Lapas attēli

Mr. BOLLAY. That is right.

Senator DOMINICK. And is it not generally true that the hay meadows and others are below that level?

Mr. BOLLAY. This is right. On the other hand, one cannot generalize this situation either, particularly in the area where we are working in the Steamboat Springs area. You have snow in the Steamboat

Springs area every month of the year.

Senator DOMINICK. But you do not have snow in the Yampa Valley every month of the year. You have it on the surrounding mountains. Mr. BOLLAY. It has snowed in the village of Steamboat Springs every month of the year as a historical record.

Senator DOMINICK. I have been in some of them in June.
How many months present problems in this area?

Mr. BOLLAY. I think there are no problems from November on. Senator DOMINICK. Do we have a history that would indicate that there are a large number of storms coming through in October that should be seeded?

Mr. BOLLAY. We have operated in October. The history is relatively meager in this area-in fact, in many of these areas. Climatological records, where they are collected, are not indicative of what goes on in the area that we are really operating in. So it is a little difficult to give you a good answer on that.

Senator DOMINICK. Let me ask you a tough one. Suppose the Federal Government should appropriate a million dollars and say, "Mr. Bollay, we want you to put together a cloud-seeding operation in the Rockies to increase precipitation in the Colorado River." Could you do it?

Mr. BOLLAY. Absolutely. In fact, before you have appropriated this million dollars we have already held informal discussions with the scientific organizations at Colorado State and at NCAR, and we are working on a design. We are now waiting on you to give us the


Senator DOMINICK. You won't have any problems with me.

All right, Mr. Bollay. Thank you very much. This has been very helpful, and I appreciate it.

Mr. BOLLAY. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Bollay on S. 2875 follows:)

STATEMENT PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, MARCH 23, 1966, ON SENATE BILL S. 2875 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Eugene Bollay, a meteorologist and engineer who has been engaged actively in the field of weather modification for 15 years. I am president of E. Bollay Associates, Inc., which performs weather modification research principally for Government agencies.

I welcome this opportunity to present my view on the legislative proposal in S. 2875 which, if enacted, will significantly affect and advance the management and production of the Nation's water resources. It is essential, I believe, that water in lakes and rivers as well as water in the sky and ocean be considered in the same context-as an important natural resource. In S. 2875 recognition is given to the fact that water-any water—is a natural resource just as are, for example, mineral resources.

Weather modification for increasing the yield of water from atmospheric sources is but one important facet in the total effort on weather modification and climate control.

Thus I suggest that it is equally important for other committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives to recognize and encourage or direct other 59-528-66-pt. 2—13

mission oriented agencies in the Government to fully exploit the potential bene fits that weather modification and climate control can provide in fulfilling their assigned responsibilities. There must be full cooperation between Federal, State, and local government agencies, because after all, weather is everybody's business Areas of weather modification which are of necessity of great interest to spe cific agencies, which are most immediately apparent are:

Elimination of supercooled fogs at airports: Federal Aviation Agency and Department of Defense.

Modification of "warm" fogs: FAA and Department of Defense.
Lightning suppression: Department of Agriculture.
Hail suppression: Department of Agriculture.

Hurricane modification: Department of Defense and U.S. Weather Bureau
Severe storm modification: U.S. Weather Bureau.

General circulation modification: U.S. Weather Bureau.

We must recognize at the beginning that what we are seeking to do is to change the efficiency of natures process in order to create a better environment for all mankind. The breadth and complexity of the problems involved will cut across many fields of science and technology and each will require its own special competency and dedicated effort of those who are to solve the problems. This approach to weather modification will automatically insure healthy scientific competition which is so essential to the national interest.

The history of weather modification in this country is typical of the developments of many technical fields. The initial effort was in response to defense requirements. This was followed very shortly by university research (sporsored largely by NSF) and by experimental projects supported by industry to meets its specific problems. It is clear that the time has now come for a ordinated national program to broaden and hasten the development of scientific knowledge and to apply the accumulated knowledge specifically to the welfare of mankind. And this requires the highest level of national coordination and support-preferably in the offices of the Science Adviser of the President.

The basis for S. 2875 is a recognition of the need for increased water sources from the atmosphere. The proposed legislation would incorporate within the same agency both operative and regulatory functions. Separation of powers is a recognized principal of our law.

The development of administrative law shows that in such situations a conflict of interest eventually develops. No one can serve well as both judge and prosecutor. It would be my suggestion therefore that the regulatory provisions of this bill be separated and made the subject of another bill. I propose that the Federal Government establish a Board or a Commission that is separate and independent from any operating branch of the Government, much like the Civil Aeronautics Board or the Federal Power Commission. In the absence of such a Board and during the interim period that is involved in establishing such a body to avoid confusion and to insure continuance of existing programs without interruption, I suggest that the responsibility for such regulatory activities remain with the assigned responsibilities of the National Science Foundation; where it was placed after careful deliberations under Public Law 510, on the basis of the recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Weather Control, in 1957.

Another area of equal importance is the problem of liabiilty. S. 2875 recognizes the need. I strongly urge that the necessary legislation be passed at the earliest opportunity to protect the individuals as well as the Government agencies who are engaged in such efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I concur in those portions of the conclusions of the two recent reports by the National Academy of Science and the Special Commission of the National Science Foundation which urge that an increased national effort be initiated. To me S. 2875 is the first realistic step in this direction.

In conclusion and summary, I recommend that

(1) The Interior Department be the responsible agency on the Federal level for those aspects of weather modification related to increased precipitation as part of its responsibilities in managing the national water


(2) That other mission oriented agencies who might benefit from weather modification effort be encouraged to formulate their plans and requirements and apply for support from Congress.



(3) That a separate and independent regulatory board or commission be established dealing with, among other things, licenses and legal problems. (4) That suitable legislation regarding liability be enacted at the earliest moment.

(5) That the NSF be encouraged to expand its research activities and to continue its present responsibilities in this field.

(6) Let it be recognized that the industrial sector of meteorology and the research groups at the universities and other research centers be encouraged to continue as a dominant force in the national program in weather modification.

(7) Coordination between Government departments be carried out through the offices of the Science Adviser of the President.

Senator DOMINICK. We will now hear from Mr. W. Boynton Beckwith of United Air Lines.


Senator DOMINICK. Is your home in Chicago, Mr. Beckwith?

Mr. BECKWITH. Yes, it is; although I was a resident of Denver for 14 years.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator DOMINICK. I would say to you, Mr. Beckwith, that we are sorry you are no longer with us in Colorado, but we are glad to have you here testifying before us.

You have been doing some very interesting work in cold fog dispersal I know. If you just go ahead in your own way we will be happy to have this in our record.

Mr. BECKWITH. I am W. Boynton Beckwith, manager of meteorology for United Air Lines. I am also current chairman of the Meteorological Committee of the Air Transport Association of America, and I am a member of the steering committee of the national hail suppression project.

Mr. Chairman, if I have your permission, I would like to have my prepared statement entered into the record in its entirety, and I will confine my statements here to excerpts and highlights of additional material.

Senator DOMINICK. So ordered.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Beckwith follows:)


Fog and low clouds around airports have been a concern of aviation during most of its 60-year history. Today it is much less of a problem in terms of hours of fog-caused delays thanks to the efforts of industry and government through the years. Most of this progress has come through the development and refinement of sophisticated flight equipment coupled with complex airport navigation and landing aids, improvement in piloting techniques, and to a small degree by improved weather forecasting and flight planning. The scheduled airlines now complete all but about 3 percent of their programed airplane miles on a national basis. Approximately 1 percent of canceled mileage is caused by dense fog, but even this small portion represents a cost to the industry annually of more than $50 million. Costs to the flying public in delays and lost time is possibly of the same order of magnitude.

Even with the prospect of zero-zero landing capabilities in sight, there will be many airports in the Nation whose traffic-generating capabilities will not justify the costly ground equipment that is a part of the sophisticated landing aids. Artificial fog dispersal is thus a vitally important key to a completely weather-free air transportation system.

Several methods of dispersing fog have been developed and tested, beginning with Houghton's research at Cape Cod in 1935. During World War II, thermal methods of dissipation were tried with some success. These techniques and others were tested and refined by Government and industry research at the postwar FIDO project. When applied to the fog problem at Los Angeles Air port with a costly installation, the results were negative because of technical and local climatological problems. Still another method involving the seeding by aircraft of a heated material was tested under contract by United Air Lines in 1952 with only marginal success.

Today there is no known economically feasible method of dispersing all fogs, although several promising techniques are currently being tested or are under development in connection with the predominant warm-fog problem.

For supercooled fogs, a proven method has been used operationally for a nuber of years, but is not 100 percent effective under some meteorological condi tions. (Supercooled fog is a water fog which exists naturally at temperatures of 32° F. or colder.)

The ability to disperse supercooled fogs and clouds has been known since Langmuir, Schaefer, and Vonnegut published their findings in 1946 and 1947. Most scientific energy and research funds dealing with the dry ice and silver iodide seeding techniques were channeled in the years following toward precipitation inducement and hail suppression, because of the greater potential benefits. However, some local supercooled fog dispersal operations were conducted privately in the Pacific Northwest as early as 1950; and Governmentsponsored research has been performed for a number of years along these lines toward military objectives.

Supercooled fog is a seasonal phenomenon and occurs most extensively in a regional pattern. For this reason there has not been a national concern toward alleviating the condition, even though dense supercooled fog can paralyze a region for days at a time and in many areas represents better than 75 percent of the total annual dense-fog frequency. Table I shows the annual frequency of dense supercooled fog for 75 airports in the United States.

It is perhaps significant that dispersing dense supercooled fogs at airports has been reported as an operational success in the U.S.S.R. since the late fifties. Many cities in the Soviet Union are exposed to high frequencies of the cold fog because of a more favorable meteorological environment for its formation.

At Orly Airport in Paris, permanent installations have been made which provide for automatic distribution of a seeding agent used in combating their frequent cold fog incursions.

Airline interest in this country on the possibilities of dissipating supercooled fog had been maintained through reported successes of field experiments in cold climates.

Failures of the warm-fog tests and experience with a siege of supercooled fog at Salt Lake City which paralyzed airline operations brought things to a head in United Air Lines. In 1960 a proposal was submitted by United to the FAA urging them to take the initiative and encourage municipalities in the Pacif Northwest to undertake the dissipation of supercooled fogs. The proposal included details of inexpensive methods of producing fog breaks which had been used successfully in other tests.

United Air Lines contracted through a meteorological consulting firm (Intermountain Weather, Inc.) in December 1962, for a series of fog-dispersal tests at Salt Lake City which had been under development at that site. The technique employed was to drop crushed dry ice from a light aircraft flying in a pattern on top of the fog deck coinciding with the instrument runway approach and landing area. This would have been a significant date for the airline, but for the fact that no dense fog formed at that airport for the balance of the winter.

However, during the winter of 1962-63, eight fog-seeding flights each were conducted under contract by United at Salt Lake Airport and at Medford, Oreg. Ali 16 operations were successful, and some results were spectacular as holes it the fog deck opened up beneath the seeding drops. Some 40 scheduled airline flights were able to operate which would otherwise have been canceled or overflown.

On the strength of the accomplishments demonstrated, the program was erpanded to eight airports during the winter of 1964-65. Contractual arrangements were handled by the airport management at seven locations, similar to runway

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

snow removal. Costs of the fog seeding were borne on a proportionate share by up to six cooperating airlines. At Salt Lake City, seeding operations were arranged and paid for by United Air Lines and Western Airlines. At Portland, Oreg., the entire cost of the fog-dispersal program was absorbed by the port authority as an airport service.

Further expansion of the supercooled fog dispersal program was made to 14 airports during the past winter. New locations where these operations were organized were in the Middle West and East. Although frequencies of dense cold fog east of the Rockies is lower than in the Pacific Northwest, significant exposures exist when weighed against airline traffic levels. A mere 4-hour siege of zero-zero fog at a critical airport, such as Chicago O'Hare, can and does cause diversions of scores of airline flights and disservice to thousands of passengers.

Summaries of fog-seeding operations for the past three winters are in table II. Operations were evaluated subjectively as 80 percent successful. Most of the cases judged failures or marginal were associated with meteorolgical conditions in which dry ice was ineffective or only partially effective as a seeding agent. In this series of airport weather modification operations, organization of the programs was spearheaded by United Air Lines because of our confidence in the benefits to be gained by both the public and the air carriers.

TABLE 1.-Mean annual hours of supercooled fog with visibility less than one-half mile

[blocks in formation]

Salem, Oreg.-
Reno, Nev..
Portland, Oreg..
Fresno, Calif...

Des Moines, Iowa---.
Seattle-Tacoma, Wash..
Cedar Rapids, Iowa---.
Sacramento, Calif..
Seattle Boeing, Wash.__.
Washington Dulles__.
Grand Junction, Colo.---
Charleston, W.Va..
Elmira, N.Y._
Lincoln, Nebr..

Bristol, Tenn.--

Denver, Colo.----
Windsor Locks, Conn...
Moline, Ill..
South Bend, Ind..
Chattanooga, Tenn..
Toledo, Ohio___
Akron-Canton, Ohio_.
Fort Wayne, Ind..
Elko, Nev..

Omaha, Nebr..

Detroit Yipsilanti

Detroit Metropolitan.

Dayton, Ohio__

Greensboro, N.C..

Grand Rapids, Mich.‒‒‒‒

39 Chicago O'Hare, Ill.
36 Allentown, Pa...
28 Lansing, Mich..
28 Muskegon, Mich..
26 Providence, R.I..
25 Williamsport, Pa..
24 Baltimore, Md...
24 Knoxville, Tenn..
23 Raleigh-Durham, N.C..
21 Rochester, N.Y.
19 Philadelphia, Pa..
18 Pittsburgh, Pa...
17 Charlotte, N.C.----
16 Harrisburg, Pa.---
15 Norfolk, Va.--.
14 Cleveland, Ohio.

14 Chicago Midway, Ill..
13 Washington National.
13 Huntsville, Ala.---
12 Kansas City, Kans.
12 Newark, N.J.
12 Memphis, Tenn..
12 Ely, Nev.__

11 Boston, Mass..
11 New York Kennedy.

11 New York La Guardia.
11 Atlanta, Ga.----

11 Birmingham, Ala.--.


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1 Source of table I was UAL Meteorology Circular No. 58 from U.S. Weather Bureau data.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »