B-133202 Need for a National Weather Modification Reseach Program

B-i33202

Multiagency

UN1

STA

rUG.23~976

I .a

B-133202

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20546

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives

and the President pro tempore of the Senate

This is our rep,ort entitled “Need for a National Weather Modification

Research Program. Weather modification research activities are ad-

ministered by the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, the

National Science

Foundation, and other agencies.

Our review

1921 (31 u. s. c.

(31 U. S. C. 67).

was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act,

53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950

We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of

Management and Budget; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary

of Commerce; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Interior;

the Secretary of Transportation; the Director, National Science Founda-

tion; and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

Comptroller General

of the United States

APPENDIX

VII

VIII

Ii

GAO

ICAS

NACOA

NAS

NOAA

NSF

OMB

Letter dated‘september 12, 1973, from the

Associate Director, Office of Management

and Budget

Letter dated September 27, 1973, from the As-

sistant Secretary for Administration,

Department of Transportation

Principal officials of the departments and agen-

cies responsible for administering activities

discussed in this report

ABBREVIATIONS

General Accounting Office

Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere

National Academy of Sciences

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Science Foundation

Office of Management and Budget

Page

54

60

61

Contents

Page

DIGEST

i

CHAPTER

1

INTRODUCTION

.1

Scope

2.

2 NEED FOR A NATIONAL WEATHER MODI-

FICATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

3

Federal activities in weather modi-

fication research

4

Federal legislation on weather

modification activities

7

Independent studies evaluating Federal

weather modification. research

7

ICAS efforts to establish national programs

15

Problems in coordinating a national program--

National Hail Research Experiment

1%

3 CONCLUSIONS, AGENCY COMMENTS, AND REC-

OMMENDATIONS

22

Conclusions

22

Agency comments and our evaluation

Recommendations

APPENDIX

I

Weather modification programs and Federal partic-

ipants in fiscal year 1974

30

II Letter dated August 23, 1973, from the Chief,

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture

37

III Letter dated September 13, 1973, from the

Assistant Secretary for Administration,

Department of Commerce 40

Iv Letter dated November 12, 1973, from the Di-

rector

of Defense Research and Engineering

45

V

Letter dated September 18, 1973, from the Di-

rector of Survey and Review, Department

of the Interior

48

VI Letter dated October 4, 1973, from the Director,

National Science Foundation

50

COMPTROLLER GENERAL’S

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

DIGEST

------

WHY THE REVIEW WAS MADE

Weather modification research is

part of an attempt to understand

the atmosphere of the earth and

other planets.

Through this re-

search, which is primarily fed-

erally supported, it may be possible

to alleviate drought, reduce de-

structive forces of hurricanes,

suppress lightning and damaging

hail, and dissipate fog.

During fiscal year 1974 seven

Federal departments and

agencies- -Agriculture, Com-

merce, Interior, Defense, Trans-

portation, the National Science

Foundation, and the National

Aeronautics and Space Adminis-

tration- -conducted weather

modification research.

Estimated cost for this research

increased from about $3 million

in fiscal year 1959 to about $17.4

million in fiscal year 1974.

Because of multiagency partici-

pation and increased Federal

support, GAO reviewed the

administration of weather modi-

fication research.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

For nearly a decade, studies of

the administration of Federal

weather modification research

have identified common prob-

lems hindering progress:

--No central authority to direct

Federal departments efforts.

Tear Sheet. Upon removal, the report

cover date should be noted hereon.

i

Y

NEED FOR A NATIONAL WEATHER

MODIFICATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

Multiagency B-133202

--Ineffective coordination.

--Insufficient resources to achieve

timely, effective results.

Most studies proposed a national

program to resolve the problems.

(See pp. 7 to 15. )

p, lF?P

The Interdepartmental Commit-

tee for Atmospheric Sciences,

part of the Federal Council for

Science and Technology, is

responsible for identifying op-

portunities for improving at-

mospheric sciences programs.

It, however, has no authority

to direct Federal research

programs.

(Seep. 4.)

The Committee’s efforts to

establish a national weather

modification research pro-

gram have not been successful.

In 1966, the Committee recom-

mended that a single agency

assume responsibility for

developing a national. weather

modification program. This

suggestion was not implemented.

(See p. 15. )

In 1971 the Committee recom-

mended that national weather

modification research projects

be established to accelerate

progress by bringing together

resources of agencies perform-

ing similar research.

Seven major research areas,

along with suggested lead and

participating agencies, were

identified,

Each lead agency

was to create a coordinating

I. .r ~“... c-- __/_. -. .

.

committee of representatives from

participating agencies which would

develop plans and submit progress

reports to the Committee.

C3ee

p. 15.)

GAO found, however, tl at the rec-

ommendations resulted in little

change in multiagency participation

or in general project administration.

(See pp. 15 to 18. )

The National Bail Research Experi-

ment, identified as a major research

area in the 1971 Committee report,

was already planned as a coordinated

effort with the National Science Foun-

dation as lead agency.

Even though the Experiment was well

planned, requiring extensive inter-

agency participation, GAO found, in

comparing planned efforts with actual

efforts that, for the most part, agen-

cies could not and did not meet all

their obligations.

For example, during the Experi-

ment’s first operational season (sum-

mer 1972):

--Agriculture planned to assess crop

damage from hail and study the

economic effects of hail suppres-

sion. The Foundation, however* had

to subsequently fund the later study.

Also, Agriculture could not coordi-

nate and direct the Experiment’s

electrical studies as planned.

(See p. 19. )

--Commerce did not furnish radars

and all aircraft as planned and was

able to provide technical ground

work only with the Foundation’s

funding. The unanticipated Com-

merce request for funds caused

the Foundation to cancel other

items in the program plan. (See

pp.

19 and 20.)

--Defense did not furnish helicopters

as planned but did provide personnel

(See

p. 20. )

--The Atomic Energy Commission

could not have provided technical

assistance without the Foundation’s

funding. (See p. 20. )

--Transportation provided personnel

as planned. (See p. 20. )

In the most recent operating season

(summer 1973), the Foundation had

similar problems obtaining support

from the agencies participating in

the Experiment. (See pp;* 20, 27,

’ and 28,

j

A national weather modification re-

search program, administered and

maintained by a lead agency, is

needed to effectively administrate

fragmented Federal weather modi-

fication research activities. The

program should include goals,

priorities, and plans for allocating

resources to meet priority objec-

tives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

z-7

s’

‘GAO recommends that the Office

of Management and Budget should,

in cooperation with the Federal

departments and agencies in-

volved in weather modification

research:

--Develop a national program with

goals, objectives, priorities,

and milestones, designating one

of the agencies, which would

have a major program respon-

sibility, to administer and main-

tain the national program.

--Develop a plan to define and re-

assign, if appropriate, the

ii

--responsibilities of Federal depart-

ments and agencies providing sup-

port or conducting weather modifi-

cation research.

--Develop a plan to allocate resources

to the national program elements.

63 a

AGENCY ACTIONS AND

N

UR

Most of the agencies acknowledged

administrative and management

problems in weather modification

research but, except for Commerce,

did not agree with GAO’s recommen-

dations for a national program.

The Office of Management and Budget

believed some consolidation of

weather modification research was

desirable and that proposed legisla-

tion to establish a Department of

Energy and Natural Resources would

accomplish the appropriate degree

of consolidation.

(See p. 23. )

Commerce, although agreeing with

GAO’s recommendations, also com-

mented that proposed legislation

would bring together many of the

widely scattered elements in Fed-

eral weather modification programs.

(See p. 23. )

The legislation would transfer three

agencies’ weather modification activ-

ities to the proposed department.

In GAO’s opinion, problems of ad-

ministration and management would

continue because weather modifica-

tion activities would still be frag-

mented. (See p. 23. )

Agriculture,

Defense, Interior, and

the Foundation generally supported

the Committee’s lead agency ap-

proach. Their comments on GAO’s

recommendations, which in some

cases were shared by the Office of

Management and Budget, and GAO’s

evaluation are on pages 24 to 29.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

BY THE CONGRESS

Because of longstanding problems

caused by a fragmented Federal

organization for carrying out

weather modification research, a

national program is necessary to

effectively administer activities.

This report should be useful to

the Congress in considering the

proposed legislation creating a

Department of Energy and Natural

Resources, which would not totally

consolidate Federal weather modi-

fication research.

Zw Sheet

. . .

111

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Weather modification research is part of the atmospheric sciences

which is devoted to understanding the composition and processes of the

earth and other planets’ atmospheres.

The Federal Government supports

2

atmospheric research in three program areas:

--The meterology area covers the lower atmosphere that extends

from the surface of the earth to 100 kilometers, about 62 miles.

--The aeronomy area, which overlaps to some extent with meteor-

ology, extends from outer’ space to approximately 50 kilometers,

about 31 miles above the earth’s surface.

--The planetary area is concerned with studies of other planets’

atmospheres.

Weather modification research is primarily part of the meteorology

area and includes :

--Precipitation modification --to study and develop techniques to

manage and control rain or snow.

- -Fog and cloud modification- -

to study and develop methods to dis-

sipate cold and warm fogs.

--Hail suppression

--to develop techniques to eliminate

hail or reduce the size of hailstones.

--Lightning modification

--to determine the basic characteristics ’

of fire-setting lightning storms and

develop techniques to suppress or

modify lightning discharges0

--Hurricane and severe --to determine the extent which hurri-

storm modification canes can be beneficially modified.

--Inadvertent modification --to monitor atmospheric constituents

and study their modifying influences

on the weather d

Science lacks the knowledge to answer many of the questions on

weather modification.

For example, a thorough understanding of how

clouds create rain and snow’has not been obtained. In addition, it is

not known with a satisfactory degree of confidence to what extent man is

changing the climate of the earth. There is wide, though not universal,

belief that weather modification has great potential for public good. If

weather modification research, which is primarily federally supported,

1

proves successful, it may be possible in future years to alleviate drought,

reduce the destructive forces of hurricanes, suppress lightning and dam-

aging hail, and dissipate fog.

During fiscal year 1974, seven of the nine Federal departments and

agencies conducting atmospheric sciences research were involved in

weather modification research: the Departments of Agriculture, Com-

merce, Defense, ‘Interior, and Transportation; the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration; and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Estimated costs for atmospheric sciences research as reported by

the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) in-

creased from $36 million in 1959 to about $274. 5 million in fiscal year

1974. During this period estimated costs classified as weather modifi-

cation research increased from $3 million to about $17.4 million.

NSF

and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said much of the general

research in atmospheric sciences is also applicable to weather modifi-

cation.

SCOPE

Our review was directed primarily at obtaining information on

Federal weather modification research and identifying opportunities for

improvements in administration and management of research programs.

It included. an examination of records and scientific reports; interviews

with officials of the various coordinating committees and Federal agen-

cies, including OMB and the former Office of Science and Technology;

and interviews with recognized authorities outside the Federal Govern-

ment.

We did our work at agency offices and field locations listed below:

--Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Department of Commerce.

--Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of

Defense.

--Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.

--NSF.

--Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

CHAPTER 2

\

NEED FOR A NATIONAL

WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

The FederG Government’s unsuccessful efforts to coordinate its

many research programs in weather modification supports the comment

often attributed to Mark Twain:

nobody does anything about it. ”

“Everybody talks about the weather, but

Our review of the Federal weather modification research activities

supports the findings of nearly a decade of studies. These studies con-

ducted by scientific panels, committees, and other groups all identified

common problems --ineffective coordination, fragmented research, and

research efforts that are subcritical (funded below the level necessary

to produce timely, effective results).

Most studies proposed a common

solution. What was needed, in essence, was a national research program

under a single Federal agency responsible for establishing plans and

priorities, obtaining the needed funds from the Congress, managing re-

search efforts, and accounting for the results its programs achieved.

To date, except for the establishment of several coordinating com-

mittees, subcommittees, and advisory panels--none of which have the

authority to take action to correct problems already identified--an effec-

tive overall national weather modification research program has not been

established.

We noted that research efforts to date have achieved some beneficial

results. Individual agency programs have moved forward in several re-

search areas, but panels, committees,

and study groups have characterized

results more as slow clarifications of concepts rather than as dramatic new

discoveries.

There has also been some progress in developing better methods for

coordinating weather modification research, although the results have

been somewhat disappointing. A recent attempt to achieve a national

effort in one research area--the National Hail Research Experiment--

in which several agencies’ talents and resources would be pulled together

under the direction of a single organization has not been as effective as

anticipated.

Although several interested agencies initially expressed a

desire to participate, they later withdrew or reduced participation due to

limited funding or higher priority mission-oriented efforts.

(See p. 18. )

If potential benefits of weather modification research are to be ob-

tained, action should be taken now to establish an effective national pro-

gram with all agencies involved required to work toward achieving

national goals and objectives.

3

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN

WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH

In fiscal year 1974 seven departments and agencies were involved

in weather modification research.

Many of the research efforts were

fragmented with as many as three or four departments and agencies

funding research prog:?ams in precipitation modification, fog and cloud

modification, lightning modification

, and inadvertent modification.

Much of the fragmentation came about during the late 1940s and

early 1950s when agencies were having little success in producing con-

clusive results in their weather modification programs. They believed

that more basic research was needed to fill information gaps. At that

same time, potential user agencies,

specifically the Department of

Agriculture’s Forest Service and the Department of the Interior’s

Bureau of Reclamation, were becoming interested in weather modifica-

tion as a tool to help accomplish their missions. Eventually, these

agencies, plus the others now involved, initiated their own mission-

related weather modification programs.

Planned fiscal year 1974 expenditures for weather modification

programs (about $17.4 million) are shown in figure 1.

(See p. 6. )

Program efforts are discussed in appendix I.

Since 1959 the following primary committees were established to

coordinate the programs of agencies involved in atmospheric sciences.

None of the committees have the authority, however, to direct these

agencies’ efforts.

Interdepartmental Committee

for Atmospheric Sciences

On recommendation of the President’s Science Advisory Committee,

* Executive Order 10807 established the Federal Council for Science and

Technology in March 1959 which consists of policy-level officials from

the Federal agencies principally involved in research and development

activities. The Council’s function is to provide for more effective plan-

ning and administration of scientific and technological programs, identifi-

cation of research needs, use of resources3 and international cooperation

in science and technology.

In August 1959, ICAS was established as a committee of the Council

to undertake studies and develop recommendations concerning the

--scope and balance of Federal agencies’ present and future activities

in the field of atmospheric research,

--needs and deficiencies of research programs,

--requirements for and use of specialized facilities,

4

--allocation of responsibilities among Federal agencies,

--effective coordination of agency programs,

--planning of future programs, and

--encouragement of nongovernmental participation in the field of

atmospheric sciences,

Its members, scientist-administrators from the Federal agencies

involved, meet monthly.

They make recommendations to the council

which, when endorsed, serve as guidelines for participating agencies’

budget submissions and as criteria for review by OMB and the Office

of Science and Technology. L/

Federal Committee for Meteorological

Services and Supporting Research

In November 1963, OMB issued Circular A-62 ,entitled “Policies

and Procedures for the Coordination of Federal Meteorological Services”

which assigned to the Department of Commerce the responsibility to co-

ordinate meteorological services and the research necessary to support

them. Also, OMB directed Commerce to prepare a plan to integrate cur-

rent and future services and research consistent with the effective and

economical accomplishment of mission requirements. In response,

Commerce established the Federal Committee for Meteorological Serv-

ices and Supporting Research.

The Committee, composed generally of

members at the Assistant Secretary level representing the agencies

comprising ICAS, meets annually to review and validate the Federal plan.

National Advisory Committee on

Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

Public Law 92-125, approved August 16, 1971 (85 Stat. 344), estab-

lished NACOA which is made up of representatives appointed by the

President from industry, science,

and State and local governments.

NACOA is required to assess the status of marine and atmospheric

science programs and report annually to the President and the Congress.

OMB

OMB is responsible, by Executive Order 11541, issued July 1, 1970,

for promoting the development of agencies’ improved plans and organiza-

tion; assisting in the development of better interagency cooperation; and

l/ On January 26, 1973, the President transmitted to the Congress Re-

organization Plan No.

1 of 1973, which transferred all functions of

this Office to the Director, NSF. The reorganization, which abolished

the Office, took effect July 1, 1973.

5

FIGURE 1

PLANNED FEDERAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES IN WEATHER

MODIFICATION DURING FISCAL YEAR 1974

- __-___-__- (000

OMITTED) --mm_ w --_-__

Departments and agencies

National Science

Foundaticn

Commerce

Interior

Defense

Transportation

Agriculture

National Aeronautics

and Space

Administration

Totals

Total

$ 6,600

4,233

3,250

1,594

1,397

293

b50

$17,417

Precipitation

Hail

modification suppression

$ 450 $3,250

840

2,400

$3,690

$3,250

$2,912

Inadvertent

modification

$ 700

908

1,304

aOther represents research efforts related to mathematical modeling; social,

economic, legal,

and ecological studies;

and support and services.

bThe administration in reporting its atmospheric science activities to ICAS

did not

classify any

research as weather modification; however, the

administration considers $50,000 of dynamic meteorology as

appli&ble to

weather modification.

Source :

ICAS Report 17-FY74 (Issued May 1973)

Fog and

Hurricane

cloud and severe Lightning Other

modification

storm modification modification

(note a)

$ 800

1,534

93

b50

$2,477

$1,548

$653

$300 $1,100

937 *

850

60

293

$2,887

7

evaluating programs for the assessment of objectives, performance, and

efficiency. An OMB representative sits as an official observer on ICAS

and the Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting

Research.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON

WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES

The spread of private weather modification activity in the United

States in‘the late 1940s and early 1950s raised concern in the Congress

about the usefulness and effectiveness of this new technology. The Con-

gress, through Public Law 83-256, approved August 13, 1953, established

an Advisory Committee on Weather Control. The Committee was required

to study and evaluate’public and private experiments in weather control

and determine the extent to which the United States should experiment with,

engage in, or regulate activities designed to control weather conditions.

Its report, issued in 1957, was modestly favorable on the potentials of

weather modification and recommended further research.

In following up on the report recommendations, the Congress enacted

Public Law 85-510, approved July 11, 1958, which authorized and directed

NSF to initiate and support a program of study, research, and evaluation

in the field of weather modification, and to report annually to the President

and the Congress. In addition to establishing weather modification as one

of its research programs, NSF also required all commercial and private

weather modifiers to maintain records and submit reports on their activi-

ties o

In 1968 NSF’s authority under Public Law 85-510 was repealed, ap-

parently on the assutnption that it would be reassigned to some other

agency during the same congressional session. However, no other author-

izing law was passed until Public Law 92-205 was enacted on December 18,

1971. This law required that all nonfederally sponsored weather modifica-

tion be reported to the Secretary of Commerce.

$ince 1966 the Congress has considered several bills concerning the

assignment of individual agency authority and responsibility for weather

modification and one to prohibit weather modification anywhere in the

Nation. None of these bills were passed.

INDEPENDENT STUDIES EVALUATING

ESEARCH

For nearly a decade a number of scientific panels, committees,

and other groups have reviewed, evaluated, and reported on the status

of and problems associated with Government atmospheric sciences pro-

grams q In nearly every case the reports, including the most recent is-

sued June 29, 1973, by NACOA have not only cited a need for a national

program with centralized, single agency responsibility, authority, and

control, but also highlighted problems in coordinating multiagency ac-

tivities and the lack of progress because of fragmented and subcritical

research programs. Several of these reports are discussed below.

8

“Government Weather Programs (Military

and Clvlllan Operations and Research)”

This report, issued in 1965, was prepared by the Military Opera=-

tions Subcommittee under the direction of the Chairman, House Commit-

tee on Government Operations. Its purpose was to inform the Congress,

executive branch agencies, scientific and technical communities, and

the general public about the scope and complexities of governmental

programs related to weather services and research in the atmospheric

sciences.

The report noted that the Congress is familiar with the difficulties

of achieving efficient coordination of programs, but multiagency programs

present special problems. It stated that:

“Each agency that carries on only part of a Government research

program has a difficult task to justify its own particular opera-

tions, but it is also hard put to avoid actual duplication of work

due to overlapping or parallel activities of other participating

agencies .

The coordination which can be accomplished by each

agency to avoid this is laborious and limited. And while the

agencies may be conscientious in trying to avoid waste, they are

charged with specific missions.

“Coordination among agencies or bureaus of each executive de-

partment is difficult enough, but a field such as the one discussed

in this report includes participation not only by several Cabinet

departments, but by independent agencies and offices. The

weather activities carried on by each may touch the major mission

responsibilities of the agency, even though these activities are

only a small part of its total effort. If missions are affected,

the agency must strike a balance between insuring, as far as it

can, that its work goes ahead successfully, and sharing the pro-

gram area with other interested agencies.

“Within the executive branch, the Bureau of the Budget [now

OMB], the Office of Science and Technology, the Federal Council

for Science and Technology, and similar groups may try to pre-

pare a more unified ‘program package’ in an area such as weather

research, But short of a Presidential directive to do so, these

offices cannot continually monitor particular programs, and they

obviously cannot give full-time attention.to all programs at once.

“The problem lies in finding economical means for continuous

coordination among agencies.

Committees, boards, panels, and

groups may be formed, but a solution to policy problems, it is

frequently said, is not found by forming a committee. Besides,

what can be done to force agencies, particularly executive de-

partments, to comply with committee recommendations, when

departmental missions appear to conflict with generalized in-

terdepartmentally agreed policy? ”

9

The report noted a large Federal funding for atmospheric sciences

research and meteorological services and that problems of administra-

tion, coordination, and financial control of the multiagency programs were

becoming increasingly apparent. It raised a series of questions in 18 sub-

ject areas of potential congressional concern, such as national programs,

Federal coordination, and fragmentation of atmospheric sciences re-

search and meteorological services.

“Weather and Climate Modification -

Report of the Special Commission on

Weather Modification”

Also in 1965 a Special Commission on Weather Modification, authorized

by the National Science Board, issued its report to the Director, NSF.

The Commission, consisting of members primarily from the academic

community, had been requested to examine the physical, biological, legal,

social, and political aspects of weather modification and make recommen-

dations for future policies and programs.

In commenting on how Federal weather modification activities are

administered, the Commission identified duplication in research activi-

ties and coordination responsibilities as problem areas. The report

stated that, with more agencies in weather modification research, there

is a need to establish a Federal organization to accomplish what cannot

be done by diverse research activities. The Commission said that, as

long as weather modification activities were mainly basic research, du-

plication was not a major problem, but certain aspects had reached the

applied research and operations phase and regulatory activity was not

far away. It also. said, because no single agency has been assigned

the responsibility for developing the technology of weather modification,

a definite need to do so existed.

The Commission recommended that the Office of Science and

Technology establish

II:)( *

::<a special mechanism for the coordination of weather and

climate modification programs and for recommending such steps

as may be ap,propriate for effecting a uni@ of governmental policy

in this field.

Also, it recommended that the mission of developing and testing methods

for modifying the weather should be assigned to one agency in the execu-

tive branch to correct overlap and lack of concerted effort among the

various agencies.

“Weather and Climate Modification

Problems and Prosnects”

The Committee on Atmospheric Sciences published this report to the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in 1966.

It was the result of a 2-

year study by a panel of the Committee which reviewed the present status

and activities in this field and its potential and limits for the future.

10

The panel identified four problem areas in administration and

management of weather modification.activities.

1. The level of effort was not commensurate with the demonstrated

opportunities for further research likely to have early practical

implications.

\

2. The major portion of research resources (money and manpower)

was being dissipated by supporting subcritical efforts.

3. Scientific groups were severely hampered by lack of a central

management organization with authority and skill to consummate

interagency negotiations and operations.

4. ICAS, which in principle has responsibility for coordinating ef-

forts in weather modification, has no power to initiate action

within any agency.

The panel concluded that: .

--The present support and administrative mechanisms do not

provide adequate means for setting priorities among the many

large field experiments and projects that will eventually be

needed.

--The present fragmentation of effort in weather modification re-

search and development is unusual in that many of the fragments

are below critical size or quality needed for effective work.

--Major responsibility for weather modification should be centered

in a single agency.

“Weather-Modification Progress and

the Need for Interactive Research”

This report, published in October 1968, was prepared by the Weather

Modification Research Project Staff, Rand Corporation, under a contract

with NSF. The report concluded:

“The structure of the national weather-modification program has

not--in one vital respect --been strengthened since the time of our

previous study in 1962. We referred to the specific weakness then

as a lack of a ‘cohesive’ approach to weather modification. The NAS

Panel on Weather and Climate Modification in 1966 called the same

problem a ‘fragmentation of effort. ’ We reiterate it now in terms

of the need for more ‘interactive research’. ”

“In 1962 we have concluded, and again in 1968 we are forced

to conclude, that the subject of weather modification could

11

benefit, probably greatly, by a more directive program in which

theoreticians as well as experimentalists are guided, toward a

common and mutually supporting set of goals * Q :k.

The report recommended establishing a weather modification re-

search organization,

either by creating a new organization or by strongly

augmenting any of several existing groups, to apply all possible advances

in atmospheric science and engineering competence to the design of re-

search and experimental programs in weather modification.

“The Atmospheric Sciences

and Man’s Needs”

In 1971 the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, NAS, issued

another report which stated that:

“*< * ‘#determination of priorities for investment in atmospheric

research and its application has become extremely difficult.

Resources are not adequate to support all scientifically valid

and useful programs.

* :k ,k Priorities will have to be determined. ”

* #< #< 4:

*

“* * *FCST [Federal Council for Science. and Technology] and

ICAS have not been able to develop an integrated national pro-

gram in weather modification. Individual agency programs

1

have been subcritical in size and research capability. ICAS

has no authority to consolidate or to modify agency programs;

and, most important, ICAS is not able itself to mount research

efforts, no matter how badly needed they may be. Agency initia-

tives at the scientist level, even though endorsed by ICAS, may

not be approved by agency administrators; and agencies may

launch major programs without ICAS endorsement. The result

has been that in important respects the national effort in weather

modification has been largely dissipated in submarginal projects,

while crucial problems requiring large programs remain unsolved. ”

In considering how to best solve this problem, the report noted

the following.

--Responsibility for research in weather modification must be

closely associated with responsibility for research in the at-

mospheric sciences generally.

--National policy in weather modification must be based on full

consideration of relevant economic, social, ecological, and

legal factors, as well as scientific and technical factors.

The report concluded that a suitable administrative solution con-

sistent with these requirements would be to make a single agency re-

sponsible for research in weather modification and for coordinating

major field programs.

First and second annual reports--National

Advisorv Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere

NACOA’s first annual report was issued on June 30, 1972. Concern-

ing ongoing national projects in weather modification, such as the voluntary

combinations of several Federal agencies’ resources the report stated:

II

a; 4:

+Thorough agency funding for weather modification has

lately been increased- -

in the last 2 years from $16 million

(FY ’ 71) to $20 million (FY ‘72 Estimate) to $25 million

(FY ‘73 Budget)--the projects have characteristically been

inadequately coordinated, underfunded through fragmenta-

tion, often not backed by basic research, and undertaken with

obsolete equipment. This is not a criticism of any specific

project, but of the lack of central planning and execution. ”

“In almost every case the field programs are restricted by

limited resources of one kind or another to the point where

the programs are suboptimal and progress has been at a

snail’s pace. ”

“What is lacking is a central focus for the overall effort.

:: :k :k[Th

ere is the need to have a single Federal agency re-

]

sponsible for taking the lead in development of the technology

of the overall program. The present fragmented approach is

moving the country ahead in weather modification in an erratic

fashion. ”

NACOA’s second annual report was issued on June 29, 1973.

The report repeated its previous year’s recommendation that the small

weather modification research programs scattered widely through the

Federal agencies be coordinated and provided with a central focus.

The report stated:

11

::: $6

*What NACOA found lacking is a central strategy for the

overall research effort, 2: ,k * We had recommended increas-

ing the NOAA lead role because it possessed the bulk of the

capabilities required. We regret to note that this has not

taken place, and further, that a step has been taken in the oppo-

site direction--the assignment of lead responsibility for pre-

cipitation enhancement was transferred from NOAA in Com-

merce to the Bureau of Reclamation in Interior. ”

“JI: :b *the dispersive forces serving to fragment the program are

strong. We feel that a formal lead agency assignment is desirable

and that NOAA is the appropriate candidate. + :b >k”

13

The Committee’s annual reports are submitted to the Secretary

of Commerce who, within 90 days of receipt, transmits copies to the

President and the Congress,

with his comments and recommendations.

In his comments on the first annual report the Secretary agreed

with the recommendation to establish a central focus in the Government

for carrying out research and development in all phases of weather

modification. However, he stated that it would be unwise to divorce

the necessary supporting research, required for the application of

weather modification techniques, from the agency responsible for such

application. The Secretary,

in commenting on the second annual report,

said that Commerce interpreted the Committee’s advice as not preclud-

ing agencies’ need from carrying out operational and research activities

closely related to their missions.

He also commented that one of the

benefits of establishing the proposed Department of Energy and Natural

Resources will be to permit new opportunities for more effective plan-

ning and coordination and management of “weather modification activi-

ties. See page 23 for our comments on the proposed new Department,

“Weather and Climate Modification

Problems and Progress

II

This 1973 NAS report was a followup of the 1966 NAS report to

determine weather modification progress since the earlier study. The

report reaffirmed the earlier conclusion that a single agency should be

responsible for weather modification. It stated that:

1 I * .I. .t.

q. q-Finally there is a function to be provided by an agency

that has the scientific and management competence, the dedi-

cation, and the resources to make the national goals cited

earlier an integral part of its basic mission. It is precisely

this function that has been conspicuously absent in the Federal

government and is an important reason that progress has not

been more rapid. ”

“,k ‘k *<The responsibilities of these various agencies in the field

of weather modification research need to be defined more care-

fully. A recent effort at defining these responsibilities was made

by ICAS in proposing to the Federal Council of Science and Tech-

nology steps to ‘accelerate progress in weather modification. ’

Amore definitive specification is needed, combining both respon-

sibility and authority to develop a national program in which

basic, applied, and experimental efforts are carried out in an

integrated manner.

“With due consideration to the missions of the several agencies,

their capabilities for supporting research in weather modification

and their present activities in the field, we recommend that the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration be assigned

14

principal administrative responsibility for a national program

in weather modification. gc ‘g :g”

The report also stated that many weather modification projects

still remain below critical size, which also was one of the conclusions

of the 1966 report.

The 1973 report stated:

“In 1966”the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification noted

with concern that a major portion of the research resources in

weather modification, both money and manpower, was being

inefficiently used in the support of subcritical efforts. The

same situation holds today. $6 + + No single agency has primary

responsibility at the present time. The special role assigned

to the NSF in this field has been removed from it as.a result of

legislation. The ICAS continues to provide communication among

scientists and government. In principle, this body has the re-

sponsibility for coordinating efforts in weather modification.

However, any agency can bypass the Committee if it so wishes,

since no interdepartmental committee has the power to initiate

action within a given agency. ”

15

ICAS EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL PROGRAMS

In 1966 and again in1971, ICAS tried to establish national programs

in weather modification. Both efforts were unsuccessful because ICAS

lacked authority to direct agency involvement in coordinated programs and

because mission-oriented agencies had higher priorities.

In March 1966, the Federal Council for Science and Technology asked

ICAS to prepare a report on the division of weather modification research

responsibilities. The resulting report entitled “A Recommended National

Program in Weather Modification” was issued in November 1966.

This report evaluated weather modification program plans, budgets,

schedules, staffing, facility construction, and operations of four agencies.

Increased funding levels were recommended but never obtained by agen-

cies. Recommendations that a single agency assume responsibility for

developing a well rounded national weather ,modification program, that the

Federal Coordinator be assigned the coordinating and reporting responsi-

bility for weather modification, and that Interior and NOAA collaborate on

a precipitation modification project were never carried out.

In 1969 the Council again asked ICAS to develop a national weather

modification program., The resulting report entitled “A National Program

for Accelerating Progress in Weather Modification” was issued in June

1971.

The report concluded that, although weather modification had pro-

gressed through the efforts of small and occasionally independent groupsI

progress could be accelerated by making it easier for these groups to

bring together their skills, resources, and mutual interests under an inter-

disciplinary multiagency approach. It suggested that national projects be

established, designating the agency currently performing the major effort in

each project as lead agency; that is, the agency responsible for planning

and managing the proposed project. Other agencies with similar programs

. or interests were to participate with the lead agency.

Figure 2 on page 16

shows the projects proposed and the designated lead and participating agen-

cies.

In addition, the report recommended that each lead agency create a

coordinating committee composed of representatives from participating

agencies which would develop action plans and submit periodic progress

reports to ICAS.

Nearly a year after the June 1971 ICAS report we interviewed officials

from several of the lead agencies and were advised that, with one exception,

no plans had yet been made concerning coordinating committees. Conse-

quently, no action plans, multiagency participation, or coordination of proj-

ects had been developed.

The one exception, the National Hail Research

Experiment, a project for which NSF was the lead agency, needed no fur-

ther plans since it had an operating committee before the ICAS report was

issued.

16

FIGURE 2

PROJECTS AND RECOMMENDED INTERAGENCY

PmTS IN THt

I-AL

PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATING PROGRESS

IN -N

Other Federal

participants

Project

Colorado River Basin

Pilot

Project

National Hurricane

Modification

Project

National Project on

Lightning Suppression

National Project on

Precipitation

Augmentation from

,Cumulus Clouds

National

Hail Research

Experiment

National

Great Lakes

Project

National

Fog Modification

Project

Lead Agency

Interior, 3

Bureau of

Reclamation

Commerce,

National Oceanic &

Atmospheric

Administration

Agriculture,

Forest Service

Commerce,

National Oceanic &

Atmospheric

Administration

National

Science

Foundation

Commerce,

National Oceanic &

Atmospheric

Administration

Transportation,

Federal Aviation

Administration

17

x xx

x xx xx

xx

xx x

xxxx

x x

xxxx

xx

X

xx

X

xx

X

xx

X

xx

ICAS compiled the first progress reports in January 1973. Our re-

view of these reports showed the following:

--The National Hurricane Modification Project was continuing

with the Department of Defense and NOAA, although the

ICAS report suggested a total of seven participating Fed-

eral agencies.

The progress report noted that Defense had

informed NOAA that, for fiscal year 1974 and beyond, it

could support the project only as operational missions per-

mitted. Since Defense plans included no budgeted funds for

support, NOAAwill be required to reimburse Defense (esti-

mated at over $1 million in fiscal year 19’74) for any costs in-

curred over those required for operational missions. The

general outlook for accelerating progress appeared poor.

(See app. III for additional NOAA comments. 1

--The National Lightning Suppression Project continued to be

carried out by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Serv-

ice, although the ICAS report suggested six additional partic-

ipants. No formal coordination committee had been

established, nor had the Forest Service received funding to

support the planning activities assigned. The progress report

stated that the major problem was the amount of funds the lead

agency received for the proper discharge of responsibilities

assigned. No new .funding was received in fiscal year 1973,

although a major funding increment will be required to validate

results of field experiments carried out in the mid-1960s.

--The ICAS report suggested participation of five other agencies

in NOAA’s National Project on Precipitation Augmentation from

Cumulus Clouds. The progress report stated, however, that the

project needed no formal interagency coordination since it had

been solely an NOAA project.

‘-The National Fog Modification Project had not established a Project

Coordinating Committee or set up a Project Action Plan. The

National Great Lakes Snow Redistribution Project progress re-

port stated formal interagency coordination has been unnecessary

as only NOAA and non-Federal agencies have been involved. The

National Colorado River Basin Pilot Project plans were reviewed

in a 1969 conference, but a continuing project coordinating com-

mittee had not yet been formed.

In April 1974 the Executive Secretary for ICAS said that, except for

the changes discussed below, the degree of interagency participation in

the national lead agency projects had not changed since the January 1973

progress reports.

The Department of Agriculture representative to ICAS advised the

Chairman, ICAS, on September 11, 1973, that it was withdrawing as lead

agency for the National Lightning Suppression Project because it had not

received enough funds to exercise the leadership responsibility. The

18

Director, Environmental Modification Office, NOAA, advised us in April

1974 that the National Great Lakes Snow Redistribution Project was ter-

minated in fiscal year 1973 because anticipated benefits were not being

realized, desirable weather to conduct the project did not develop, and

the project was not considered as a high priority.

ICAS apparently has had little or no impact in increasing coordination

and accelerating progress in weather modification research and there has

been little change in the way projects have been carried out.

PROBLEMS IN COORDINATING A NATIONAL PROGRAM--

?MEN

E

Since the Experiment was essentially organized to meet the objectives

of a well coordinated lead agency project, we examined planning documents

and agency participation in accomplishing the overall goals.

This project

was based on a plan prepared for NSF by the National Center for Atmos-

pheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, operating under NSF sponsorship.

The Experiment which started in the summer of 1972, will be con-

ducted in northeast Colorado over a 5-year period.

The plan of oper-

ation involves the use of instrumented aircraft, specially designed

radars, and other similar instrumentation. Storms will be monitored and

those that show evidence of hail will be seeded randomly.. The effect of

seeding will be observed and related to mathematical models which have

been proposed to explain hailstorm behavior. It is expected that these

observations will provide the data for developing a realistic model which

can be used to forecast hail and indicate how to suppress the growth of

large hailstones.

ICAS recognized that such an experiment was too big for a single

organization and that the effort should be a collaborative one.

There-

fore, it recommended NSF coordinate the expertise in various areas of

hail research from universities, government agencies, and private

sources. NSF authorized the National Center for Atmospheric Re-

search for this management responsibility. The total cost to NSF was

about $16.5 million.

The Experiment’s program plan for 1972 to 1976 and related planning

documents set out equipment and services required and planned to be

provided by the National Center, universities and private research

groups, and the five Federal agencies designated to participate with the

National Center (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Trans-

portation, and Defense --Army, Navy, and Air Force--and the Atomic

Energy Commission).

The plans proposed that the activities of the

universities and private research groups would be funded through the

National Center’s hail project office with NSF funds.

Federal agencies’

participation would be largely self- supporting.

Even though the Experiment was well planned, requiring extensive

interagency participation, we found, in comparing the planned efforts

19

with the actual efforts that, for the most part, agencies could not and

did not meet all their obligations.

Department of Agriculture

Plans called for contributions by Agriculture in the assessment of

crop damage from hail, and economic effects of hail suppression.

An Agriculture representative informed Experiment officials that

Agriculture intended to assess crop damage from hail but that there were

no funds to study the economic effects of hail suppression. NSF subse-

quently furnished funds to Agriculture to carry out this study.

The Experiment’s plan noted that, because electrical forces in the

atmosphere influence precipitation formation, it was imperative that a

scientist with experience in field research be appointed full time to direct

and coordinate electrical studies. Although the Forest Service lightning

suppression group had experience in lightning measurement and evaluation

and had indicated a willingness to furnish such services, the Forest

Service subsequently stated:

“* * * our first obligation, the study of forest fires and the

consideration of the needs of forest managers, is so great

that we cannot accept with clear conscience the attractive

offer to actively participate * * *. ”

Department of Commerce, NOAA

Initial plans called for NOAA to furnish aircraft and radars and

establish and maintain a ground network of precipitation gauges, each

essential in carrying out the project’s objectives.

Aircraft

The plans called for use of three NOAA aircraft--a WB-57 and two

DC-G’s--for each summer during the 5-year period. The aircraft were

to be used for observing the motion, temperature, and humidity fields

environmental to the storms. However, during the field testing in

1971, the NOAA Administrator noted that, due to conflicts with other

programs and limited funding, only one DC-6 could be made available

at that time and that NOAA was reluctant to promise any improvement

for 1972 and beyond until the funding and other requirements for air-

craft were known.

Radars

Plans called for two 3-cm Doppler radars to be furnished to aug-

ment aircraft measurements of air motion below the cloud base. The

only feasible means for obtaining this data was the dual Doppler radar

system developed at NOAA. However, an Experiment official said both

units had been committed to use by a NOAA laboratory on other programs

and would probably not be available for the Experiment.

20

Ground network

NOAA initially agreed to supply the survey teams necessary to main-

tain and read the ground network stations. However, this could be accom-

plished only through NSF financial support.

For the 1972 program NCAA

submitted a proposal to NSF for about $100,090 to fund this work.

Since

NSF had planned to give only about $50,000, NSF had to cancel certain

other items in the program plans.

Department of Defense

Helicopters

The Army was to provide two helicopters to maintain the extensive

ground networks and collect hail samples.

However, none were fur-

nished. An Experiment official told us that the Army offered one heli-

copter for use during the 1972 operation but it was turned down because

funding would have been too expensive.

Radiosonde stations

The plans called for four radiosonde stations to obtain data on tem-

perature, humidity, and winds at frequent intervals in the atomosphere

of the experimental area during the development and life of the storms.

The Army and Air Force were to provide personnel and equipment nec-

essary to man two stations each.

However, because of a severe re-

duction in personneL the Army was unable to support the 1972 operation,

The Air Force subsequently furnished support for all the stations but

advised officials that it was also experiencing personnel reductions which

would likely eliminate its capability to support the program in 1973 and

beyond.

Atomic Ener Commission

The Commission planned to conduct tracer studies and hailstone meas-

urements, but its participation was conditional upon the availability of fu-

ture funds.

NSF funded the tracer studies, which were conducted during

the 1972 summer project.

The Experiment t s Acting Deputy Director

told us the Commission requested funding from the National Center for

the 1973 summer project but, because the National Center did not have

adequate funds, the tracer studies were not conducted.

Department of Transportation

The plans called for Transportation to provide flight control per-

sonnel. Three air traffic controllers participated in the 1972 field proj-

ect.

21

In most of the cases noted above, the Experiment’s Director ad-

vised NSF of the problems in participation and funding.

The ICAS chair-

man was asked to get firm commitments from respective departments

and agencies.

In nearly every case, the agencies cited personnel re-

ductions, limited funding, or mission-oriented research as the pri-

mary reason for nonparticipation. The ‘Deputy Director, citing NOAA

as an example, stated that planning is very difficult because it is

never known until the last minute whether agencies can participate

during each project year’. (See pages 27 and 28’for additional comments

on the Experiment. )

.

22

CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSIONS, AGENCY COMMENTS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

A national program in weather modification research is necessary

to effectively control activities of the agencies involved. Although this

need was recognized as early as 196*6, the organizations established

to coordinate these activities have not developed and implemented an

effective overall national program. Although coordinating groups have

tried to develop national programs, their implementation has not been

successful. The present fragmentation of research efforts has made

it extremely difficult for agencies to conduct effective field research

which, in the case of weather modification, must precede operational

activities.

If and when the results achieved from the weather modification

research programs are ready to be applied on an operational basis8

the various mission-oriented agencies will be responsible for making

decisions. Procedures will be needed for insuring that operational

programs conform to the public interest in every way--scientifically,

socially, ecologically, economically, and legally. Before programs

become operational agencies must insure that all effects of the opera-

tion are known within reasonable limits, all affected parties are

represented in the decisionmaking process, and adequate provision

is made for liability in case of damages. The state of the art with

the present fragmented and subcritical programs spread throughout

many agencies, each with its own mission-oriented research effort,

has not progressed sufficiently to achieve these requirements.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

In making our findings available to several Federal agencies for

review and comment, we suggested that OMB develop and maintain

(1) a national weather modification research program with goals,

objectives, priorities, and milestones, (2) appropriate plans to

define responsibilities of all Federal agencies involved in weather

modification research, and (3) plans to allocate resources to the

national program elements.

While most agency comments acknowledged the administrative

and management problems stated in our report, they were not con-

sistent in agreeing on what actions, if any, should be taken to re-

solve the problems. Their specific agency comments on our findings

and recommendations follow.

23

Consolidation of Research Efforts

Commerce

The Department agreed with our concI.usions and recommendations

and commented that a proposals to establish a artment of Energy

and Natural Resources would bring together many of the widely scattered

elements in Federal weather modification programs.

Transportation

“* * &‘We believe some consoI.idation of weather modification

is desirable, but would not necessarily conclude that all such

research should be concentrated, or that a lead agency

approach for all generic weather modification is preferable. ”

OMB

.

“We view weather modification research not as a panacea

but as an option, a possible means not as an end. + ‘k *<We

believe the mission agencies rather than a single centralized

agency should conduct the type of research activities they

believe most suited to the national problems faced by them.

Consequently, we, believe that some consolidation of weather

modification is desirablexc :k *the DENR [Department of

Energy and Natural Resources] proposal will accomplish the

appropriate degree of consoI.idation. ”

GAO evaluation

Regarding the consolidation of weather modification research

activities, Senate bill 2135 and House bill 9099 would transfer to the

proposed Department of Energy and Natural Resources the pro-

+ grams of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior;

NOAA; and the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

While the proposed reorganization plan should provide the

opportunity for the new Department to more effectively manage

the research efforts of these three agencies, we believe the problems

in administration and management, such as funding competition and

lack of interagency cooperation in participating projects, would con-

tinue because a national weather modification program would not

exist.

Senate bill 2135 and Bouse bill 9090 were introduced on July IO,

1973, and on June 29, 1973, respectively., and referred to their Com-

mittees on Government Operations. As of July 1, 1974, the bills

were with the Committees and were not under active konsideration.

24

A national program for

weather modification

Agriculture

“>k * *The difficulty with developing any overall national

program direction is that the Federal agencies involved

in weather modification have specific mission require-

ments that dictate particular research and development

needs for weather modification technology. Agencies

request their * < 4~ * funds, and Congress appropriates

the money, on the basis that a specific mission re-

quirement will be satisfied * * *. I would not wish to

defend a budget request on the basis that it enabled us

to participate in a national weather modification pro-

gram.

* * *I’

Defense

“5 * *Such a ‘national program’ could place an execu-

tive department or agency in the untenable position of

being directed to allocate its resources to national

program requirements. * * *executive departments

can ill afford ,to have their programs directed by, or

priorities established by, another government agency. ”

GAO evaluation

In our opinion, these comments highlight a major problem with

the current fragmented Federal organization for weather modifica-

tion research and the national projects established by ICAS--namely,

weather modification activities must compete with an agency’s mis-

sion priorities for funding and do not have the opportunity to compete

against one another to establish national weather modification research

priorities.

We would not expect that developing and implementing a nati,onal

program would force agencies to carry out research totally unrelated

to their missions.

The ,agency designated to administer the national

program should coordinate its funding requests for weather modifica-

tion research with budget requests of other agencies and, when ap-

propriate, could allocate its resources to other agencies for perform-

ing research.

In those instances where a major aspect of an agency’s mission-

related research is not consonant with the objectives and priorities of

the national program, the agency would have the opportunity to justify

its particular needs through OMB’s budget process.

We think that in

most situations the need to do so would probably not happen since all

agencies involved in weather modification would be involved with OMB

in establishing the objectives and priorities of the national program.

25

Lead agency responsibility

Defense, Interior, and OMB

These agencies commented that, because weather modification re-

search projects are significantly different in nature and technology,

it would be difficult to proceed under the direction of a single agency.

For example, Interior said equipment and techniques, atmospheric

data and models, decisionmaking processes, types of people and

environment involved, and basic hypotheses are significantly dif-

ferent. In essence, this positian supported ICAS’ recommendation

to continue with lead agencies for specific types of weather modifi-

cation research.

GAO evaluation

ICAS recognized that an interdisciplinary multiagency approach

would be necessary to accelerate progress in each project.

As

stated earlier, the designated lead agency has not always received

agencies’ participation and, in general, the national research proj-

ects showed little progress.

One reason for the lack of multiagency

participation in the projects is that weather modification research

is not a high priority in an agency’s mission.

In our opinion, a

national lead agency authorized to establish priorities and allocate

resources would resolve the administration and management prob-

lems of national lead agency projects.

Regarding the differences in nature and technology of weather

modification research projects, we assume a national lead agency

would use the available expertise within Federal agencies in effec-

tively managing a national program,

Status of weather modification research

NSF and OMB

These agencies commented that present weather modification

activities are not sufficiently supported by scientific understanding

and that a national weather modification research program would put

undue emphasis on a technology that is mainly in the research stage.

GAO evaluation

We agree that weather modification activities should be supported

by sound scientific understanding. However, a national program that

would accelerate progress in weather modification research is not

inconsistent with attaining greater knowledge.

NAS, in its 1973 report,

“Weather & Climate Modification Problems

and Progress, ” stated:

I’* xc *we still do not know, with a satisfactory degree of

confidence, the precise meteorological conditions under

26

which it is possible to increase, decrease, or redistribute

precipitation, what measures might be taken to mitigate

the damaging effects of severe storms, or to what extent

man is changing the climate of his cities and of his planet.

This situation is likely to persist unless stronger and more

unified federal programs are developed. ”

Weather modification coordination

and priorities.

Agriculture, Defense, and OMB

Defense and OMB commented that weather modification research

is well coordinated by ICAS. It meets monthly and provides members

and observers the opportunity to exchange information. Agriculture

noted several examples of interagency cooperation in the exchange of

computer models and equipment.

GAO evaluation

We agree that ICAS provides an excellent opportunity to meet and

exchange information.

However, lacking any type of directive authority,

its efforts to coordinate weather modification research programs through

interagency participation have had little success. For example, the

ICAS recommendation to create a coordination committee for each of

the national projects has, with one exception, never been implemented.

The exception, the National Hail Research Experiment, already had a

coordination committee. Effective coordination with positive results

is very difficult to attain by only meeting and exchanging information.

It also involves, as ICAS recommended, active interagency participa-

tion in the designated national projects.

Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and OMB

Agriculture further stated that its lightning research program had

been underfunded for some time and that its funding was totally inade-

quate to discharge the leadership role suggested by ICAS. The major

problem cited was the competition of funding priorities of weather modi-

fication research with other mission-oriented research.

Defense stated that its commitments to support cooperative pilot

projects have always been contingent on the availability of resources.

Resources and programs are mission-oriented, and funding is justified

on that basis. It contended that, in allocating resources for coopera-

tive national pr ogr amso it was evident such allocation had competed

successfully with that of other Defense internal programs.

Interior stated that less than full interagency participation in ICAS

efforts has been due primarily to financial and scientific reasons rather

than a lack of organization or cooperation. It contended that implemen-

tation of ICAS recommendations primarily depends on adequate funding.

OMB stated that, to imply that project budgets are subcritical or

to support citations to that effect, is a rather narrow view. It noted

27

that, where project budgets were reduced to accommodate other goals,

weather modification research could be considered a lower priority.

GAO evaluation

The designation of lead and participating agencies on the national

projects recommended by ICAS was a recognition that current pro-

grams were subcritical. The ICAS report noted that current projects

consisted of small and occasionally independent groups and concluded

that progress could be accelerated under a multiagency approach.

Since both Agriculture and Commerce have labeled their own programs

as subcritical we do not consider our support of these statements as

a narrow view.

While Defense contends it has been successful in allocating re-

sources to national programs,

our report shows it limited its participa-

tion in the Experiment and withdrew support on the National Hurricane

Modification Project.

In our opinion it is unrealistic to assume that adequate funding

will solve the current problems in implementing a national program.

Requirements still need to be recognized, priorities established, and

resources allocated to the most beneficial programs.

Relative priority of weather modification

NSF

NSF said it was prepared to believe that developing weather modi-

fication is a valuable national asset; however, neither the report nor

any of the studies cited were able to establish clearly the priority of

this national need.

GAO evaluation

Our report and the other studies were not intended to assess the

weather modification research priority status as it relates to other

societal needs. However, we would expect that such assessment would

be a major objective in .developing a national program so that its priority

could be realistically evaluated among competing national needs.

National Hail Research Experiment

NSF

NSF stated that the Experiment has achieved excellent progress.

The project director reported cooperation among participating organi-

zations. Many items discussed in the report were minor and have

been overcome. The only impediment has been the lack of sufficient,

suitable conditions which produce hail clouds. NSF commented that

the report overlooked the basic fundamental mechanism for establish-

ing coordination in multiagency programs--to centralize the flow of

funds. Had NSF been given the funds to subcontract for essential

28

services to other agencies, coordination problems would not have

occurred.

GAO evaluation

We subsequently contacted the Acting Deputy Director of the

Experiment to determine the status of and participation of agencies

in the most recent operating season (summer 1973) and found the

following.

.

NOAA was able to furnish the Doppler radars for the first

time, but could not furnish any aircraft in that period or for the

remainder of the Experiment.

Also, by mutual agreement, fiOAA

no longer participates in the operation of the ground network.

It

has requested funding from the Experiment for its Doppler radar

participation in the 1974 season. Because of its importance to the

program, the Experiment expects to fund this effort.

The Naval Electronics Laboratory Center took on the electrical

studies in 1972 after Agriculture withdrew but advised that, for 1973,

it could only fund projects that were directly oriented to purposes of

the fleet. However, there would be no problem if outside support

from the Experiment was obtained, The Experiment’s Acting Deputy

Director advised us that the Experiment was not able to furnish fund-

ing for 1973 and it is unlikely it could in future years.

Because of the foregoing, important seganents of research were

lost for 1973, and probably for the remainder of the Experiment.

Initial plans designated NOAA’s aircraft as critical for midlevel cloud

exterior measurements. Also, the initial plans concluded that elec-

trical effects were such an important part of the Experiment that it

was imperative to make this a part of the program during the duration

of the project.

In our opinion each operational season has had, and probably

will continue to have, problems with commitments from participating

agencies unless the organizational structure is changed, We agree

that centralized funding would tend to eliminate problems and believe

that, if a lead agency were managing a national program, such fund-

ing could be used.

The agency comments, in our opinion, further support the need

for a national program by their acknowledgment of limited scientific

understanding of weather modification activities and the recognition

that progress is being hampered by the current fragmented Federal

organization structure.

Although some agencies implied or stated

that additional funding would accelerate progress, we believe that

a national program would more effectively do so by clearly establish-

ing national priorities and making more beneficial use of existing

resources.

29

RECOMMENDATIONS

GAO recommends that OMB should, in cooperation with the

Federal departments and agencies involved in weather modification

research:

--Develop a national program with goals, objectives, priorities,

and milestones, designating one of the agencies, which would

have a major program responsibility, to administer and main-

tain the national program.

--Develop a plan to define and reassign, if appropriate, the

responsibilities of Federal departments and agencies providing

support or conducting weather modification research.

--Develop a plan to allocate resources to the national program

elements.

30

I .- -4 w

APPENDIX I

WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRA&

AND FEDERAL PARTICIPANTS n\J FISCAL YEAR 1974

Most weather modification field research experiments are based

on:

--Development and use of seeding material, such as silver iodide

which is the most common.

--Acquisition and use of delivery systems to place the seeding

material into the’ cloud.

--Development and use of measuring equipment and devices to

determine the physical characteristics (temperature, pressure,

humidity, wind velocity, etc, ) in the cloud and atmosphere be-

fore, during, and after seeding.

--Evaluation of data over a period of several seedings ‘or against

a predetermined model to determine success or results.

PRECIPATION MODIFICATION

”

The general purpose of precipitation modification research is to

study and develop techniques to manage and control rain or snow. Fed-

eral support for this research has been provided principally by the

Interior, Commerce, and NSF. Planned expenditures for fiscal year

1974 for these three agencies total $3,690,000.

Department of the Interior--$2,400,000

Interior has supported precipitation modification research since

1962 under.its Project Skywater which is administered by Interior’s

Bureau of Reclamation. Project Skywater’s principal objective is to

learn how to manage precipitation through cloud-seeding technology

to help meet the growing water needs in the western mountains and

the high plains regions of the United States.

Initially such seeding involved winter storm clouds only. On the

basis of field experiments on winter-storm cloud seeding in the western

United States, Interior has estimated that seasonal snowfall there can

be increased by 10 to 30 percent.

In fiscal year 1974, 11 such field

experiments will be concluded for the purpose of performing a com-

prehensive analysis of current research before continuing future

efforts.

Experiments involving seeding summer cumulus clouds under

Project Skywater started in 1965 in various western states. During

31

APPENDIX I

fiscal year 1974 Interior plans to begin the High Plains Cooperative

Program. This major program is intended to last 5 to 7 years and

will require joint funding by local and State groups and other agen-

cies. Program goals are to resolve remaining uncertainties in

summer cumulus cloud seeding and to establish by 1980 a working

technology capable of producing additional rain in the semiarid high

plains region.

Fiscal year 1974 plans call for continuing a joint effort with the

California Department of Water Resources for,planning and ecological

studies in the Central Sierra Mpuntains of California and Nevada to

aid in evaluating the effects of cloud-seeding activities.

Department of Commerce--$840,000

Commerce, through NOAA, supports research aimed at increas-

ing rainfall from tropical cumulus clouds. Experimental seedings

were conducted initially over the Caribbean Sea in 1963 and 1965.

Since 1968 such experiments have been conducted over Florida.

Experiments by NOAA’s Experimental Meteorology Laboratory

in seeding cumulus clouds in Southern Florida show a threefold in-

crease in precipitation. Other experiments indicate the possibility

of increased precipitation by stimulating the merger of two cumulus

cloud sys terns, The ultimate objective is to achieve technology

transfer of drought relief methods to. the State of Florida and other

regions with similar meteorological conditions.

Other activities involve the development of cloud models, in-

cluding cloud merger models and feasibility studies of precipitation

measurement by remote sensing techniques from existing satellites.

NSF--$450,000

NSF’s research is focused on improving knowledge of precipita-

tion mechanisms that are modified by artifical nucleation. Efforts

will center on the scientific interpretation of the results of other

agencies’ seeding programs. Emphasis will be placed on nucleation

mechanisms, nucleation efficiency, downwind effects, and the over-

ail microphysical and dynamic mechanisms involved in cloud-seeding

operations.

HAIL SUPPPRESSION

The purpose of hail suppression research is to develop techniques

to eliminate or reduce the size of hailstones to reduce the damage

potential.

ICAS recognized by 1969 that a large and long-term field experi-

ment was needed to achieve results in this area. It also recognized

that such an undertaking required more resources than would be

32

APPENDIX I

available to a single research group. It recommended establishing

a centrally directed, collaborative effort of the groups involved

in hail suppression research.

In 197 1 the many organizations conducting hailstorm research

were organized under the Experiment, a 5-year research program

in northeastern Colorado. Its aims are to understand the physics of

severe convective storms, assess the feasibility of suppressing hail

damage to crops, and exaruine the effect on society of conducting

an operational hail suppression program if an operational program

proves to be possible.

The Experiment is directed by the National Center for Atmospheric

Research, in Boulder, Colorado, with NSF providing substantially all

of .the funding. For fiscal year 1974, NSF estimates about $3,250,000

will be provided to the Center for conducting the third field year of

the Experiment. ’ The Experiment will continue its program to obtain

more adequate information on the dynamics and microphysics of

severe convective storms capable of generating damaging size hail-

stones.

Its objective is to develop a mathematical model which can

forecast hail growth conditions and indicate the most effective means

for suppressing large hailstone growth.

INADVERTENT MODTFICATION

This research involves monitoring of atmospheric constituents

and studies of their modifying influences on the weather. Federal

support for inadvertent modification research is provided by Trans-

portation, Commerce, and NSF. Planned expenditures for fiscal

year 1974 total $2, 912,000.

Department of Transportation- -$I, 304,000

Transportation is continuing the Climatic Impact Assessment

Program to assess the environmental and meteorological effects of the

projected world high-altitude aircraft fleet, including subsonic and

supersonic vehicles. The program is considering the interactions

between engine emissions exhausted into the upper atmosphere, the

natural composition of the stratosphere, and the dynamic processes

of the atmosphere. Transportation is also conducting studies to

I

evaluate and develop transportation system air pollution models to

describe the diffusion, transport, and chemical dynamics of air

pollutants near transportation-related sources.

Department of Commerce--$908,000

NOAA’s program called Global NfQnitoring of Climatic Change

has the objectives of establishing a comprehensive air quality base-

line monitoring network and being able to predict changes in climate

resulting from man’s activities. A baseline’ station at Pt. Barrow,

Alaska, is planned for full operation in fiscal year 1974. Preliminary

33

APPENDIX I

monitoring is being done at American Samoa in cooperation with the

National Center for Atmospheric Research,

During fiscal year 1974 limited solar radiation measurements

are planned at Antarctica and systems will be designed for new trace-

elements sampling along with .oceanographic measurements of tempera-

ture and salinity for use off the coast of Hawaii.

NSF--$700,000

Inadvertent weather modification research continues to focus on

project Metropolitan Meteorological Experiment in St. Louis which

is aimed at assessing urban impact on local weather patterns and the

identification of the responsible mechanisms. NSF will continue to

support data-gathering elements required for Metropolitan Meteoro-

logical Experiment objectives in the St. Louis area, such as the Illinois

State Water Survey, University of Chicago, and Stanford Research

Institute.

The possibility that urban and industrial pollution may tend to

deepen or prolong drought during times of atmospheric water defi-

ciencies will also be explored.

FOG AND CLOUD MODIFICATION

The principal objective of research in this area is to study and

develop methods to dissipate cold (under 0 degree Centigrade) and

warm (over 0 degree Centigrade) fogs. Four agencies are carrying

on research in this modification area with fiscal year 1974 planned

e~enditures totaling $2,477,000.

Department of Defense--$l, 534,000

Defense’s major point of attack is concentrated on warm fog

due to its frequent effects on almost all military operations whether

conducted in the air, on land, or at sea.

The Navy is intensifying its warm maritime fog investigations.

The Air Force’s plans for warm fog dispersal are concentrated on

the heated plume technique which includes redesign of burners,

studying the use of propane and natural gas, evaluating the first

year’s operational results of the French installation at Orly, and

preparing for advanced development of a warm fog dissipation

installation at Travis Air Force Base, California.

The Army is studying the warm fog life cycle to .determine how

it can be altered by helicopter downwash, hygroscopic materials,

and heat.

Dissipation of cold fogs was performed as an operational program

during the winter of 1970-71 at a number of air bases. These efforts

APPENDIX I

resulted in the successful completion of more than 500 takeoffs and

landings during fog conditions which would formerly have caused

suspension or curtailment of air operations.

NSF--$800,000

NSF’s research in this area is related to the application of basic

knowledge to explaining and predicting warm cloud precipitation

processes and the role of ice nucleation in cold cloud systems. -

Emphasis is to be placed on more accurate detection and measure-

ment of ice-forming nuclei involved in the atmospheric processes

and the development of new nucleating materials using more in-

expensive and available materials compatible with the balance of

nature.

Department of Transportation--$93,000

The Federal Aviation Administration will continue its research

to:

--Develop an economical operational ground based fog dispersal

system.

--Test the efficiency of biodegradable glycerine for fog dispersal

and develop treatment techniques.

--Nlonitor the development and operation of both foreign and

U.S. fog dispersal systems and exchange information in this

area.

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration- -$sO, 000

The agency supports fog modification studies for aeronautical

safety applications. The objective is to study the life cycle and micro-

physical properties of fog in order to develop techniques to dissipate

fog over and around airports and heliports.

HURRICANE AND SEVERE

The purpose of hurricane modification research is to determine

the extent to which hurricanes can be benefically modified.

Commerce

has conducted hurricane research since 1956 and between 1962 and

1972 under Project Stormfury, a joint project with Defense.

Field experiments made on four hurricanes--all on the Atlantic

Coast--between 1961 and 1971 indicated, in one case, that the destruc-

tive effects may be decreased.

According to Commerce, a decrease

in the wind velocity was noted after seeding Hurricane Debbie in 1969,

but the level of the decrease was within the range of natural variability of

hurricane winds and the results were therefore inconclusive.

35

APPENDUZ I

On the basis of the scarcity of storms acceptable for seeding

experiments in the Atlantic Ocean, the need for newer aircraft, and

Defense’s decision to participate only on a reimbursable basis> NOAA

discontinued field experiments of Project Stormfury until safe9 well

instrumented aircraft are available for operations in the Pacific Ocean

where storms acceptable for experimentation are more frequent. (See

page 43 for additional comments on Project Stormfury. )

Meanwhile other research activities will continue. These include

the possibility of moderating or modifying other types of severe storms,

such as thunderstorms, tornadoes, and east coast storms.

Planned expenditures for fiscal year 1974 amount to $1,548,000.

LIGHTNING MODIFICATION

The purpose of lightning modification research is to determine the

basic characteristics of fire-setting lightning storms and develop

techniques to suppress or modify lightning discharges. Lightning re-

search efforts are supported by Agriculture, Defense, and NSF.

Planned expenditures for fiscal year 1974 total $653,000.

NSF--$300,000

Most of NSF’s research in the modification of cloud electricity

is directed toward a study of the basic concepts, which relate cloud

electricity to precipitation, and the possibility of inducing or aug-

menting rainfall by electrical charge modification. Observations and

experiments are conducted from a mountain-top observatory and an

extensive network of ground sensors and radars in the vicinity of the

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in New Mexico.

Department of Agriculture--$293,000

Agriculture’s Forest Service lightning modification research was

started in 1953. Designated as Project Skyfire, it is the United States’

oldest continuously performed weather modification project. Objec-

tives of the project, which is located at the Northern Forest Fire

Laboratory, Missoula, Montana, is to test a hypothesis that the seed-

ing of northern Rocky Mountain thunderstorms with silver iodide can

significantly reduce cloud-to-ground lightning strokes which are

responsible for the majority of forest fires in the intermountain West,

A major effort of the fiscal year 1974 program will be planning

for full cooperation and participation in the lightning abatement

experiment to be carried out by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management

over interior Alaska.

36

APPENDIX I

Department of Defense- -$6 0,000

The Air Force will investigate electrical charges of cumulus

clouds to determine when and where they are most easily susceptible

to discharging.

OTHER

Other costs represent research efforts related to mathematical

modeling; social, economic, legal, and ecological studie.s; and support

and services. Planned expenditures for fiscal year 1974 total $2,887,000.

NSF--$l, 100,000

Mathematical modeling research in cloud dynamics and micro-

physics is conducted in universities and at the National Center for

Atmospheric Research to determine the mechanisms in severe storms

which cause the formation of hail, severe winds, and lightning.

In most instances, actual experimental data from real storms is

not available to critically test the validity of the devised models. Field

observations made during the Experiment and additional laboratory

data on microphysical and dynamic features of clouds will be used to

refine the models and test their accuracy in forecasting the results of

modification,

Studies involving the legal, social, and ecological aspects of

weather modification will be continued at universities and nonprofit

institutes. The social, legal, and economic studies of hail suppres- 1

sion will be incorporated into the Experiment’s progress reports and

will provide guidance to Federal, State, or municipal groups who plan

to engage in hail suppression on an operational basis.

Department of Commerce--$937,000

The NOAA Research Flight Facility provides aircraft support,

including seeding and airborne measurements, to all NOAA weather

modification activities.

Denartment of the Interior- -$850,000

General program support includes the continuation of the series

of Skywater Conferences&-seven have been held on specific problems--

and field support, including snow surveys, steam gauging, and silver

analyses.

Scientific and equipment assistance with access to the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Environmental Data Network will be provided to local-

and State-sponsored projects.

Three principal ecological studies- -San Juan Mountains of Colorado,

Great Plains, and Sierra Mountains of California--will continue in 1974.

37

APPENDIX II

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

Washington, D.C. 20250

4400 i*

r

Mr. Richard J. Woods, AD

Resources and Economics Development Division

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

L

AUG 23 1973

Dear Mr. Woods:

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft of

your report to Congress entitled “The Need for a National Program in

Weather Modification .Research.” In general, your report is a fair

and accurate description of the past and present Federal activities

in weather modification research. We noted, however, that your find-

ings tended to rely heavily on the series of past studies and reports

by various groups that were cited in your report. Most of these

implied or concluded that weather modification research in the Federal

Government was poorly coordinated, fragmented, and underfunded. In

each instance the conclusions of the study were that a “national

program” is needed and that more money ought to be spent in weather

modification research.

None of the reports, including your own GAO study, appears to have

identified any particular fault--lack of progress, for example--which

could be traced directly to any of the defects which the report finds.

Your report should provide more concrete evidence to substantiate the

charges that it makes. What specific deficiency did you find in the

output of the Nation’s weather modification research program?

Was the

output too small; was it trivial or lacking in scientific merit? To

label a program with terms such as “uncoordinated, fragmented, sub-

critical ,”

without citing meaningful concrete evidence for these

deficiencies raises questions regarding the validity of the findings.

Speaking for the Forest Service, I can agree that our lightning research

program has for some time been underfunded in terms of the opportunities

which our scientists see to advance the research at a faster pace and

to validate the developed technology in comprehensive field experiments.

Our funding is of course totally inadequate to discharge the leadership

role in the National Lightning Suppression Project assigned to us by

ICAS report 15-A. However, I cannot agree that our program is poorly

coordinated as I understand the meaning of that term. Incidentally,

there appears to be a tendency in your report to assign to “coordination”

38

APPENDIX II

a meaning which I associate with the words “integration, central

control and direction.” Our lightning research has been directed

at meeting our responsibility for protecting forests from fire.

We have not attempted to integrate our research with lightning

research programs of other agencies (NOAA, NASA, or DOD, for example)

whose missions and concerns regarding lightning phenomena are quite

different from our own.

We do collaborate and cooperate with sister

agencies in weather modification research and experiments where it

is of mutual benefit to do so. Recent examples of this cooperation

are :

The Forest Service lightning research personnel joined with

the Department of the Interior scientists in an experiment

to evaluate the efficacy of cloud seeding in suppressing

lightning fires over interior Alaska, from June to August,

1973.

Project Skyfire has made available its silver iodide generators

to the Bureau of Reclamation for use in the Bureau’s Skywater

project.

Project Skywater has provided Skyfire with computer models

for

use in simulating cloud behavi’or and testing cloud seeding

effects.

The Naval Weapons Center made available to Project Skyfire

silver iodide flares for use in its cloud seeding work.

These are but a few examples of the interagency cooperation that has

existed from time to time in the area of lightning research.

I am

told that similar collaboration exists between other Federal agencies

involved in weather modification research.

Your report makes much of the failure of agencies to actively partici-

pate in the field program of the National Hail Research Experiment

(NHRE) .

I agree that it is regretable that the Department of Agriculture

and others were not able to participate in NHRE, but in our case, we had

to decide whether the Forest Service weather modification scientists

would conduct the electrical measurements required by the NHRE program

in the experimental area in northeastern Colorado or go to Alaska to

work with the Bureau of Land Management in its program for suppressing

fire-starting lightning storms

over

Alaska wildlands. We concluded

that our work in Alaska was more important to the mission of the

Forest Service and directed that Skyfire undertake the Alaskan project

in 1973. I feel that GAO could easily have criticized our doing

otherwise.

In citing the lack of participation by some agencies in the National

Hail Research Experiment, you have come across a real problem in

39

.

APPENDIX II

making your national program concept work,

The difficulty with

developing any overall national program direction is that the Federal

agencies involved in weather modification have specific mission

requirements that dictate particular research and development needs

for weather modification technology, Agencies request their research

and development funds, and Congress appropriates the money, on the

basis that a specific agency mission requirement will be satisfied

through the conduct of the proposed R&D. The Forest Service would

not be able to present its budget requests before our congressional

committees on any other basis. Certainly I would not wish to defend

a budget request on the basis that it enabled us to participate in

a national weather modification program.

I doubt that many agency

heads would be so inclined.

Our review of the ICAS record over the past 10 years indicates that

that group has not been unmindful of the need to coordinate programs

and has devoted a great deal of attention to weather modification

research.

GAO note: Material has been deleted because of changes to the final

report.

I have no basis for judgment on the adequacy of the Nation’s overall

weather modification research, or whether anything at all is wrong

with the present program.

In our research, the problem is one of

funding priorities:

Weather modification research in the Forest

Service must compete for funds with research on such items as tree

genetics, entomology, forest pathology and others. I am sure that

other Federal agencies must make similar choices.

It is not clear

that the creation of a National program would relieve any of us of

the need for making those difficult decisions on the allocation of

research resources 0

Sincerely,

$z7G-A* 8l+vbL&

JOHN R. McGUIRE

Chief

40

APPENDIX III

UN~TEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

The Assistant

Secretary for Administration

Washington, DC. 20230

September 13, 1973

Mr. Donald C. Pullen

Assistant Director

General Government Division

U.S.. General Accounting Office

441 G Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20548

Dear Mr. Pullen:

This is in reply to your letter of August 8,

1973,

requesting comments on the draft report on the

review of weather modification research programs

being conducted by various Federal departments

and agencies.

We have reviewed the comments of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and

believe they are appropriately responsive to

the matters discussed in the draft report.

Sincerely yours,

for Administration

Enclosure

41

APPENDIX

III

I.

SUMMARY

In general, the Department of Commerce agrees with the conclusions and

most of the recommendations contained in the CA0 Draft Report.

The Department of Commerce believes that the President's proposal to

establish a Department of Energy and Natural Resources (S. 2135) will

bring together many of the widely scattered elements in Federal weather

modification programs, and substantially resolve the issues raised in

the CA0 Draft Report.

The new Department, for example, will include the

weather modification programs of the Forest Service (Department of Agri-

culture), the Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior), and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The opportunity will be

provided for developing a well-formulated, single, strong, national

program in this increasingly important field.

-a

_

II. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

[See GAO note,

p. 39. ]

42

APPENDIX III

[See GAO note, p. 39. ]

C.

A national program for weather modification research, with ‘goals,

object,ives, priorities, and milestones, conforming to identified

needs.

. *

The Department of Commerce supports this recommendation with the understanding

that OMB will draw heavily upon the efforts of existing interagency coordi-

nation mechanisms to gain access to technical expertise and results achieved

thus far in defining a national program.

D.

A plan to define and reassign, if appropriate, the responsibilities

of all Federal agencies that provide support or conduct weather

modification research.

,

The Department of Commerce believes that this plan is an essential part of

the national program discussed in’the previous recommendation. Weather

modification technology and supporting research should remain available for

use by all agencies of the Federal government in the discharge of their

mission responsibilities.

E.

A plan to allocate resources to the national program elements.

The Department of Xommerce supports this recommendation in the context of

implementing a national program in weather. modification.

Carried to

extremes,

however, this directed use of resources does limit the flexibility

of agency management.

[See GAO note, p. 39. ]

43

APPENDIX III

GAO note: Page numbers referred to in these comments are those

of our preliminary report, not this final report.

III. FURTHER COMMENTS

With reference to comments on pages 3 and 33 of the draft report concerning

the National Hurricane Modification Project, NOAA has developed a program

to modernize and instrument its Research Flight Facility aircraft in order

to conduct the experimental field program. The technology to modify hurri-

canes must insure stringent safety standards, avoid endangering populated

areas, and avoid reducing the essential, and substantial, contribution to

annual water supplies these large tropical storms provide. The experimental

field program necessary to verify our capability to produce predictable

results, and to confirm the results to date, will require five modern turbo-

prop aircraft capable of penetrating hurricanes and measuring accurately

all meteorological parameters relevant to the program. NOAA developed a

two-year plan to retire three out of the four aircraft which were obsolete,

procure one new replacement aircraft, and install advanced airborne

measurement- systems in the two NCAA aircraft. A joint plan has been

developed in which the Department of the Air Force will provide the use of

three C-130 aircraft;and NOAA will procure and install the advanced instru-

mentation

systems needed on these Air Force aircraft. NOAA will budget

for the additional costs of operating Air Force and NOAA aircraft during

the tropical storm season beginning in June 1976, designated Project STORMFURY-

Pacific. The plan is based on operating the field experiment in the Pacific

to take advantage of the larger number of occurrences of tropical storms

in this area compared to the Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico area.

By this plan,

NOAA was able to obtain the aircraft support needed without the necessity

of purchasing five new aircraft at a cost exceeding $36 million. The OMB

has given this planning effort firm support.

The necessity of developing the aircraft and airborne instrumentation support

needed for Project STORMFURY caused a delay in the field program until June,

1976.

During this period,

the National Hurricane Research Laboratory will

be engaged in improvement of models, participation in the Atlantic Tropical

Experiment of the Global Atmospheric Research Program and evaluation of the

basic hypotheses in terms of data on hand.

The Department of Commerce experience in developing and funding the National

Hurricane Modification Program is indicative of the problems caused by

weather modification research programs which are funded at levels below the

initial mass needed for expeditious and cost effective completion of the

program. The uncertainties of inderdepartmental support have hampered the

development of effective long-range plans.

Delays were occasioned when the

changing mission priorities-and restriction of research goals led to the

DOD withdrawal from joint sponsorship of Project STORMFURY and recommenda-

tion that NOAA assume the lead agency role.

The requirements of the budget

44

APPENDIX III

-- --._ -

. ~....

*

cycle, instrumentation development cycle, and aircraft and instrumentation

procurement cycles introduce further delays in this program.” These long-

lead time factors

can

be planned with minimum delays in

the

program when

the critical mass for a successful program is available and continuity

can be guaranteed..

. -

. [See GAO note, p. 39. ]

APPENDIX IV

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEE&

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301

12 NOV 1973

--

Mr. R. W. Gutmann

Director

Procurement and Systems

Acquisition Division

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548

Dear Mr. Gutmann:

This is in response to your letter of 10 August 1973 requesting DOD

comments on the 31 July 1973 GAO Draft Report, “Need for a National

Weather Modification Research Program. ”

The DOD research and development effort in weather modification is

conducted because of two major defense interests: (1) protecting per-

sonnel and resources against weather hazards, thus improving our

operational capabilities ; and (2) guarding against technological surprise

by increasing our understanding of the capabilities any potential adver-

sary might possess in this area.

The GAO report concludes that a national program and a lead agency

are needed “for the now fragmented federally-supported weather modi-

* fication research activities. ” Such a “national program” could place

an executive department or agency in the untenable ,position of being

directed to allocate its resources to national program requirements.

The DOD must retain the option to conduct RDT&E in those areas of

atmospheric sciences, including weather modification, which offer the

greatest potential contribution to solving problems associated with

weapons systems and tactical and strategic operations. In the existing

structure of our government, mission-oriented executive departments

can ill afford to have their programs directed by, or priorities estab-

lished by, another government agency.

The DOD has supported the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmos-

pheric Sciences (ICAS) in recommending against a “national program”

in weather modification. The Pilot Projects named in ICAS Report 15a

constitute parts of programs which seek solutions to problems of

national or near -national dimension.

For example,

the national problem

is damage and destruction resulting from tropical storms: hurricane

modification is but one approach to darnage reduction; others include

46

APPENDIX IV

better construction methods, improved land usage, better warning

services,

effective disaster assistance plans, etc. In short, weather

modification techniques represent possible but not unique solutions to

national problems.

The GAO report makes strong reference to “ineffective coordination. ”

Weather modification research is well coordinated by the ICAS, which

meets monthly and provides members and observers the opportunity

to exchange information in a timely manner, Further, ICAS just com-

pleted sponsoring the 15th annual interagency conference on weather

modification, which provides project managers and scientists a forum

for exchanging ideas, resolving problems, and the potential for planning

joint efforts, The ‘purpose of coordination is to achieve a minimum of

duplication, reduce interference, promote mutual assistance, and pro-

vide the impetus for cooperative projects, The effectiveness of coordi-

nation should not be judged on such criteria as an apparent failure to

inspire larger programs.

I

[See GAO

note, pa 39.1

Weather modification research involves projects which are separate

and distinct because of the very problem being attacked.

Federal

agencies, in conjunction with OMB, have recognized these differences

and have decided to concentrate their respective efforts in specific

areas most relevant to their individual mission requirements; Commerce

/

47

APPENDIX IV

in severe storms,

Interior in precipitation, NSF in hail suppression,

etc.

Regarding duplication, there is invariably some overlap among

the projects conducted because hailstorms, cumulus cloud development,

and tropical storms do have some common meteorological characteris-

tics.

In basic research, some duplication is essential and does not consti-

tute a significant problem.

It should be recognized that the projects are

significantly different to support having them conducted principally under

the direction of a mutually agreed upon lead agency.

Thus, we conclude

that there are, in effect, recognized lead agencies for specific types of

weather modification research, mission requirements and objectives

having dictated ‘who leads in what project.

The GAO report discusses the fact that support to weather modification

projects by cooperating agencies has not always been forthcoming. DOD

commitments to support cooperative pilot projects have always, of

necessity, been contingent upon the availability of resources.

DOD

resources and programs are mission-oriented; funding for them is

justified on that basis.

In volunteering (allocating} DOD resources for

support of cooperative “national” programs, it is evident that such al-

location has competed successfully with other internal DOD programs;

it must be recognized that this cannot always be the case due to stringent

Congressional and budgetary constraints. One possible solution to the

issue raised by the GAO is to identify an agency as the lead agency in a

particular aspect of weather modification research, and then provide

that agency the resources to conduct an adequate program. This means,

for example, that the NSF in its conduct of the National Hail Research

Experiment (NHRE), would have the means to reimburse other federal

agencies for services rendered, or obtain the services from a contractor

if mission requirements precluded other federal agency participation.

A case in point in this regard is the Congressional designation of the

Department of Transportation (DOT] as the lead agency in the conduct

of the Climatic Impact Assessment Program (CUP): CIAP is to assess

by 1974, the impact of climatic changes on people, plants and animals,

resulting from propulsion effluents of vehicles in the stratosphere, as

projected to 1990; the DOT has been allocated by the Congress some

$25 million over 4 fiscal years to get this job done.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft report.

\

48

APPENDIX V

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

Mr. Philip Charam

Deputy Director

Resources and Economic

Development Division

General Accounting Off ice

Washington, D. C, 20548

SEP 18 1973

Dear Mr. Charam:

The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation has reviewed

your draft report, “Need for a National Weather Modification Research

Program. I’ Their comments in which I concur, state that less than full

interagency participation in the ICAS efforts has been due primarily

to financial and scientific reasons rather than a lack of organization

or cooperation.

The ICAS position, concurred in by the Department through its repre-

sentative, regarding the subject of an implied “national program”

in weather modification has been stated formally several times, the

most recent in its review of reports by the National Academy of

Sciences Committee on Atmosphere Sciences (NAS/CAS) and the National

Advisory Committee for the Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA). This

position has been summarized by Dr. Edward P. Todd, Chairman of ICAS

as follows:

“Assignment of a lead agency responsibility.,..would place

the selection of priorities in weather modification R&D

activity for all agencies in the hands of a single one. The

ICAS feels, to the contrary,

that for the foreseeable future

there is a considerable tactical advantage in having a number

of agencies making contributions to the R&D concepts under-

lying weather modification rather than....to reduce the divers-

ity of intellectual and managerial inputs by relegating all

but one agency to the role of potential users permitted to

participate only in specifying ‘requirements’.”

Although grouped under the heading of weather modification, the

equipment and technique, atmospheric data and models, decision-

making processes, types of people and environment involved, and basic

hypotheses are significantly different for each of the major forms

of weather modification, such as: precipitation management, severe

storm abatement, fog dissipation, lightning modification, or hail

suppression.

49

APPENDIXV

These technical differences, difference in objectives, and diversity

of problems in each area having differing priorities for solution

argue for a separate lead agency for each major type of activity.

Mission-oriented lead

agencies

would also be more responsive to

public interest in each case.

We believe that the CA0 erred in looking at weather modification as

a single area of effort which could be defined as a program. It

would have been more realistic to review the need, adequacy, and

coordination of a "national program" in each of the specific areas

listed above.

The apparent consistent recommendations cited by the CA0 from

"independent"

advisory committees for a single lead agency can

partially be attributed to a few individuals who have pressed

for this concept in the face of a majority of agency recommenda-

tions against it. The science of weather modification is proving

to be very complex,

and making progress with limited resources is

slower than earlier projections anticipated.

This slower progress

cannot, however, be blamed on improper organization or lack of

coordination.

We believe that the ICAS is an adequate mechanism for coordination

of Federal weather modification activities, and that implementation

of many of its recommendations for a "national program" in weather

modification is primarily dependent upon adequate funding of each

of the activities included therein.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the report in draft

form.

Sincerely yours,

Allan L. Rgynolds

Director of Survey and Review

50

APPENDIX VI

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20550

OFFICE OF THE

DIRECTOR

OCT 4 1973

Mr. Morton E. Henig

Associate Director

Manpower and Welfare Division

U. S. General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Dear Mr. Henig:

Reference is made to your letter of August 6, 1973, requesting

comments on the General Accounting Office draft report entitLed

"Need for a National Weather Modification Research Program."

Our comments on the draft report, presented in the following

paragraphs, consist of (I.) some general. observations concerning

the principal thrust of the report, (2) specific comments iden-

tified with pertinent sections of the draft report, and (3) some

conclusions of our own.

First, we believe that the level of effort devoted to weather

modification as described in the draft report may be misleading.

The report states that weather modification research is but one

part of atmospheric sciences research, and only briefly refers to

total atmospheric sciences research 'expenditures.

However, much

of the research going on in the atmospheric sciences, other than

that specifically identified as weather modification research,

relates either directly or indirectly to the weather modification

field. To obtain a really comprehensive understanding of the

weather modification effort,

it

would be necessary to examine

,a11 such research, a lengthy and difficult task.

The GAO Report asserts that a national program is necessary. We

are prepared to believe that development of weather modification

is a valuable opportunity and potential national asset; however,

the report does not show evidence that supports this assertion.

Rather the GAO cites a number of studies that have previously been

prepared by other groups.

These studies, too, asserted a need for

a national program in weather modification, but none of them were

able to establish clearly the priority of this national need among

competing societal problems. Assertions that current methods of

coordination are not adequate do not justify the need for a lead

Federal agency, but merely more effective methods of coordination.

51

APPENDIX VI

The CA0 Report specifically notes that we lack basic knowledge

about the atmosphere.

Tt is our opinion that seeking information

about the fundamentals of this field is the first order of business,

We also

feel that a

consistent pattern of basic research will

provide the theoretical basis for a sound weather modification

research program, the results of which will supply the Federal

mission agencies and the national interest with additional alter-

native solutions which can be applied to national problems that

exist or arise.

The following specific comments are identified with the comments in

the draft report.

1. In several places in the GAO Report, comparisons of research

expenditures between 1959 and 1973 are made. The rules

for fund reporting in this area of research have changed

several

times over that time interval.

It is possible

to make comparisons of orders of magnitude but no comparisons

should be made quantitatively.

[Se@ GAO note, p. 39.1

.-.

4. Page14- Regarding the National Hail Research Experiment

@-Ha,

[See GAO note, p. 39.1

The NSF, through its executive agent, the

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has

achieved excellent progress in the NHRE. The Project

Director of NHRE has reported cooperation among the

participating organizations. The design data are being

52

APPENDIX VI

obtained in the fashion called for in the NRRE Plan. The

only impediment to progress which has not been overcome,

according to the Director, has been a lack of sufficient,

suitable meterological situations which produce potential

hail clouds.

5. Page 22

- The report states that the Special Commission on

6

Weather Modification had taken the position that "... certain

1

aspects had reached the applied research and operations

phase." Current opinion in the scientific community

generally is that present weather modification activities

are not sufficiently supported by scientific understanding.

Sound theory must precede operational application to insure

that total consequences are known in advance.

It should

be noted that RANN/NSF is an agency which addresses itself

to, selected weather modification problems, and although

it has no desire to do what the mission-oriented agencies

can do, RANN has capabilities to bridge the gaps which

exist between basic research and operational projects.

6. Page28- The report states that the Secretary of Commerce,

commenting on the first annual report of the National

Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACCA), ,agreed

with the NACOA recommendation for a central focus for

weather modification activity in the Federal Government.

This agreement did not reflect the position of all Federal

agencies concerned. The NSF, for example, endorsed the

National Pilot Project and Pilot Project Lead Agency mode

as

defined in Report 15A of the Interdepartmental

Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS).

[See GAO

note, p. 39.1

8. Pages 34L39' - The discussion of issues in NHRE are, in

part, misleading. The heading "Current Problems" is

inappropriate since many items discussed have been resolved

and the project is on schedule.

In addition, it is worth

noting that a fundamental mechanism for establishing

coordination in multi-agency programs has been overlooked.

This mechanism is to centralize the flow of funds, that is,

to "put ail the money where the problem is." Had NSF been

given the funds to subcontract for essential services to

other agencies for their efforts in MIRE, it is unlikely

that the coordination difficulties would be developed.

Fortunately, the difficulties that did arise were minor

and have been overcome.

53

APPENDIX VI

[See GAO note, p. 39. ]

Finally, we’have concluded that the.present scheme of National Pilot

Reseakch Projects; with assigned lead ,agencies, is a sound way in

which to proceed and one which will produce viable alternatives

through weather modification techniques for employment by the mission

agencies of the Government in accomplishing their purposes. This

mode of operation should, of course,.be.subject to:periodic rem-

ination and appropriate adjustment if warranted by.the existing

circumstances~

We appreciate, the opportunity, to~comek on the GAO draft report, and

trust that the’ foregoing comients will be helpful.

Slacerkly yours ;

Director

,

,’

8,

54’

APPENDIX VII

EXECUTIVE dFFlCE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

September 12, 1973

Mr. Morton E. Henig

Associate Director

General Accounting Office

Manpower and Welfare Division

Washington, D, 6.

20548

Dear Mr, Henig:

This is in response to your letter of August 6 requesting

OMH comments on the draft report, "The Need for a National

Weather Modification Research Program."

OMB comments are

made in relation to what we perceived to be the primary

GAO findings and conclusions.

I.

Main GAO Conclusion: That a national program (and a

lead agency) are needed to pull together the fragmented,

Federally supported weather modification research activities.

This conclusion is based on the GAO investigation and studies

by research groups who,

over the last decade, have identified

problems in the weather modification area as:

. .

mm

ineffective coordination

-- fragmented research

--

insufficient funds, inefficiently applied

-- lack of single agency responsibility

OMB Comment: The point on ineffective coordination of

research projects is not supported by fact. Weather

modification research is well coordinated by the Inter-

departmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS). ICAS

meets monthly and provides members and observers the

opportunity to exchange information in a timely manner.

Interdepartmental coordination of weather modification

activities has been, in our opinion, achieved through the

efforts of ICAS and the member agencies in an exemplary

manner.

55

APPEaDIX VII

President Nixon has proposed a reorganization plan to

form a Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) a

The new Department will consolidate many Federal programs

in atmospheric,

oceanic and solid earth sciences - including

elements of weather modification research from Agriculture -

Forest Service, Commerce - NOAA, and Interior - Bureau of

Reclamation. These agencies conduct weather modification

research on precipitation, lightning, hurricanes and other

severe storms, the socio-economic, environmental, and legal

impact of weather modification and on inadvertent modification

of the weather. This reorganization proposal will have

many such salutary effects in the scientific areas dealing

with air, oceans, and.earth. In weather modification, it will

be a primary focus for civilian research activities, although

we will continue to support efforts by agencies to solve

problems in their areas of interest with mission supporting

research.

We view weather modification research not as a panacea but

as an option, a possible means not as an end. A means in this

sense is a technique that may achieve a particular objective.

An example is the objective of mitigation of the impact of

natural disasters.

There are many techniques other than

weather modification to attain this objective, for example,

improved land use planning, community preparedness and

stronger building codes. We believe the mission agencies

rather than a single centralized agency should conduct the

type of research activities they believe most suited to the

national problems faced by them. Consequently, we believe

that some consolidation of weather modification is desirable

but would not necessarily conclude that all such research

should be concentrated or that a lead agency approach for

all generic weather modification research is preferable.

In our opinion, the DENR proposal will accomplish the

appropriate degree of consolidation.

Each weather modification research project is different

because of the different nature and technologies of the various

projects themselves.

OMB has recognized this difference and

has instructed particular agencies to concentrate their efforts

in specific areas;

Interior in precipitation, Commerce in

severe storms,

principally hurricanes, NSF in hail and so

forth. There is inevitably some overlap, for example, in

severe storms research between all projects because thunder-

storms, tornadoes,

and hailstorms have some common character-

istics.

The projects, however, are significantly different

56

APPENDIX VII

j

I

to proceed under the direction

of

a single agency. In effect,

therefore,

there are lead agencies'for specific types of

weather modification research, related as stated earlier

to mission objectives.

[See GAO

note, p. 39.1

c. --

a national program with goals, objectives,

priorities, and milestones conforming to

identified needs.

--

a plan to define and reassign, if appropriate,

the responsibilities of all Federal agencies

that provides support or conduct weather

modification research.

II

a plan to allocate resources to the national

program elements.

OMB Comment: As stated earlier,

in response to the main

GAO conclusion, we believe a highly centralized program would

be less effective than the alternative of permitting mission

agencies to evaluate weather modification potentialities as

one option inproblem solving.

Furthermore, the facilities

and the technologies required to undertake the research

vary greatly among problems and agencies.

There does not

appear to be sufficient evidence in our opinion to conclude

that combining these assets, given the diverse informational

57

APPENDIX VII

requirements and the relative priority for weather modification,

would result in increased effectiveness.

To the contrary,

we believe such a combination would put undue emphasis on

a technology that is, as yet,

mainly in the research (versus

operations) stage.

This emphasis could detract from adequate

consideration of operational techniques for achieving goals

and objectives.

[See GAO

note, p. 39.1

III. Other OMB Comments:

A.

Level of funding

The funding level for research applicable to weather

modification is understated in your draft.

Due to the lack

of understanding as to why certain events occur in weather

modification, a great deal of general research in atmospheric

sciences is applicable to weather modification. For example,

much of the research in physical meteorology contributes

_ directly to enhancing knowledge in weather modification.

Your draft, however, leaves the impression that a summation

of the weather modification project budgets will indicate

the level of Federal funding in this field. It has been

estimated that this limited view understates applicable

research by at least $50 M.h/

As to the specific size of project budgets, we

conducted a review of Federal weather modification programs

prior to formulation of the 1973 budget. Our conclusion was

that we should recommend the continuation of research in

this field/accelerating in some areas, decreasing in others.

l/ > Informal estimate from ICAS.

58

APPENDIX VII

For example, we believe the hurricane modification research

conducted by Commerce - NOAA, may, if feasible, have

significant benefits.

Accordingly,

we recommended an increase

in funding in this area in 1974 for capital equipment

preparatory to conducting research experiments in the

Pacific.

Because of this need for additional knowledge, however,

we consider any decision regarding the Federal role in weather

modification operations -

especially in the suppression of

severe storms - to be very premature at this time. If

suppression proves feasible, given today's thinking and

technology, the application of this knowledge would appear

to be enormously expensive. This underscores our earlier

statement that weather modification should not be viewed

as a panacea in problem solving but should be developed,

through research, as an option.

To imply that the project budgets are subcritical

or to support citations to that effect is a rather narrow view.

Our belief is that the adequacy of weather modification budgets

must be viewed in context of the agencies' other priorities.

To meet President Nixon's FY ,1973' expenditure ceiling, many

agencies were forced to make difficult management and budgetary

decisions. Where project budgets were reduced to accommodate

other agency goals,

one must assume that weather modification

research was a relatively lesser priority.

The actual size

of the budgets, therefore,

should not be judged out of

context with other programs conducted by the agencies.

B. Public vs. Private Role in Weather Modification

Operations

Our position is that weather modification operations,

as opposed to research,

should be carried out by the private

sector wherever possible.

An exception to this may be

hurricane or other severe storm modification. If such an

activity proves feasible,

the size of the investment required

to modify these storms and their interstate impact seem to

suggest Federal participation.

In most other areas, however,

the proper domain for operations seems to be the private sector -

responding to local needs.

In these cases, the Federal Govern-

ment's primary role has been and should be as an advisor to

State and local municipalities.

APPENDIX VII

C.

Public Reaction

State laws vary from regulation to prohibition of

weather modification experiments and operations.

7-b is

noteworthy, however,

that in a recent referendum in a

farming community in southern Colorado on the question of

weather modification the voters overwhelmingly rejected a

proposal to modify the weather to benefit local barley

growers.

Because there is so much to be learned in

weather modification research, one might conclude that

widespread use and acceptance of operational weather

modification may be more of a future rather than present

concern.

There are, as mentioned earlier, in the private

sector, entrepreneurs conducting rain-making operations

principally in the western U. S. Their existence is proof

of acceptance by certain segments of the population.

These

operations, however, should not be inferred as general societal

acceptance of weather modification.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft

report.

Sincerely,

60

APPENDIX VIII

OFFICE OF

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON; D.C. 20590

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR ADMINISTRATION

September 27, 1973

Mr. Richard W. Kelley

Associate Director, RED Division

U. S, General Accounting Office

400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kelley:

This is in response to your-i _

Department of Transportation's"k&

Office's draft report on weather modification research orograms.-

.

1973, requesting the

'General Accounting

[See GAO note, p. 39. ]

The General Accounting Office concludes that a national program

(with a lead agency approach) is needed to pull together the

fragmented Federally-supported weather modification research

activities. We believe some consolidation of weather modification

is desirable, but would not necessarily conclude that all such

research should be concentrated, or that a lead agency approach

for all generic weather modification is preferable.

Sincerely,

*s s* /v

William S. Heffelfinger

61

APPENDIX IX

PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENTS

AND AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING

ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

Tenure of office

From

TO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

.

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

Earl L. Butz

Clifford M. Hardin

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CONSERVATION,

RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION (note a):

Robert W. Long

Thomas K. Cowden

Vacant

John A. Baker

CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE:

John R. McGuire

Edward P. Cliff

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE:

Frederick B. Dent

Peter G. Peterson

Maurice H. Stans

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (note b):

Robert M. White

Robert M. White (acting)

a

Dec. 1971 Present

Jan. 1969 Nov. 1971

Mar. 1973

Present

May

1969 Mar. 1973

Jan. 1969

May 1969

Aug. 1962 Jan. 1969

Apr. 1972 Present

Mar. 1962 Apr. 1972

Feb. 1973 Present

Feb. 1972 Feb. 1973

Jan. 1969 Feb. 1972

Feb. 1971 Present

Oct. 1970 Feb. 1971

Title changed from Assistant Secretary, Rural Development and Conser-

vation, in January 1973.

b

NOAA was formed in October 1970 pursuant to Reorganization Plan

Number 4, consolidating Environmental Sciences Services Administra-

tion with programs and elements from other Federal organizations

pertaining to marine sciences.

62

APPENDIX IX

Tenure of office

From To

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:

James R. Schlesinger

William P. Clements, Jr., (acting)

Elliot R. Richardson

Melvin R. Laird

July 1973 Present

Apr. 1973 July 1973

Jan. 1973 Apr. 1973

Jan. 1969 Jan. 1973

DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND

ENGINEERING:

Malcolm R. Currie June 1973 Present

John S. Foster, Jr.

Oct. 1965 June 1973

DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE RESEARCH

PROJECTS

AGENCY:

Stephen J. Lukasik Apr.

1971

Present

Everhardt Rechtin Nov. 1967 Apr.

1971

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR:

Rogers C. B. Morton

Fred J. Russell (acting)

Walter J. Hickel

Steward L. Udall

Jan’. 1971

Nov. 1970

Jan. 1969

Jan. 1961

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND

AND WATER

RESOURCES:

Jack 0. Horton

James R. Smith

Kenneth Holum

Mar.

1973

Mar. 1969

Jan.

1961

COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:

Gilbert G. Stamm

Gilbert G. Starnm (acting)

Ellis L. Armstrong

Floyd E. Dominy

May 1973

Apr. 1973

Nov. 1969

May

1959

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION :

Claude S. Brinegar

John A. Volpe

Alan S. Boyd

Feb. 1973

Present

Jan. 1969

Feb. 1973

Jan.

1967

Jan.

1969

Present

Jan.

1971

Nov. 1970

Jan. 1969

Present

Feb. 1973

Mar. 1969

Present

May 1973

Apr. 1973

Oct. 1969

63

APPENDIX Lx -

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATIdN

ADMINISTRATION:

Alexander P. Butterfield

John H. Shaffer

David D. Thomas (acting)

Gen. William F. McKee

Tenure of office

From To

Mar. 1973 Present

Mar. ‘1969 Mar. 1973

Aug. 1968 Mar. 1969

July 1965 July 1968

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATOR:

James C. Fletcher

George M. Low

Thomas 0. Paine

Apr. 1971 Present

Sept. 1970 Apr. 1971

act. 1968 Sept. 1970

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

DIRECTOR:

H. Guyford Stever

Raymond L. Bisplinghoff (acting)

William D. McElroy

Leland J. Haworth

Feb. 1972 Present

Jan. 1972 Feb. 1972

July 1969 Jan. 1972

July 1963 June 1969

64

Copies of this report are available at a cost of $1

from the U.S.;General Accounting Office, Room

4522,

441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20548. Orders

should be accompanied by a check or money order.

Please do not send cash.

When ordering a GAO, report please use the B-Number,’

Date and Title, if available, to expedite filling your

I

order.

Copies of GAO reports are provided without charge to

Members of Congress, congressional committee staff

members, Government officials, news media, college

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

UNITEDSTATES

GENERALACCOUNTINGOFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,$300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S.GENERALACCOUNTINGOFFlCE

THIRD CLASS

Mr. T, E. Sullivan

Trtmsportation

RoomJW A*-> 32

._ I

...I 1,

” _,, _^ ,,.. ._.I_. .l.?ll ~.“.L.-,-.~-“-