PG&E Seeding Clouds in Pit/McCloud Watersheds?? Yep.
I’m on my way out the door, but it’s definitely the Underground’s week for breaking enviro news. First we had the Klamath River dam removal agreement (which is starting to smell a little, and may not pass the Underground’s sniff test).
Now we find that PG&E is running a controversial cloud-seeding program to generate more water (and hydro money), and apparently the residents of Siskiyou County were given late notification on the project (which begins today), and
I can’t say whether the program is good or bad, but you’ve gotta admit that mucking about with something as fundamental as the weather raises some interesting questions - none of which seem to have been answered by PG&E.
It’s important to note that Siskiyou County’s Crack Team of Knuckleheads Board of Supervisors apparently didn’t even give the project a cursory glance when it was brought to their attention in 2006.
The program, called the “Pit-McCloud Cloud Seeding – Ground Water Enhancement Project,” is one of several projects of its kind throughout California.
It is slated to begin on November 15 of this year and will involve “cloud seeding” over a target area “east of McCloud town, north of Burney town, south of Medicine Lake and bounded on the east by the White Horse and Big Valley mountains,” according to the NOI. The goal of the program, states PG&E, is to increase precipitation in the McCloud and Pit River watersheds in order to promote and protect the production of hydroelectric power.
Though the notice further states that “no adverse environment impacts will occur” and that “PG&E cloud seeding programs comply with all regulations,” many residents have expressed their concern over the program and want more information, including a group of citizens who held a rally in front of Mt. Shasta City Hall on October 28.
A later segment in the lengthy, well-researched story by local writer Charlie Unkefer seeming underscores the lack of real research on this subject:
PG&E representative Marler emphasized his regret that the public was not informed in a more timely manner. “We did not involve the public and that was probably an oversight on our behalf,” he said. However, he insisted that the program is safe and that the available science supports this fact.
A scant couple paragraphs below, the following information unfolds:
Though there is data to support the fact that the impacts of weather modification programs are safe and effective, there is also evidence to the contrary. The “California Water Plan Update Draft 2009” itself notes, “No complete and rigorous comprehensive study has been made of all California Precipitation Projects.”
Other research, such as a report filed by the Office of Environmental Heath and Safety at UC Berkley, rate silver iodide as a “class C non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil, and one of the key manufacturers of silver iodide, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet. The Federal Clean Water Act, regulated by the EPA, notes that “silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.”
My question is this - aren’t the folks to the east of here a little cranky that PG&E’s wringing extra water out the clouds before they head that way, presumably reducing the precipitation they receive?
Gotta run, but more on this later.
UPDATE: The Mount Shasta Herald has published a followup story, which I’ll look at after the weekend’s over.
See you in the clouds, Tom Chandler.
Powered by ScribeFire.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I’d like to point out that the Chinese government has done extensive research into cloud seeding, that the Chinese government also has exemplary environmental record, and found cloud seeding to be a very environmentally sound practice. I’m guessing PG&E is just piggybacking on their research, not to mention their style of public involvement.
Seriously, if we can barely predict weather _precisely_ more than a few days into the future even with huge computational resources and complex models then how can we expect to understand what effects a program like this would have — not to mention that silver iodide isn’t exactly orange juice.
As a student in the meteorology department at the University of Utah, a avid backcountry skier, and fishing guide I would like to add a bit of a counter argument to this topic because I too was extremely concerned, and pissed off when Vail and other Colorado resorts similarly announced their cloud seeding projects several years ago. Growing up on the Front Range I was worried resorts downwind of these practices were seeing a negative effect on the snow totals in Boulder and my home resort of Eldora. So, as a student at the U of Utah I spent countless hours researching the effects, practices, and endless studies done on cloud seeding across the western US for a final paper. I was surprised to find report after report done from the early 60s to 1990s finding ‘inconclusive evidence’ any of the seeding even worked. At most they were seeing 10-15% gain of snow totals in spotty locations that could be merely due to the the snow pillow being cross loaded by varying wind directions. Skeptical of this evidence (believing it had a greater effect) I talked to an early pioneer in cloud seeding in the desert SW, and he quietly sat me down and told me (in a whisper) that seeding really has no scientific proof it really works. seriously. Its a pretty expensive hoax.
I also looked into the effect silver iodide has on the environment. Several studies which have been done looking a high alpine lake mud for traces of silver iodide in the Sierras. What they found was minimal, but still that they had found anything was concerning. That is more what i would be worried about that the effect of downwind neighbors. Now i am most definitely not a proponent of the practice of cloud seeding or altering the environment in any way, but figured that i would chime in and give a somewhat educated take on the debate. Rest soundly in the fact that these morons are blowing money on something that has about the same effectiveness as abstinence only sex education.
I laughed at that part about “warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet”. As a former reactive chemicals safety officer for a major chemical firm (I can’t tell you who, but their name rhymes with cow), I had to look through thousands of MSDS. Guess what: even clean water has stated hazards on its MSD Sheet.
However, AgI isn’t something I’d want to mess around with. The only mitigating factor for you folks? The stuff is bloody expensive! And we’re talking a utility here, some of the strongest misers on the planet. They’ll get tired of it when no effect is shown. And even for the Chinese, who keep trying (and often with materials more toxic than AgI, like melamine), there’s really been no effect noted…
When I read, “studies are inconclusive”- I smell trouble. That usually means, we are going to do it till we find out otherwise, think FDA. We should all take comfort knowing that cloud seeding had been going on for years and so far no one has seen any ill effects- yet.
You might want to consider reinforcing your roof too. Reuters publishedthis article awhile back about a bad day for Russian cloud seeding.
AND… What is PG&E going to do with this “Extra” water? Generate $ obviously, but does that mean increased flows on the McCloud & Pit and/or filling McCloud & Iron Canyon reservoirs (etc) with more water? Flow studies? Why do I get the feeling PG&E is the only one in the loop , as far as, what lies in the future for these watersheds. How many powerhouses does the Pit have?