Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Geoengineering Cloud Seeding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects geoengineering bill after debate over enforcement, cloud-seeding exemptions
Summary
The House Agriculture Committee voted to give House Bill 15-14 a "do not pass" recommendation after members raised enforcement challenges and difficulty carving out cloud-seeding activities already authorized under state law.
The House Agriculture Committee voted to recommend a "do not pass" on House Bill 15-14 after extended discussion about enforcement challenges, how cloud seeding and broader geoengineering activities intersect, and whether existing local authorizations could be preserved.
Committee members raised practical concerns about enforcement. The bill, as discussed in committee, directs local sheriffs to investigate reported activity and forwards prosecution to a county state's attorney; committee members questioned how local law enforcement would investigate aircraft or other aerial operations and whether federal authorities would be involved for incidents involving aircraft.
Representative Ulmer said the enforcement provisions would "stretch" law-enforcement resources and described uncertainty about how local officials would investigate aerial activity, noting the potential need to involve federal agencies. Representative Schreiberbeck and others also questioned whether the Attorney General’s office or other state agencies had reviewed implementation. Representative Houck (chair staff and sponsor commentary) described efforts with Legislative Council and said lawmakers had difficulty separating cloud seeding from the broader category of geoengineering because cloud seeding is in practice part of geoengineering programs.
Representative Olson noted that "Century Code 61 0 4.1 is where it authorizes weather modification activities," suggesting there is an existing statutory authorization for cloud seeding that complicates an across-the-board prohibition or an automatic ban without explicit statutory carve-outs.
Representative White moved the do-not-pass recommendation; Representative Volmer seconded. The recorded committee vote on the do-not-pass motion was 7-6-1 in favor, and the committee adopted the do-not-pass recommendation.
Committee members discussed the possibility of converting the proposal into a study but said Legislative Council had difficulty defining the study’s scope because the practices in question are already occurring in places. Several members urged further consultation with technical agencies and interested counties before returning a new draft to committee.
