Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cloud Seeding Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel weighs 10‑year cloud‑seeding moratorium and baseline study; agencies recommend UW coordination and independent experts
Summary
The committee reviewed a draft bill to impose a 10‑water‑year moratorium on cloud seeding and to require baseline monitoring and an independent study, with agencies recommending the Water Development Office and University of Wyoming lead design and contractor selection.
The Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee spent the second half of the session reviewing draft bill 26LSO0210, which would impose a 10‑water‑year moratorium on cloud‑seeding and require state baseline monitoring and an independent study before the state resumes operations.
Under the draft, the moratorium would run for ten consecutive water years beginning Oct. 1, 2026. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) — or, at the committee’s direction, another designated agency — would collect baseline measures including precipitation, snow‑water equivalent, streamflow and reservoir inflows, geographic precipitation distribution and impacts on agriculture, municipalities, tribal lands and downstream obligations. The statute directs a preliminary report within two years and a final report with recommendations not later than Dec. 1, 2035, and contemplates contracting outside independent experts to conduct the study. The draft includes criminal penalties for unauthorized cloud‑seeding during the moratorium.
Agency witnesses raised jurisdictional and implementation questions. DEQ Director Todd Parfitt told the committee that the Water Development Office (WWDO) has primary expertise for water‑quantity studies and recommended WWDO lead the proposed work with consultation from the State Engineer and DEQ where relevant. WWDO Director Jason Mead suggested the University of Wyoming take a lead technical role in scoping the study and contracting independent experts, noting the office would prefer the state buy a scope‑of‑work and have UW solicit validated proposals and cost estimates before the legislature considers an appropriation.
University of Wyoming atmospheric scientist Jeff French told lawmakers that a moratorium that simply collects passive baseline data would likely fail to resolve the central question of effectiveness. His testimony emphasized that natural year‑to‑year variability in mountain precipitation (typical annual variability on the order of 15–20 percent) makes it difficult to detect the expected modest increases cloud seeding studies typically report (often quoted in the literature as roughly 5–15 percent) without carefully designed, focused observational experiments and modeling that explicitly include seeded vs. unseeded test cases. French recommended studies that pair targeted seeding experiments, in‑cloud measurements and validated numerical model runs so the physical mechanisms can be observed and the model cross‑checked against measurements.
The committee discussed options for structuring the study, including a two‑phase approach: (1) fund UW to design a rigorous scope of work and study protocol (including target storms, instrument deployments and statistical criteria), and (2) appropriate funds for independent teams to execute the agreed scope. Several members urged caution about agency selection and the need for transparent consultant selection panels to avoid the perception of bias.
WWDO and state water staff summarized prior work on the subject, including randomized statistical experiments and modeling (the WWMPP pilot and the SNOWIE project) and a past WWDO cost‑effectiveness analysis that estimated site‑specific modeled water gains and cost per acre‑foot for certain years. Those historical models produced water‑gain estimates and suggested cost ranges; committee members and staff said the historical work should inform study design.
On funding, staff suggested the committee might appropriate an initial planning amount (DEQ/WWDO mentioned a planning figure of around $500,000 in committee discussion) so UW could develop a scope, budget and solicitation for independent teams to bid on implementation. Multiple lawmakers cautioned about repeated studies and urged scoping that draws upon existing data and prior peer‑reviewed work.
The committee recessed for lunch to continue debate and to allow staff to refine statutory language and costs; the panel did not complete final votes on 26LSO0210 during the session captured in the transcript.
