Senate committee hears bill to renew $1.2M for Desert Research Institute cloud-seeding program

The Nevada Senate Committee on Natural Resources opened a hearing on Senate Bill 6, which would appropriate $1,200,000 to the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to support the Nevada State Cloud Seeding Program. Senator Melanie Scheibel, sponsor of SB 6, described cloud seeding as "a tool in the toolbox" to improve snowfall efficiency when storms occur and said the bill repeats the $1.2 million appropriation provided in the 2023 session.

DRI officials told the committee the program repairs and operates state-owned generators and that recent operations produced measurable increases in snowfall. "During the winter 2023–24, we estimate 56,000 acre feet of additional snow water equivalent" across four basins, Frank McDonough, an atmospheric scientist who leads DRI's cloud seeding program, told the committee. McDonough and colleagues also said DRI's analysis validated increased precipitation and runoff in seeded areas compared with unseeded controls.

DRI and a state official described program scale and costs. Tracy Bauer, DRI's director of external affairs, said cloud seeding can increase winter snowfall by about 10% and that the program's cost is "just over $10 per acre foot of water." McDonough added that DRI repaired all 25 state-owned cloud seeding generators and associated weather stations with the prior funding and is running operations in multiple mountain ranges that supply Nevada's rivers and groundwater.

Local water managers and regional authorities said the program provides tangible benefits. Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the Central Nevada Regional Water Authority and the Humboldt River Basin Water Authority, told the committee that DRI estimated the program produced an additional 18,000 acre feet of snow water equivalent in the Humboldt Basin last year and that cloud seeding can improve groundwater recharge, reservoir resiliency and soil moisture.

Supporters from the private and education sectors urged lawmakers to continue state support. Alejandro Rodriguez of the Nevada System for Higher Education, the Vegas Chamber's Trevor Parish, Nevada Farm Bureau's Doug Busselman and a representative of the University of Nevada, Reno testified in support, noting the program's role in the state's water portfolio and DRI's research capacity.

Opponents raised questions about safety, transparency and long-term effects. Several callers who opposed the bill said concerns about silver iodide and other substances used in weather modification were inadequately addressed. Yolanda Knaak, a retired registered nurse, said "silver iodide is a heavy metal" and asked for more testing and transparency. Other public commenters described strong skepticism of cloud seeding and urged the committee not to fund the program with taxpayer dollars.

DRI officials responded directly to safety concerns. McDonough summarized the institute's view of health and environmental risk, saying the quantities of silver iodide used are extremely small and that monitoring has not detected a measurable increase in environmental concentrations. "The amounts are super low," McDonough said, adding that typical background soil silver concentrations are far higher than the quantity added by seeding operations.

Committee members asked operational and technical questions about where seeded precipitation contributes (streamflow, soil moisture, aquifer recharge) and about cloud seeding timing. DRI scientists described annual validation studies comparing seeded and unseeded watersheds and noted that seeding is done from the ground during winter storms when low cloud cover is present over mountainous terrain.

The hearing record shows both technical testimony supporting measurable hydrologic benefits and multiple public commenters opposing the program on health and consent grounds. Committee members closed the hearing on SB 6 without taking a vote; the bill's appropriation and reporting requirements (DRI must report expenditures to the Interim Finance Committee on or before Sept. 1, 2026 and Sept. 1, 2027) remain under consideration.

No formal committee vote on SB 6 was recorded during the session. The committee adjourned after public comment and other agenda items.