The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Questioning the science in the face of funding shortages
For seven winters now, propane burners have been “seeding” winter clouds in Gunnison County. A yellow flame burns a mixture of sodium and silver iodide, releasing tiny particles of silver iodide into the lower layers of clouds. That silver iodide can cause water droplets to turn to snow at warmer temperatures than they otherwise would.
The idea, according to Don Griffith, is to increase the efficiency of existing snowstorms so they yield more snow—a good thing for ski areas and local reservoirs. Griffith and the Utah-based North American Weather Consultants, Inc. have been overseeing the cloud seeding program in Gunnison County, where seeding takes place over 9,000 feet.
But not everyone believes in the science, and in a budget cycle where decreases in assessed property values are putting the squeeze on spending, the future of cloud seeding could be at stake. The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (the District) may withdraw its funding, forcing the cloud seeding program to operate at half of its current budget. And weather modification—even on a local scale—doesn’t come cheap.
“We are trying to mimic Mother Nature to cause water droplets to freeze. Once they can freeze, they will turn into ice crystals and will grow into snow flakes rather quickly,” Griffith said.
Last winter, according to Griffith, the program seeded a total of 17 times, and there are plans to continue this coming year. But this kind of local weather modification comes at a price estimated to be about $95,000 during the coming winter season.
The District has historically been the largest local contributor, funding $26,500 to the program. Yet pulling funding would mean a total loss of $53,000 for cloud seeding because the state matches all local funds.
Griffith appeared before the Board of County Commissioners during a work session on Tuesday, September 27 to discuss the potential shortfalls and request that the county continue its support of the program, historically $10,000.
Frank Kugel, general manager of the District, also attended the meeting. He said the hesitation comes in part from a 20 percent budget decrease as a result of the corresponding decrease in property valuations across Gunnison County.
But it primarily comes down to the science, and whether or not his board believes cloud seeding works.
“It’s more a question of the science by a number of board members. I have tried to argue with mixed success that even if the calculations are off by a factor of 10 and you get $10 acre-foot water that’s pretty darn cheap water,” Kugel said.
Conservative estimates, according to Griffith, indicate that cloud seeding does work and provides water right around $1 per acre-foot.
“It’s not easy to measure success because the best way would be to seed half [the target area] and leave half unseeded,” Griffith said.
But that would be a huge expense, and they do not want to miss out on the opportunity to cloud seed the entire region. Instead, Griffith said, historical data from 1971 to 2,000 (before cloud seeding took place) is used to predict what snow-water content would be without cloud seeding. Those numbers are then compared with observed snow-water content during each cloud seeding year.
These calculations suggest cloud seeding increases snow water content between 10 percent and 15 percent. In an average winter season, that could increase stream flow between 79,602 acre-feet and 119,403 acre-feet, and that translates to cheap water, between $.83 and $1.25 per acre-foot.
The commissioners asked Griffith what a funding cut would mean for the program—whether that would mean starting it later and ending it sooner, or pausing in the middle—but such details have not been determined.
“The other thing you could do is randomly not seed selective storms and get an account as to what the effectiveness is, because that could help sell it in following years,” said Commissioner Phil Chamberland.
“It’s more like five or seven years you’d have to do that to get reliable statistics,” Griffith said.
Commissioner Hap Channell wondered if it was possible to figure out some kind of cost-sharing ratio among stakeholders.
“My enthusiasm, even though I believe in the science, wanes when major stakeholders—who I consider the biggest stakeholders—when their enthusiasm wanes,” Channell said.
In addition to the UGRWCD, he referenced Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) which, according to Gunnison County senior accountant Jane Wyman, used to contribute $10,000 and had not responded to recent attempts to discuss reinstating that funding.
In an email to the Crested Butte News, CBMR public relations and communications manager Erica Reiter confirmed that the ski resort did contribute to the program for several years until the 2005-2006 ski season. At this time, she said, CBMR does not plan to contribute to the program because they are already contributing heavily to the airline program and cannot afford to fund additional county initiatives.
“Most everyone in the valley and certainly most businesses benefit from additional water and snow that falls in Gunnison County. To name a few: agriculture, ranching, water sports, wildflowers blooming, backcountry winter use and the overall county water supply. As such, we feel it is an expense that is properly paid for by the county due to its broad benefit,” Reiter explained.
At the end of the commissioners’ meeting, the commissioners urged Griffith and Wyman to continue seeking funding, asking Kugel to speak with his board again and offering to help Wyman and Griffith reach out to CBMR as well.
“I hope the Upper Gunnison continues to fund this and please do take this back to board—if they don’t it’s going to be hard to continue the program,” said Commissioner Paula Swenson.
