A group of public commenters addressed the Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Committee with sharply divergent views from the agency presentations earlier in the hearing. Multiple speakers urged the committee to treat geoengineering (broadly defined by speakers as large‑scale atmospheric aerosol programs, including stratospheric aerosol injection and what speakers called “chemtrails”) as a separate policy topic from targeted cloud seeding and to take legislative steps to prohibit or investigate such activities.

Speakers who requested immediate action included residents and organizers who described observational evidence (persistent cross‑hatched contrail patterns and long‑lived hazes) and alleged health and environmental impacts. Several witnesses said they had conducted independent sampling and laboratory analysis of snow, soil and, in some cases, human tissue and reported detection of metals and nanoparticles (examples offered in testimony included silicon‑containing nanoparticles, aluminum, strontium, tellurium, platinum and bromine in spot samples). Commenters urged the committee to require state‑level testing, adopt whistleblower protections for government or contractor personnel who come forward, and pass prohibitions or criminal penalties for unauthorized atmospheric spraying. Several public speakers referred to national and state petitions or bills in other jurisdictions and urged Wyoming to join or to send a federal message via a joint resolution.

Committee members and agency presenters responded in a range of ways. Several legislators thanked commenters for raising concerns and said LSO should draft a joint resolution to communicate state concerns to the federal delegation; the committee voted to have LSO prepare that resolution. Agency scientists and contractors earlier in the hearing disputed broad claims equating organized global programs with routine cloud seeding, outlined their trace‑chemistry findings that show silver from seeding typically at parts‑per‑trillion levels compared with natural crustal sources, and described contamination‑avoidance sampling protocols. Committee members asked for time to examine written evidence; several said they were open to additional public input and to permitting additional targeted research and testing by state laboratories or universities.

Why it matters: Public concern over any atmospheric experimentation — whether small‑scale cloud seeding or broad SRM proposals — raises both technical and legal issues. The committee’s decision to ask LSO to draft a joint resolution signals that at least some legislators want formal federal notification and review; the drafting request does not itself create new law but will be a vehicle for more detailed legislative proposals.

Ending note: The committee’s next steps will determine whether the public comments lead to a legislative prohibition, a research/monitoring program, or only a resolution to the federal delegation.