Senator JORDAN. I have been interested, Doctor, in your colloquy on this with Senator Allott. I agree with the statement that this research money must be more widely dispersed about the country than it is presently. We are a small State with a small university and are stymied because of this lack of diversification in research funds. I am interested in your closing paragraph.

You say this:

If I may show a bit of impatience may I plead that it is time for our representative in Washington to forget about empire building and get down to some constructive cooperative effort.

Were you directing that to any particular kind of cooperative effort or any particular group of people? To whom are you addressing that remark?

Dr. SCHAEFER. I would say I would direct it to everybody because it is going on everywhere here in Washington. There is such a big job to be done that there should not be this kind of maneuvering in my opinion. Now certainly the time is going to come when we have to sharpen these things up but I don't believe the time is here now. We need everyone we can possibly get. They ought to be doing things in their competence, not trying to do things that are not directly related to their coming activities.

Five years from now, or even 2 years from now, the situation will probably be changed. New alinements will be developed as we find who the groups are that will have to work closely together. I feel very strongly this is not the time for any one group to dominate the field, because it has to be distributed.

We have the same situation in private industry. We have to solicit the help of every conceivable group, the space industry and everybody else. Here is where the great manpower reservoir is. I do some consulting work so I am in touch with these different groups.

They are all groping as to how they can fit into the picture because, after all, they have hundreds of engineers who have to do a job. If they are not designing missiles and airplanes and things of this sort they have to do something else. I think we will find tremendous assets here as soon as adequate moneys are available to begin paying more attention to our everyday backyard problems, and that is what the atmospheric studies really are.

Senator JORDAN. In your opinion the magnitude of the job is great enough that it should transcend selfish interests?

Dr. SCHAEFER. Absolutely, Senator. And I would like to point out that one of the great assets of a State like Idaho is that you have fantastic outdoor laboratories. I spent a month on top of Gigsmore Mountain. It used to be called Looking Glass, and the Priest River is also in Idaho. Here is one of the greatest outdoor lightning laboratories in the world.

You should be developing there. There is a similar place down in Riggins, back in the Seven Devils Mountains area where it looks over toward the Williwaws. These are ideal places. Those of us in the West and in the East, should be joining you folks at Moscow, Idaho, to work together on these. We have to broaden our horizons and discretions.

Senator JORDAN. I appreciate your comment, Doctor. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Moss.

Senator Moss. I take it, Doctor, that you agree with the terms of this bill, that the Secretary of the Interior would be a proper focus to have this kind of cooperative effort built through other departments and agencies and you do feel that they can cooperate in this and that there is no danger of his running off with the program, as it were, to the exclusion of others?

Dr. SCHAEFER. I don't see how he possibly can. There are so many other jobs that have to be done. The consideration of hailstorms has very little to do with getting water in the Colorado River, for example. But there should be the closest of cooperation because things discovered, let us say at Sterling, Colo., or on the Hudson River in New York in relation to hail, might very well tell us better how to transport moisture from the oceans inland.

They might do lots of things which we then would profit from. I have had pretty close contact with the Department of Interior people involved in this work, going back to 1947. That is when I first contacted the Department of Interior through Walter Garstka. He and I sat down at the table in Portland, Oreg., the first time I went west and we discussed this problem in 1947.

Since that time the Bureau of Reclamation has had an interest in this area. This is not some Johnny-come-lately idea at all. They have been very much concerned with this situation. They got involved in evaporation reduction because of this relationship with me. Langmuir and I did some of the early work on evaporation reduction. It was through my contacts with Walter Gartska and the Bureau of Reclamation that they have now an excellent program going on in this region. So I think that we need to solicit and you should direct, in my opinion, that we get along together and that we cooperate with each other.

I have not seen any desire in the Department of Interior to build a vast empire. Their whole philosophy in trying to solve these problems is constructive. They contract them out to other groups who can help them. They should be urged to continue this kind of policy. Senator Moss. Thank you.

Senator CHURCH. Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Church.

Senator CHURCH. Dr. Schaefer, one of the things that constantly crops up when it comes to Federal aid for research is the tendency not only to concentrate research activities in comparatively few large centers but the Federal money which has developed an expertise in a given field at a very large center then attracts more Federal money by virtue of the fact that the experts are there.

So these few large universities get larger while other smaller universities scattered across the country are denied Federal funds for the lack of a demonstrable capacity to contribute in the selected fields.

It becomes a vicious circle, it gets worse all the time. I would like to know how you think the vicious circle can be broken.

Dr. SCHAEFER. I think you have a marvelous mechanism in S. 2875 because here you have a plan to spend a lot of money. To me $35 million is a minor amount of money. I think you are going to be dealing with billions before you are very far along.

Now where are the places where much of this money ought to be spent? It is in Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana and the whole western region. This

is one of the areas that needs the kind of cooperation you are talking about. It is also needed in the middle country area, Nebraska and Iowa. They all have problems of a similar nature.

The pollution we get is not all urban. We get pollution from Denver moving eastward, from New Orleans moving north, and so on. We need to begin to spread out. I think that this is the ideal mechanism. The Bureau of Reclamation at the present time—I am probably going to miss some have programs at the University of Nevada, at Wyoming, at the South Dakota School of Mines, at Utah State, and a number of small programs are being supported now. Obviously when you get that kind of support indicated and you have good outdoor laboratories in the region those of us in the East and those in the West are certainly going to go where the projects are. In fact that is where I spend my summers. I spend my summers in Arizona and Colorado because this is the place where the weather problems of the East arise. I take a good many of my students there. So you have a marvelous opportunity with this very bill to get back to smaller college projects and the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, recognized this and already has a good program going.

I think more of these types of projects, not only in weather modification but in water resources and air pollution control through the Public Health Service, and other agencies, is a very logical thing. I believe it has tremendous potential for the smaller States.

Senator CHURCH. Did you think this imbalance can be adequately corrected without new legislation?

Dr. SCHAEFER. I think it is very necessary to consider this very carefully. I think S. 2875 is a move in that direction. I am sure that the present wording will be modified as you take all the evidence that we are trying to present to you and out of it I hope an outstanding new look will come.

I think that there are tremendous possibilities here that everyone will be very happy about if the job is done right. We are here to really try to help you.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. The Senator from Arizona.

Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask Dr. Schaefer a question. First of all I want to thank you for bringing Arizona and the Colorado River into this discussion. They are very dear to my heart.

We have had a program of weather modification which has been carried on for some years and no doubt will cover what is being done. I am wondering if we are disseminating the information that should be sent out to all the different groups working on these programs. For instance the Salt River project at Phoenix has been doing extensive work on this program for years and years. I remember years ago when they were seeding clouds with silver iodide they used a propane gas furnace to do this with.

At the same time I realize they have stayed on one program. I am just wondering if this is the manner in which this has been handled throughout the country. In other words, have we really disseminated our information properly?

Dr. SCHAEFER. To a certain degree we have in that the community is still so small that when we get together we know everybody by his

first name. This involves even our friends abroad. We just had a meeting of this general kind in Tokyo last May. We have another one coming up on condensation nuclei at our university in another month or so, in May.

The operation at Flagstaff, for example, is now becoming a focal point where we are encouraging people from all parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and other States to come in and see what is going on and join the operation if possible.

I feel that this kind of operation rapidly will get more and more interaction between everyone interested. The National Science Foundation is supporting a hail study this summer at Rapid City, S. Dak. Something like 18 or 20 groups are joining hands to work together for a month.

That means that we are going to be eating and discussing problems and everything else with each other and finding out how others think about our ideas and talking over the problems we have as to whether or not the things we are planning to do have any sense to them. So I think that we are rapidly developing a very good cooperative activity.

Senator FANNIN. Very fine. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Schaefer.
Dr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ANDERSON. Dr. Bigelow.

STATEMENT OF D. JULIAN H. BIGELOW, PERMANENT MEMBER, SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS, INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, PRINCETON, N.J.

Dr. BIGELOW. Senator Anderson, members of the subcommittee, the opportunity to appear before this committee of Congress in connection with the problems of weather modification is for me an agreeable study.

I would like first to emphasize that though I was a member of the National Academy Panel and also have had some prior contact with problems arising in the atmospheric sciences I am not a career meteorologist but an applied mathematician with a background in calculational procedures, computing machines, instruments, and methods of experimental measurement, and statistical evaluation of physical phenomena.

During the last 2 years while a member of the Panel, I have made. a substantial effort to understand the problems, and present state of weather modification and whatever merit the information I may contribute can have is primarily that of an unbiased scientist looking at these problems from a neighboring field.

To give good scientific counsel to those charged with the responsibility for legislative support of scientific and technological effort, I think it is important to try to gage realistically the facts of the situation, and to estimate the likely and unlikely outcomes. Because weather modification can be viewed as a broad topic, including many important aspects such as violent storms, lightning, atmospheric pollution, and so forth, I shall restrict my remarks hereinafter specifically to weather modification for the purpose of influencing precipitation. The primary tool which is available today for influencing precipitation is cloud seeding by silver iodide; this is essentially the same tool

introduced by Langmuir, Schaeffer, and Vonnegut for this purpose some 20 years ago.

During this interval, cloud seeding has had its ups and downs related to periods of apparent success and failure in field experiments. As a precipitation influencing tool, its effectiveness has been continually defended and supported-one might say, stubbornly--by individuals and small teams of cloud seeders, some of them commercial operators. Its use as a tool in scientific investigation of the processes of cloud physics has been pursued by researchers in Government agencies, and under NSF sponsorship and others.

At the present time, there has occurred a remarkable shift in attitude. regarding the practical capabilities of this seeding tool to produce increased ground precipitation. So to speak, until a short time ago, the betting odds were against it, now the betting odds are predominantly in favor of some modest but positive success.

The catalyst which caused this shift was not a new and clearer theoretical insight into precipitation mechanism or seeding effects, it was a steady bombardment by these "stubborn men," using empirical facts and experimental data as missiles.

Though the reliable evaluation of the credibility of these data by means of statistical tools has been difficult to the point of despair, it is nevertheless true that the results of such painstaking evaluation of enough raw experimental data have shifted the betting odds. One may say that though scientists pursue a lifelong love affair with theory, those that survive in applied fields learn to recognize and bow to the power of crude facts and data.

us.

We call attention to this situation here and now because we believe it has important implications bearing on the practical problem before What we now believe to be the favorable betting odds were not widely recognized and accepted during the last 20 years because the effects which could be produced by seeding were small compared to the prevailing natural variations in atmospheric precipitation.

Therefore, it is safe to say that until we better understand modification tools and their interaction with the vagaries of the atmosphere, the results that may be expected will probably be scattered and irreg ular-though not necessarily economically insignificant.

A second implication is that for the near future considerable emphasis should be given in any modification program to a close cycle consisting of well planned field efforts, systematic and careful evaluation of results, leading to even better planned field efforts.

I might add that these may well be carried out by men stubborn in their conviction that they will be found right in the end, and propelled by an intimate contact with the human needs involved.

As I see it the weather modification to influence precipitation canat this time and perhaps for the next 5 to 10 years-be viewed as requiring two different levels of effort: one consisting of a cluster of local efforts, and the other directed at more global objectives in time and space.

The local effort, for which the above close coupled experimental team would, in my opinion, play a key role, would aim to trigger relatively local instabilities in the atmosphere by diligent and locally tailored modification tools such as silver iodide seeding.

It is well known that unless the atmosphere in a local region is already close to precipitative instability, seeding cannot have signifi