Federal officials are reassessing oversight of weather modification activities after renewed scrutiny of historical programs, modern cloud-seeding operations, and gaps in existing regulation, according to a recent report.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The United States has a long history of weather and climate modification efforts conducted by government agencies and private entities, much of it operating with limited regulation, and federal officials are now reviewing whether existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient, according to a report by Sharyl Attkisson.
The report documents more than a century of weather modification activity in the U.S., ranging from early rainmaking experiments to classified military operations and present-day commercial cloud seeding. Despite the scope of those efforts, regulation remains minimal in much of the country, with limited requirements for disclosure, verification, or enforcement.
Public attention increased following severe flooding in central Texas last July. After prolonged drought conditions, parts of the region recorded approximately 13 inches of rainfall. The Guadalupe River rose about 31 feet within 90 minutes, resulting in dozens of deaths. Days earlier, and roughly 130 miles away in Karnes County, a private company, Rainmaker Technology, reported seeding two small clouds with silver iodide. The company, Rainmaker Technology Corporation, said the operation was intended to induce rainfall.
Geoengineering researcher Dane Wigington said in a July 9 interview that he believed the cloud seeding may have influenced the storm system. “There was nothing natural about this event,” Wigington said, asserting that weather modification activities can intensify severe weather events.
Rainmaker Technology Chief Executive Officer Augustus Doricko disputed that claim. In media interviews, including a July 9 appearance with Fox News Channel’s Will Cain, Doricko said the scale of cloud seeding operations is insufficient to produce rainfall comparable to that associated with major storm systems. “Unequivocally, our cloud seeding operations on July 2nd did not impact the flooding that occurred later,” Doricko said. He added that cloud seeding typically produces limited precipitation relative to large tropical weather systems.
Weather modification controversies in the U.S. date back to the early 20th century. In 1916, San Diego contracted rainmaker Charles Hatfield to address drought conditions. Following the release of a chemical mixture intended to induce rain, the city experienced continuous rainfall for two weeks. Flooding destroyed infrastructure and culminated in the collapse of the lower Otay Dam on Jan. 27, 1916, sending floodwaters through surrounding areas. The event remains the most severe rainfall and deadliest natural disaster recorded in San Diego.
Federal involvement in weather engineering expanded after World War II. In 1947, the U.S. military and General Electric launched Project Cirrus to study hurricane modification using frozen carbon dioxide. One operation involving Hurricane King in 1950 coincided with the storm intensifying and changing course before striking areas near Savannah, Georgia.
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson publicly discussed the potential of weather control. In a 1961 address to the United Nations, Kennedy said nations should pursue cooperation in weather prediction and “eventually in weather control.” In 1962, Johnson said advances in weather satellites could “permit man to determine the world’s cloud layer and ultimately … control the weather.”
During the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. conducted Project Stormfury, which involved seeding hurricanes such as Beulah, Debbie, and Ginger, producing mixed and inconclusive results. Separately, the military conducted the classified Operation Popeye from 1967 to 1972, dispersing silver iodide over Vietnam to extend monsoon seasons and disrupt supply routes. After the program was revealed, international opposition led to a United Nations treaty banning hostile use of weather modification.
Today, cloud seeding is conducted in at least nine U.S. states. Federal agencies have also identified a range of other weather modification techniques, including methods intended to induce precipitation, suppress hail, disperse fog, reduce evaporation, apply substances to water surfaces, emit ions or particles into the atmosphere, generate shock waves, or influence lightning.
Another area of debate involves Solar Radiation Management, which aims to reduce global temperatures by reflecting sunlight. Proposed methods include Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Marine Cloud Brightening, both of which remain controversial and largely unregulated.
Federal oversight of weather modification is governed primarily by a 1972 law that relies on self-reporting and does not include verification or enforcement provisions. In 35 states, no permits are required for weather modification activities, and no audits or operational limits are imposed.
Regarding aircraft contrails, the Environmental Protection Agency has said it is not aware of any being used for weather control. Nonetheless, at least 13 states have introduced legislation aimed at restricting atmospheric modification practices. Tennessee, Montana, and Florida have enacted measures limiting certain forms of weather modification.
According to the Just the News report by Sharyl Attkisson, the EPA says the Trump administration is currently evaluating whether congressional action is required or whether regulatory authority should be reassigned to another federal agency to address weather modification activities.
Original article
Comments