Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cloud Seeding Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadow council hears plea to chip in on cloud‑seeding program as state ramps up drone seeding
Summary
A resident asked Meadow Town Council to contribute to a $400,000 cloud‑seeding operation the state has largely underwritten; council members expressed support but raised budget‑timing and measurement questions and took no formal vote.
Dan Anderson, a Meadow resident, asked the Meadow Town Council on Wednesday to help raise a local contribution so his valley can be included in an upcoming cloud‑seeding program that a private contractor and state water officials are preparing to run with drones.
Anderson told the council Rainmaker, the company proposing work in the valley, quoted $400,000 to operate from November through April; he said the state has agreed to cover about $350,000 and asked valley entities to raise roughly $50,000. Anderson said he has recruited several irrigation companies and nearby towns and suggested a $5,000 contribution from 10 entities would cover the shortfall.
The request matters because presenters and council members framed it as an investment in the watershed: Anderson said additional snowpack would reduce summer pumping from wells and benefit farms and municipal supplies in the valley. He summarized Rainmaker’s method as using radar and drones that “release silver iodide” into candidate storms, saying drone seeding can be more efficient than traditional ground‑based generators already operating in the area.
Council members expressed general support for at least trying the program for one season but raised procedural and budget questions. The moderator noted the town had not budgeted for the expense and that the council typically has discretion to spend up to $5,000 without formal bidding; members discussed whether Meadow should pledge a fraction of the local share or a set dollar amount and whether the town could meet a rapid commitment timeline if the program begins in November.
During public comment, a resident who said they had spoken with Jonathan Jennings of the Utah Division of Water Resources argued the state program is already heavily funded and operational, and questioned whether a small town should contribute local funds. The commenter cited state funding figures and maps showing planned aerial/drone seeding over the valley.
No formal motion or vote on a contribution was taken. Council members said they could pursue follow‑up (including identifying budget line items or calling a special meeting) but did not commit to a payment at the session’s close.
What the council said it would do next: council members signaled interest in pursuing a limited, one‑year participation but said they need time to identify funding sources and confirm the timing; they also planned to collect further public input and follow up with staff on budget implications.
