{"id":2693,"date":"2009-09-05T06:39:05","date_gmt":"2009-09-05T14:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/?p=2693"},"modified":"2018-02-02T19:42:09","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T19:42:09","slug":"seeding-clouds-for-hydropower","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ww2.kqed.org\/climatewatch\/2009\/09\/05\/seeding-clouds-for-hydropower\/","title":{"rendered":"Seeding Clouds for Hydropower"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
PG&E cloud seeders located near Burney Falls, CA. Photo: PG&E<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Christina Aanestad’s radio feature for Climate Watch airs Monday morning on The California Report.<\/em><\/p>\n

Wringing Hydropower Out of the Clouds<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Christina Aanestad<\/p>\n

When cloud seeding began in the 1950\u2019s there were no laws governing weather modification. According to Maurice Roos, Chief Hydrologist with the state Department of Water Resources (DWR), it wasn\u2019t until the late 1970\u2019s when a storm in a seeded area near Los Angeles flooded, that regulations governing weather modification were included in the state\u2019s water code. In the West, \u201cMost of the states have legislation that governs the conduct of weather modification activity,\u201d says Brant Foote, director of the Research Applications Lab<\/a> at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.<\/p>\n

Government oversight has changed over the years. Today in California, state regulations have slackened. \u201cAs for the State\u2019s role, it is mainly informational. There are no permits or licenses,\u201d said Roos. According to Roos, all cloud-seeding projects required permits until the law was reformed. \u201cThe old law required licenses and permits but it was repealed in the 1980\u2019s. There was a general move toward deregulation in the government–mainly to reduce costs.\u201d Today, according to Roos, Sponsors of cloud-seeding projects must notify DWR and county governments of the project, \u201cThis can be a letter or, for DWR, an e-mail notice,\u201d he said. \u201cThey also have to publish a Notice of Intention in the county or counties affected by their proposed operations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most of what this reporter learned was from Roos\u2019 institutional memory, and going directly to sponsors of cloud-seeding operations–about 15 intermittent projects around the state. Data on cloud seeding at the state level is scattered, according to Roos. \u201cWe used to have an annual report that was published. Last time I tried to find it, it was in an archived box and nobody knew where it was,\u201d said Roos, who added that budget cuts and deregulation mostly gutted the oversight program.<\/p>\n

Despite lax oversight, the State of California wants to use weather modification as part of its 2009 Water Plan<\/a>, which states:<\/p>\n

\u201cCloud seeding has advantages over many other strategies for providing water. A project can be developed and implemented relatively quickly\u2026it could offset some of the loss in snow pack expected from global warming.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to the plan, some regulation remains: weather modification sponsors need to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]. But not all<\/em> seeding has to comply with environmental regulations. PG&E contends that an environmental impact report is not required for its Pit-McCloud River project because it is privately funded, with equipment on private lands,\u201d said Roos.<\/p>\n

That has locals groups near Mount Shasta concerned with PG&E\u2019s proposed project in the Pit and McCloud River watersheds. \u201cIt\u2019s a clear unequal treatment between public agencies and private entities,\u201d said Angelina Cook with the Climate Council and the Mount Shasta Community Rights Project. \u201cPrivate corporations require more government oversight and regulation to ensure accountability for the their practices.\u201d But compiling all cloud-seeding data in California into one reference source today would be \u201ca labor of love,\u201d says Roos. \u201cThere\u2019s no funds for it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Cook says she is working on a cloud-seeding ban in Mount Shasta City, which may include a chemical trespass for silver iodide, the common chemical used in cloud seeding. \u201cIf silver iodide is found in the area, PG&E would be liable,\u201d said Cook.
\nBut Roos, who says cloud seeding is mostly benign, asks where one would draw the line. \u201cThere\u2019s all kinds of influences on the air like people driving their cars, diesel trucks running around,\u201d said Roos. Just as California has increased its regulations on air emissions in the state, some like Cook would like to see tougher regulations for weather modification as well.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the state\u2019s 2009 water plan also urges more research and development into cloud-seeding. Research could include cloud seeding\u2019s impact on global climate change, and it\u2019s effectiveness. The plan also identifies areas that could provide optimal results from cloud seeding, mostly in Northern California, along the Sacramento, Trinity and Russian Rivers.<\/p>\n

Cloud Seeding Projects in California<\/b>
\n