Committee holds cloud-seeding transparency bill after debate over reports and generator maps

The House Resources and Conservation Committee on an unspecified date held Senate Bill 1064, a proposal that would require the Idaho Water Resource Board to publish an annual report on state and private cloud-seeding operations and to include maps showing generator locations, sponsor Representative Joe Alfieri said at the committee hearing.

The bill matters because supporters say it would increase transparency about where and how cloud seeding is being done, while critics said the reporting and environmental-assessment language could impose duplicative, expensive requirements that threaten a program credited with boosting water for southern Idaho agriculture.

Representative Joe Alfieri, R-District 4 (Coeur d'Alene), told the committee the bill is intended to define the State's existing cloud-seeding program and to require annual reporting so the state can “make a determination” about whether suspected effects are occurring. “Let's collect the data so that we can address the issues and concerns of both groups,” Alfieri said.

Supporters of the substitute motion to send the bill to the House floor argued the measure would create public trust by documenting operations and outcomes. Representative Tanner, who offered the substitute motion to send the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation, said the state’s cloud-seeding reports are sometimes delayed and that the legislation “is a good, responsible thing” to require clearer, more timely data. “We should want the data so we can actually analyze the data and make sure we aren't being transparent to the public of what's actually going on,” Tanner said.

Opponents said the bill could impose expensive requirements that go beyond simply compiling available scientific data. Representative Pickett asked whether the board would be required to conduct new environmental impact assessments or merely compile existing scientific studies; Representative Alexander (committee discussion) characterized the bill as collecting data rather than mandating new scientific studies. Representative Mikkelsen warned the bill adds public-notice, consultation and effectiveness-metric requirements that could duplicate work the Idaho Water Resource Board and existing programs already perform. “If you want the information published on their website, I'll sign up for that. I'm fine with it, but this is not that bill,” Mikkelsen said.

Several members objected to a provision added in a later amendment that would require a map with coordinates showing the locations of cloud-seeding generators. Representative Raybould and others expressed concern that many generator sites are on private property and that public disclosure of exact locations could expose private landowners or equipment to risk. “I am not inclined to put these individuals at risk,” Raybould said, explaining why disclosure of private-property generator coordinates made some stakeholders withdraw support.

Vice Chairman Shepherd, who supported the substitute motion, and Representative Van der Woude argued that public disclosure and clear reporting would reduce misinformation about cloud seeding and reassure constituents. Shepherd said the bill “does nothing negative to cloud seeding and it's getting the message out to people that this is a good thing.”

After debate, the committee considered two motions: a substitute motion by Representative Tanner to send Senate Bill 1064 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation and an earlier motion to hold the bill in committee. The roll-call on the substitute motion resulted in five ayes and twelve nays, and the substitute motion failed. The committee then voted to hold the bill in committee; the chair announced that the bill will be held for further work and potential additional presentations to the committee.

The hearing record shows the department and several stakeholders were consulted during drafting; Alfieri said he worked with Idaho Water, Idaho Power and the Idaho Water Resource Board during drafting. The bill’s sponsor and several members emphasized the intention was not to disrupt existing cloud-seeding operations used for agricultural snowpack augmentation in southern Idaho, but to create transparent reporting so residents who believe they observe weather-modification activities in other parts of the state can be informed. Alfieri said, “If there's something going on or there's nothing going on, that's the whole point of this legislation.”

Committee members did not receive public testimony at the hearing on this bill. After the vote the chair noted the committee may schedule additional presentations, including a possible presentation from Idaho Power on cloud-seeding operations.

Votes at a glance: the committee rejected the substitute motion to send SB 1064 to the floor (substitute motion: yes 5, no 12). The committee subsequently voted to hold the bill in committee for further consideration.