is possible to modify supercooled clouds on an extensive scale and to equal or even exceed the natural supply of ice crystal nuclei in the atmosphere, it seems reasonable to expect that a Federal program of research and application is justified at this time. It is very important, in my opinion, that weather studies involving experimental meteorology be conducted in such a manner that all of the modifications attempted by man-conducted seeding operations be known and controlled. If this is not done, the effort of attempting to understand the reactions which occur is a hopeless one. Whether such operations can be conducted by licensing the private groups now in this field and soliciting their active cooperation or whether it will be necessary to attempt the exercise of complete control over such seeding activities is a problem which must be solved in the near future. I believe that the former procedure-licensing of private groups—is to be preferred if at all possible. It is obvious that some type of national legislation is of the utmost importance at this time to protect the public in the future from unscrupulous individuals who would play on the gullibility, hope, or desperation of individuals or groups in need of water or other relief from an undesirable climatic situation. It is important that the efforts of some of our best scientists interested in the many complex relationships existing in weather phenomena be directed toward determining the facts and properly informing the general public of their findings. I believe that an intelligent, scientific, and well-planned program of research and application approached with enthusiasm and using presently known techniques, but geared to exploit new ones that would flow from the proper kind of basic studies would certainly be worth the effort which will be required to initiate and establish such an activity for the national defense and eventual welfare of ourselves, as well as the other peoples of the world. I somewhat apologize for reading ancient history. This was said 15 years ago, Senator, but it still applies in every aspect. Our most serious problem at the present time is whether we have enough of the right type of people to carry out the big job ahead of us. It will be necessary to seek the assistance of public and private groups and individuals to mount the effort that is now required. In 1961 I again pointed to the need for concerted action on the part of everyone interested when I wrote: The logical partners in such activity are the National Science Foundation (to provide support for basic studies), the Bureau of Reclamation (to provide the engineering design and supervision), and the Weather Bureau (to provide the weather forecasts and observations). Cooperation from the scientific and engineering community will support a comprehensive plan if it is carefully developed and conducted with enthusiasm and imagination. The best individuals in each area of activity must be utilized in making the plans. We should continually search for high ability young people to become actively involved in these activities if we are to achieve the long-range potential of such efforts. I sincerely hope the time has come when we can go forward without further delay with a comprehensive plan for the development of our water resources in the sky, on and under the ground, enjoying the fullest cooperation of public and private organizations, and scientists, engineers, technicians, and our representatives at the State and Federal level. All are essential since we deal with one of the most complex and challenging problems in science. Water and air are among our most valuable natural resources. Until we adequately understand them and their interrelationship we will not be able to properly develop, conserve, and utilize them to the betterment of mankind. This is still very much in order in my opinion. In view of the recent rather optimistic reports on this subject issued by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation, it may be well to question whether there were valid reasons for the slow pace that marked our progress in this field. With respect to S. 2875 I strongly endorse the action it proposes. In order to make up for the time lost in the past decade I suggest the following procedure: 1. The reestablishment of the President's Advisory Committee on Weather Control, or some similar type of high level commission. This should be a group rather similar in membership to that appointed some years ago by President Eisenhower. The Committee would assume primary responsibility for laying out and monitoring long-range goals, the establishment of basic policy, and the designation of cooperative programs which would involve private as well as Government or ganizations. It should be in a position to request cooperation from groups having facilities or to take measures to implement programs which would involve the best talents available in the United States. It should also, of course, establish proper legal and liability safeguards. 2. The vast array of industrial talent in America and its capabilities should become actively involved in our activities. This group is virtually unaware of problems in the field of weather control in which they could play an important role. This is due, in large part, to the completely unrealistic attitude on the part of Government agencies concerned with the atmospheric sciences which disburse grant and contract moneys toward the amount of overhead which can be rightfully allocated to industrial involvement in such projects. A careful evaluation of this situation should be carried out as soon as possible. At the same time the universities having competence in the fields of cloud physics, weather modification procedures, and related activities should plan to make available academic courses, lectures, seminars. conferences, and graduate programs which could delineate problems. describe current practices, and point up areas where industrial know; how might be effectively applied to solve some of the engineering and scientific roadblocks which now impede progress. Many of these prob lems appear to be disarmingly simple and it is important that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. 3. A much more effective method needs to be found to allocate funds for research and engineering. This is a problem that is not limited to the subject under immediate consideration. Too many of the best brains in America are devoted to the never ending task of proposal writing. It is well recognized that proposals prepared for consideration by referees, one's peers or a grants committee, public or private, must be carefully prepared, properly orga nized, imaginative, attractive and replete with new and innovative ideas to receive a good chance for acceptance. This means essentially that it must be prepared by the most competent individuals in the group seeking funds. As a consequence, much of the time and ability of our most talented individuals must be devoted to proposal writing rather than in doing the job that needs |