Although India had ventured into cloud seeding as early as the 1950s, a regulatory framework to diffuse all legal ambiguities that may arise with respect to weather modification is still not in place.
—
THE weather has a substantial impact on the economy of a country. Agriculture and raw material production depends a lot on favourable weather. Weather conditions significantly govern a country’s output and forces of demand and supply.
This year is poised to be an El Niño year and the impact that it will have on market forces is already being studied, considering the devastating effect that the El Niño phenomenon can have.
The strong causal link between weather and economic prosperity has led meteorologists to explore weather modification. The purposeful manipulation or adjustment of atmospheric conditions to alter local or regional weather patterns is called weather modification.
It incorporates a variety of techniques and technologies to change precipitation, suppress hail, lessen storm intensity, disperse fog, or lessen the consequences of severe weather occurrences.
The idea of cloud seeding was initially proposed in the early 20th century, and Vincent Schaefer is credited with conducting the first cloud seeding experiment in 1946, which involved using dry ice to induce snowfall.
Weather modification has a significant footprint on diverse variables such as sociological, ecological and economic events with the potential of unintended consequences.
India’s growth story touts the country as the third-largest economy by the end of the decade but Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Telangana and Rajasthan are drought-prone states and as the largest state economies of the country, weather can certainly become a hindrance to India’s ambitious targets.
The need for setting up a regulatory and legal framework for cloud seeding and weather modification is ever-increasing, with climate change becoming more and more relevant with mass floodings, landslides and droughts impacting economies and affecting millions of people.
Historical background
Many people considered weather modification to be a promising field of study in the late 1940s and 1950s. The idea of cloud seeding was initially proposed in the early 20th century, and Vincent Schaefer is credited with conducting the first cloud seeding experiment in 1946, which involved using dry ice to induce snowfall.
This method acquired popularity as a tool for the possible control and manipulation of weather in the years that followed. A rise in the interest in cloud seeding was motivated by the Cold War and the desire to manipulate the weather for military objectives, particularly by the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Globally, both public and commercial organisations have made investments in the ideas of research and development, creating numerous experimental programmes including Project Stormfury, which was started by the US in the late 1960s, and Snowy Hydro, which was started by an Australian corporation in the 1950s.
In India, Tata made the first attempts at cloud seeding in 1951 over the western coast using ground-based silver iodide generators. In 1953, the Committee on the Atmospheric Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) recommended that a rain and cloud physics research (RCPR) unit be set up for undertaking extensive scientific studies on cloud physics and rainmaking.
The RCPR unit used ground-based salt generators to carry out long-term cloud seeding programmes across north India between 1957–66. The findings revealed a 20 percent increase in rainfall. Later, the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) absorbed the RCPR unit. The IITM has now become the leading climate research institute and is the authority on cloud seeding exploration in the country.
Scientific, legal, moral and ethical concerns
Weather modification techniques have come a long way since the early 1950s albeit with their own set of challenges and issues. These issues need to be addressed before the world moves towards tackling climate change and global warming head-on with cloud seeding solutions.
Politicians and scientists have raised many concerns regarding cloud seeding from the perspective of environmental and social effects. These effects include, among others, legal ambiguity, soil erosion, vested group interests and water depletion
Regulations and licensing exist at the local and state levels to ensure competence and protect the public from incompetent practitioners. Even if one state permits weather manipulation, a neighbouring state might not.
Weather modification involves complex and chaotic atmospheric systems, making it difficult to predict and control the outcomes of such interventions. For example, attempts to lift fog through mechanical mixing can sometimes worsen visibility instead of improving it.
Unpredictability of weather modification outcomes has made it challenging to provide definitive proof of success. Lack of scientific understanding and absence of rigorous experimental controls have also hindered validation of weather modification techniques.
Weather modification raises legal questions regarding property rights and liability. Early court interpretations debated whether individuals had property rights over clouds and the rain they produced, but it was eventually established that rain belongs to everyone.
Determining legal liability for weather-related damages can be complicated, as it is challenging to prove that a specific weather event causing harm was directly caused by weather modification efforts.
Regulations and licensing exist at the local and state levels to ensure competence and protect the public from incompetent practitioners. Even if one state permits weather manipulation, a neighbouring state might not. If a seeded cloud crosses the state boundary, things may become quite challenging.
Internationally, India is a signatory of the 1976 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD treaty). The treaty prohibits the military use of weather modification as a weapon, with limitations on the scale and severity of the effects.
The Indian military should interpret the treaty as barring any involvement in weather modification, although there is room for interpretation within the limitations outlined by the treaty.
Weather modification also raises moral and ethical concerns. Manipulating weather patterns can lead to conflicts of interest, as different groups may have opposing preferences for weather conditions. For instance, while farmers may desire rain for their crops, resort owners may prefer sunny weather for tourists.
Balancing these competing interests can be challenging. The potential environmental and ecological consequences of weather modification, such as unintended effects on ecosystems or unintended coupling between cloud-seeding materials and the biosphere, raise ethical questions.
Also read: Citizens’ fight to restore Goa’s ecology: Revitalising agriculture in mining-affected areas
To address these issues and ensure responsible and successful application of weather modification practices, a multidisciplinary strategy comprising scientific research, policy creation, infrastructural investments and public involvement is needed.
Regulations around the world
Internationally, the right of governments to utilise transboundary watercourses for cloud seeding is recognised under Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. They must, however, comply with the requirement that they do not significantly impair the environment of neighbouring states that share the same watercourse.
Manipulating weather patterns can lead to conflicts of interest, as different groups may have opposing preferences for weather conditions. For instance, while farmers may desire rain for their crops, resort owners may prefer sunny weather for tourists.
Parties are required by Article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol to make sure that their seeding procedure has no negative effects on biodiversity. Additionally, the clause mandates that parties secure approval from nearby communities before beginning planting.
The emission and transportation of air pollutants as a result of cloud seeding are governed under Article 2 of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
The US Weather Modification Act creates a legal foundation for cloud seeding. This calls for acquiring permissions from the appropriate US state agencies and abiding by safety and environmental regulations.
States in the US have independent regulations, namely the Colorado Weather Modification Operations Act, Texas Weather Modification Act, and North Dakota Atmospheric Modification Law.
Similar guidelines are laid forth in the Chinese Regulation on Weather Modification, which also demands that any negative consequences brought on by cloud seeding be minimised.
Case law
In the case of Slutsky v. City of New York (1950), the plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the city’s artificial rain experiments, which aimed to alleviate a severe drought. The trial court denied the injunction, stating that the plaintiffs lacked legal rights to the clouds and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
The court recognised the conflicting interests between potential inconvenience to the plaintiff’s resort and the need to provide water to millions of people. It concluded that protecting public welfare outweighed speculative private concerns, and therefore denied the injunction, as the plaintiffs lacked both factual and legal grounds for their request.
In Summerville v. North Platte Valley Weather Control District (1961), a property owner within a weather control area named Summerville contested the legality of a 1957 Nebraska state legislation on cloud seeding. Summerville, who resided outside the district but was impacted by its choices, was not given the chance to be heard.
Presently, India does not have a comprehensive legislation that covers weather modification explicitly, which might impede its development and application.
In the above case, the state legislation was found to be unconstitutional by the trial court and the Nebraska Supreme Court. Notably, neither weather manipulation nor landowners’ rights to cloud water were discussed in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Instead, the ruling concentrated on the flaws in the law that were similar to those in a 1924 law that had already been declared unconstitutional. The court thus decided that the law was against constitutional norms.
Indian regulations
Clear legal and regulatory frameworks are necessary to provide effective monitoring, environmental preservation, and public safety when it comes to weather manipulation. Presently, India does not have a comprehensive legislation that covers weather modification explicitly, which might impede its development and application.
India needs legislation to tackle cloud seeding techniques. Addressing climate change will be the most crucial theme of the next century, and proper legislation is imperative to regulate cloud seeding, which will be vital for mitigating the effects of climate change. India currently lags behind nations like China and the US which have regulations covering, inter alia, cloud seeding.
India will need to enter into public–private partnerships (PPP) soon to fully address global warming and meet its 2070 COP26 emission targets. PPPs working in complex areas such as weather modification require a regulatory framework to work within.
Weather modification becomes even more complex in developing countries like India which do not have the infrastructure to support cloud seeding and diverse climatic conditions. The urgency for regulation of such techniques in India is increasing.
Government regulation of cloud seeders in the US often involves two steps. The government first issues licences to specific cloud seeders. A licensed cloud seeder is given a permit by the government to operate at a certain location and within a defined window of time.
Before granting permission to a cloud seeder, several states need public hearings. A multi-pronged approach similar to the US could also be emulated in India.
India can model a domestic Bill along the lines of the ENMOD treaty. The Bill should create a regulating agency for weather modification, shed light on the role of interest groups and determine liability.
India can model a domestic Bill along the lines of the ENMOD treaty. The Bill should create a regulating agency for weather modification, shed light on the role of interest groups, determine liability in cases of unintended consequences; whether absolute or strict liability is to be applied, install barriers to military use of such techniques, settle legal questions regarding property rights and liability in case of weather-related damage and formulate eligibility for granting licence to private companies.
In addition to addressing the legal concerns, the Bill should endeavour research in weather modification which would remove ambiguities regarding the efficacy of cloud seeding.
Conclusion
India has a chance to shift away from its policy of reactionary legislation-making wherein laws are made after disasters or accidents. The government is caught lacking strict regulatory oversight and is left red-faced.
Such public embarrassments can be avoided by staying ahead of the curve, and a weather modification Bill would certainly be the answer.
India has no framework to cover weather modification-related disasters that would leave litigants at the mercy of generic laws which might not provide adequate relief.
India can use regulations to instil proper procedural and substantive approaches before the weather modification industry becomes a crucial part of the economy.
