[Senate Hearing 109-446] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-446 WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEES ON: SCIENCE AND SPACE; DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 10, 2005 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28-211 WASHINGTON : 2006 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co- CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARK PRYOR, Arkansas SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska, GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon Ranking DAVID VITTER, Louisiana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BILL NELSON, Florida C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on November 10, 2005................................ 1 Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 1 Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 18 Witnesses DeFelice, Dr. Thomas P., Past President, Weather Modification Association.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 8 Garstang, Michael, Ph.D., Professor, University of Virginia; Chair, Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, National Research Council of the National Academies.. 10 Prepared statement........................................... 12 Golden, Dr. Joseph H., Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado......................................... 3 Prepared statement........................................... 5 Appendix Marburger, III, John H., Director, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, letter, dated December 13, 2005 to Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison........... 29 Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement...................................................... 27 Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas P. DeFelice by: Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 33 Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson...................................... 33 Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 34 Response to written questions submitted to Michael Garstang, Ph.D., by: Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 35 Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson...................................... 35 Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 35 Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joseph H. Golden by: Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 30 Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson...................................... 31 Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 32 Wilhite, Dr. Donald, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, prepared statement..... 27 WEATHER MODIFICATION AND S. 517, THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 ---------- THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005 U.S. Senate, Subcommittees on: Science and Space; Disaster Prevention and Prediction, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC. The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA Senator DeMint. Good afternoon. Sorry for the confusion. I appreciate all of you folks joining us this afternoon and look forward to hearing from you. My other chairman of this meeting, Senator Hutchison, will be back in just a moment. And I know she's been a part of inviting this group here today. I am very interested in the testimony. We saw, numerous times this summer, and just this past weekend, in Indiana and Kentucky, that weather has a profound impact on the lives of Americans. And this afternoon, the Subcommittees will be discussing weather modification, and, specifically, legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Hutchison, Senate bill 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. As I understand, the genesis of this legislation was to help provide relief to drought-stricken farmers in West Texas and across the Nation. As we are all aware, weather modification technologies have been pursued for a number of years. For decades, the Federal Government has dedicated significant resources to weather modification research, and State and local governments continue to spend millions on both operational weather modification technologies and weather modification research. I was interested to learn that recently the National Research Council of the National Academies, the Nation's leading scientific body, raised some concerns about efficacy of weather modification research. Because of the importance of this issue, I'm looking forward to Dr. Garstang's comments this afternoon and his assessment of the state of the science surrounding weather modification research. It's entirely possible that, at some point in the future, weather modification technologies might be viable. I continue to be impressed by the progress of all kinds of American innovations. At some point, this Committee may get to the point where it is considering the complex legal, social, and political issues surrounding whether or not the Nation should support a regimen of weather modification. But I am aware there are serious concerns about pursuing a regimen of intentional weather modification and want to give those concerns careful consideration. I'm also concerned that, as a Nation, we do not have sufficient understanding of how our atmosphere behaves. It seems that this may be a concern shared by the Academy, noting some of the findings in their recent report. I think this Committee should give thoughtful consideration to their principal conclusion, which stated that, ``Atmospheric science is now in a position to mount a concerted and sustained effort to delineate the scope and expectations of future weather modification research. Such an effort must be directed at answering fundamental scientific questions that will yield results that will go well beyond application to intentional modification. The emphasis must be on understanding processes, and not on modification.'' I think--in other words, I believe what I'm hearing them saying is that we need to understand how weather works now before we go too far in trying to modify it. I would also encourage the scientific community, and particularly the atmospheric-sciences community, through the National Academies or our scientific societies, to decide what are the highest priorities and most promising areas of research for fundamental atmospheric research. The NRC report on weather modification research outlines some areas that may inform weather modification, such as precipitation physics and cloud modeling. Could these areas or other areas of the research be considered as part of a comprehensive program of atmospheric research? I'll let you answer the question today. Priority-setting is going to be important. In recent years, Republicans in Washington have endeavored to constrain Federal spending. We've not been as successful as I would like, but I'm committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that Federal discretionary spending not only does not grow, but that it shrinks. I say all this to encourage the atmospheric-science community to think critically about where you want to put the next dollar in atmospheric research. There are some very promising places to put this funding that could have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Americans. I would encourage you to consider the various research initiatives proposed by the Academy in light of the other important initiatives that need to be undertaken to improve prediction of tornado formation, to understand the rapid intensification of hurricanes, and the other challenges facing us. How do all of these competing priorities interact? Maybe there is some overlap that will address these important issues and inform weather modification. I hope the scientific community can help me and this Committee with this priority- setting. This Committee is committed to advancing atmospheric sciences, because we understand what an important role weather plays in the lives of all Americans. So, I'm looking forward to hearing from you. This issue leaves me with a lot of questions, and I'm hoping my witnesses can answer some of those questions today. Appearing this afternoon is Dr. Joe Golden, Senior Research Scientist at Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences. Dr. Golden previously directed NOAA's weather modification research programs. He will discuss Senate bill 517 and its potential benefits for weather modification. Also with us is Dr. Tom DeFelice, past President of the National Weather Modification Association. He will be providing perspectives on the importance of weather modification and weather modification research. Finally, appearing before the Subcommittees this afternoon, is Dr. Michael Garstang. Dr. Garstang is a Distinguished Emeritus Research Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, at the University of Virginia. He's a fellow at the American Meteorological Society, the AMS--and has served on numerous AMS committees. He was also the Chair of the 2003 National Research Council Committee on Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research. OK, having introduced all of our panelists, Dr. Golden, we'll start with you, and if Senator Hutchison comes in, we may need to take a break and let her make a statement if she can't stay the whole time. So, Dr. Golden, please--I think we're going to try to keep this to five minutes, and then some questions. STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (CIRES), UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO Dr. Golden. Thank you, Senator DeMint. I am honored to appear before you today in regards to Senate bill 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005. My name is Dr. Joseph Golden, retired from NOAA on September 2, 2005, after over 41 years of Federal service in NOAA, both in severe- weather research and NWS operations. I now work part-time as a Senior Research Scientist in the University of Colorado's Cooperative Institute, in Boulder, Colorado. My background in weather modification research relates to the fact that I was the last NOAA manager of the Atmospheric Modification Program, or AMP, in NOAA research until its termination by the Congress in 1995. None of the NOAA AMP funds were used to conduct any operational cloud-seeding, and I feel that, at this time, funding under Senate bill 517 should also not be used to conduct any operational cloud-seeding. The Texas participation in my AMP program was the first to utilize the NWS NEXRAD Doppler radar data to estimate the rainfall increases from seeding convective clouds in Texas. However, one of my greatest career frustrations has been witnessing the adoption of new research results and technologies, that we developed under AMP, by other countries, while our Federal research and technology transfer in my country has largely stagnated. One example, a chemical tracer technique that we developed in my Nevada AMP program to quantify the amount of snow increase due to seeding over mountains is now being used by a new cloud-seeding program in Australia. In China alone, their government is now funding a greatly expanded weather modification research and operations program at $100 million per year, as well as training over 1,500 new weather modification scientists. Federal funding for weather modification research in the United States reached its pinnacle in the 1970s and early 1980s, and has steadily declined ever since. During its heyday, weather modification research in the U.S. was at the cutting edge of worldwide efforts. For example, NOAA conducted large- scale seeding experiments, in South Florida, called FACE, and we collaborated with the Navy and university scientists in Project STORMFURY to weaken hurricanes. I participated in STORMFURY while I was a Ph.D. candidate, and found it to be one of the most exhilarating experiences of my career. The need for a renewed national commitment and funding for weather modification research has become more urgent, in my view. In recent years, we have seen severe drought in my home State of Colorado and the Pacific Northwest. New research results show unmistakable impacts of air pollution in reducing seasonal precipitation over mountainous areas of the Western U.S. during the past several decades. Pollution is systematically robbing the western mountains of winter snowpack, and, if the process continues, will lead to major losses of runoff water for hydroelectric power and agricultural crop productivity. However, research results in Israel--has demonstrated that their long-term cloud-seeding programs have offset similar pollution-induced rainfall losses in their country. Another weather modification research issue, and one that elicits scientific controversy, is severe-storms modification. I don't have time to go into this in any depth, but one of the longest-running hail-suppression programs in the world is in North Dakota. And, during my tenure, AMP sponsored their research. Positive results on the impact of cloud-seeding to reduce hail damage to crops using insurance companies' records of crop-loss ratios were so impressive in North Dakota, that the Canadian insurance industry has supported a new multi-year effort in the Province of Alberta, Canada, to protect its largest cities from hail. The Alberta hail-suppression program uses many of the techniques that we used in the AMP North Dakota program. Finally, after the horrendous devastation and loss of life from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I have been asked several times about the possibility of hurricane modification. And, while we don't have time to fully address the issue today, I firmly believe that we are in a much better position, both with the science and the undergirding technology, than we were when Project STORMFURY was terminated by our government in 1982. We now understand that both tornados and hurricanes exhibit a life cycle, and both exhibit natural instabilities during their lifetimes. Even after the demise of the AMP program in 1995, operational weather modification programs have continued to expand and flourish in the U.S. This is reflected in the annual reports of all such projects to NOAA, as required by law. I like the idea of establishing a Weather Modification Advisory Board with broad representation, which is needed to set the national agenda and priorities, as Senator DeMint has already touched upon, for these and other urgent water- management issues facing the country. I have many close scientific colleagues in NOAA weather research who would welcome the opportunity to contribute to a reinvigorated national program of weather modification research and technology transfer. In closing, I want to assure you that the U.S. has the technology and the best and brightest scientists, who would welcome the opportunity to reinvigorate the weather modification field. These are very challenging issues, and the worsening water crises in the West and elsewhere demand our urgent attention. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Golden follows:] Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph H. Golden, Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado I am honored to appear before you today in regards to S. 517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005. My name is Dr. Joseph H. Golden, retired from NOAA on September 2, 2005 after 41.5 years of Federal service in NOAA, both in severe weather research and NWS operations. I now work part-time as a Senior Research Scientist in the University of Colorado's Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in Boulder, Colorado. My background in weather modification research relates to the fact that I was the last NOAA manager of the Atmospheric Modification Program (AMP) in NOAA Research, until its termination by the Congress in 1995. I was never asked by anyone to defend the AMP Program, based on its merits and accomplishments. The AMP program was written into NOAA's budget by the Congress for many years, beginning in the late 1970s. I view the AMP program and its research productivity as a highlight of my NOAA career, especially due to the cooperative efforts among the six States in the program (Illinois, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Nevada and Arizona), the universities, private-sector operators, and NOAA research. None of the NOAA AMP funds were used to conduct any operational cloud seeding, and I feel that, at this time, funding under S. 517 should also not be used for operational cloud seeding efforts. I am pleased to see my colleague, George Bomar here from Texas: he was one of the State program managers in AMP, and his State was the first to utilize NWS NEXRAD Doppler radar data to estimate the rainfall increases from seeding convective clouds. One of my greatest career frustrations has been witnessing the adoption of new research results and technologies we developed under AMP by other countries, while Federal research and technology transfer in my own country has largely stagnated. For example, a chemical tracer technique developed by the Nevada-AMP program to quantify the amount of snow increase due to seeding over mountains is now being used by a new cloud seeding program in Australia. In China alone, their government is funding a greatly-expanded weather modification research and operations program at $100 million per year, as well as training over 1,500 new weather modification scientists. In the limited time I speak before you today, I want to address two types of natural disasters, and the pot… truncated (117,385 more characters in archive)
TextSearch