The inadequacy of state laws in America and the need for International Environmental legislation to be synchronized with relation to Cloud Seeding and the creation of the Climate Change Agency

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 Graduated Master Degree from the Department of International Law, Faculty of Law Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Imam Khomeini and Islamic Revolution Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Cloud seeding has been used in many countries in recent decades to combat drought, reduce pollution, and mitigate global warming, among other things. Local and state laws govern the process in the United States. Due to differences in state laws, the broad extent of the land covered each time has perplexed seeders, affected people, and courts of law. Due to the sheer lack of federal laws and inconsistencies in state laws, those affected by the negative effects are legally helpless, while the offenders escape punishment. This research seeks to answer the following questions: “How well do existing laws meet current legal needs in this regard?” and “Is there a way to eliminate the potential shortcoming?” A descriptive-analytical approach is used to investigate issues arising from the lack of a federal law and the state jurisdiction of current laws. The goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of existing laws and the need for comprehensive federal legislation. Giving the benefits and drawbacks of federal law regulation, presenting solutions to eliminate the drawbacks, and demonstrating the ineffectiveness of general responsibility laws, the benefits of developing such a law that governs state laws outweigh the drawbacks. The inadequacy of current laws in terms of their enforcement serves as further evidence of the necessity of establishing an organization to control, manage, and monitor cloud seeding.

Highlights

Introduction

Cloud seeding is increasingly being used in many countries to combat drought, gain access to fresh water, reduce pollution, and mitigate global warming. The process makes the drops within a cloud heavier, causing them to fall. It causes heavy rain and snow by introducing silver iodide particles into the cloud via planes, drones, or other means. This mitigates drought by increasing water access. The subsequent reduction in atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gas emissions also contributes significantly to mitigating global warming. However, people are injured and places are damaged as a result of climate change, which alters the natural precipitation level and, at times, the broad extent of the affected area. Even poor management can have unintended and highly destructive consequences. The increasing use of cloud seeding compelled some countries to enact regulatory legislation. Nonetheless, no specific international action has been taken. The large area covered each time, as well as the differences in national laws, have perplexed the seeders, affected, and courts. The global lack of comprehensive international laws, the absence of a federal one in the United States, and inconsistencies in state laws render those affected legally helpless and allow perpetrators to escape consequences.

 

Methodology

This research is a descriptive-analytical study.

 

Findings

The goal is to answer the following questions: “How well do existing laws regarding cloud seeding meet legal requirements?” and “Is there a way to eliminate their potential shortcoming?” The United States is a pioneer in the use of cloud seeding. Along with frequently referring to common law in most legal issues and having regulations (albeit state ones), it made the United States our preferred country for studying those laws. The research hypothesis is that existing laws are insufficient, that they must be unified, and that a comprehensive federal regulation is required.

 

The study's goal is to show discrepancies in different regions' standards and instructions, as well as the resulting inefficiency. This demonstrates the importance of developing and enacting unified federal laws to make the cloud seeding process more transparent and efficient.

 

Cloud seeding laws are classified into three types: state laws, a few federal laws, and international conventions. Some states have enacted special weather modification legislation, while others rely on existing regional legislation[1]. Inconsistencies in regulations cause problems between neighboring states that are harmed by their neighbor's cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is regulated and legislated by Congress. However, all attempts to enact new legislation have failed due to a lack of research on weather modification and concerns about the effects of such legislation[2]. There has been no comprehensive federal weather modification legislation developed or passed by Congress. Existing federal laws in this area are insignificant. The 1976 Weather Modification Policy Act is currently in effect[3]. It was enacted during the early days of weather modification science. The failure to update the law in response to scientific advances has resulted in many gaps and flaws in the law. Aside from that, international conventions such as the US-Canada official agreement on weather and climate intelligence collaboration and the Environmental Modification Convention have been established (ENMOD)[4]. However, because of the ambiguity in determining responsibility, the difficulty of proof, negligence, and a lack of standards in determining the risk level, those who have been harmed end up in a dead end. It gives the agent who performs cloud seeding complete freedom with no accountability. The agent may also withdraw due to concerns about the level of responsibility or the possibility of committing an alleged crime. Federal regulation ensures more efficient cloud seeding in competent drought combat. The federal government owns a sizable portion of the land in the states that seed the clouds. For example, the US government owns 45.8 percent of land in California and 84.9 percent of land in Nevada, and it also contributes significantly to the operations budget. Washington is best placed to present operational guidelines for cloud seeding on federal lands. The US government considers Indian territories to be sovereign states. On those lands, state laws do not apply. As a result, having federal laws enacted in these territories is unavoidable. Furthermore, federal laws govern the use of drones[5]. The use of a drone in cloud seeding demonstrates the importance of federal legislation for the actions of these drones.

 

Results

The study of issues due to the lack of a federal cloud seeding law, state jurisdictions of such regulations, the benefits and drawbacks of regulation by federal legislations, and the ineffectiveness of general responsibility laws demonstrates that the benefits of enacting such a law to govern state regulations outweigh the drawbacks.

 

Due to the shortcomings of current laws, it is necessary to establish an agency to regulate, manage, and supervise cloud seeding. It should be considered an Environmental Protection Agency comprised of experts with the authority to make environmental decisions. The combination of these elements ensures that cloud seeding activities in the United States have a positive impact.

 

[1] CAL. WAT. CODE §106

[2]. Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act, 111 S. 601, 111th Cong. (2009); Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act, S. 2170, 108th Cong. (2004).

[3]. 15 U.S.C.S. 330

[4] Officially the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

[5] Unmanned Aircraft Systems, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, https://www.faa.gov/uas

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. 15 U.S.C. § 330 (2000).
  2. 3 P.S. § 1114 (1968), https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NFB836740342811DA8A989F4EECDB8638?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
  3. Agreement Relating to the Exchange of Information on Weather Modification Activities, U.S.-Can., Mar. 26, 1975, No. 14202.
  4. Atmospheric Science, Cloud Seeding, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, available at http://www.britannica.com/science/cloud-seeding
  5. Barker, R. (2009), Modifying Weather: Cloud Seeding Has Some New Believers, S. News. http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/11/19/modifying-weather-cloud-seeding-has-some-new-believers.html
  6. Baum, M. L. (2007), When Nature Strikes: Weather Disasters And The Law, https://vdoc.pub/documents/when-nature-strikes-weather-disasters-and-the-law-glbkpmeb0uc0
  7. Brown, M. (2011), Present and Future Regulation of Cloud Seeding Activities in California, WEATHER MODIFICATION, Vol. 43 No. 1, pages (97-106). https://journalofweathermodification.org/index.php/JWM/article/view/153
  8. CAL PUB RESOURCES CODE § 5093.36.
  9. CAL WAT CODE.
  10. CBCNEWS (Aug. 22, 2014), http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-s-cloud-seeding-pilots-see-2nd-busiest-year-in-20-years-1.2744786
  11. Cloud Seeding, CLIMATE EDUCATION FOR K-12, available at https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.CloudSeeding
  12. REV. STAT. § 36-20-108.
  13. Committee Approves Bill Establishing Weather Modification Program, KWTX NEWS (Nov. 17, 2005), http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/1985602.html
  14. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Dec. 10, 1976, 1108 U.N.T.S 26
  15. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Dec. 10, 1976, 31 U.S.T. 333, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151.
  16. Cosgrove, W. J.; Rijsberman, F. R. (2014), World water vision: Making water everybody’s business. London: Routledge.
  17. Court papers filed in Pennsylvania Natural Weather Ass'n v. Blue Ridge Weather Modification Ass'n, Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County, Jan. Term, 1965, no. 3 in equity, Fulton County Courthouse, mcConnellsburg, Pa.
  18. Crain, M.; Crain, N. (2014), THE COST OF FEDERAL REGULATION TO THE U.S. ECONOMY, MANUFACTURING, AND SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC: National Association of Manufacturers. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Full-Study.pdf
  19. Dellapenna, J. W. (2008), International Water Law in a Climate of Disrption, 17 ST. J. INT'L L. 43, 51. https://www.academia.edu/3060910/International_Water_Law_in_a_Climate_of_Disruption_Mich_St_J_Intl_L_17_1_43_94_2008_
  20. sv. L. & PoL'y.
  21. Gorte, R. W.; Vincent, C. H.; Hanson, L. A.; Rosenblum, M. R. (2017), Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, Congressional Research Service. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819187/m2/1/high_res_d/R42346_2014Dec29.pdf
  22. Hemel, E. I. (1977), An Environmentalists Primer to Weather Modification, Stanford Environmental Law Society, N.
  23. Hill, S A.; Ming, Yi (2012), "Nonlinear climate response to regional brightening of tropical marine stratocumulus", Geophysical Research Letters. 39 (15): L15707, Bibcode: 2012GeoRL.3915707H. doi: 10.1029/2012GL052064.
  24. http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/viewsletters/marburgerweathermodviewsletter 121305.pdf
  25. https://www.dri.edu/publication/8957/
  26. Klass, A. B. (2009), Tort Experiments in the Laboratories of Democracy, & Mary L. Rev. 1501, Vol. 50, Issue. 5, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol50/iss5/3
  27. Larry, G. D. (1978), Operational Weather Modification Prospects, L. 11, 60, Routledge, 1st
  28. Legal Remedies for “Cloud-Seeding” Activities: Nuisance or Trespass? (1960), Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1960, No. 2, 305–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/1370980
  29. Little, A. (2015), Weather on Demand: Making it Rain is Now a Global Business, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, The University of the Pacific Law Review http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-cloud-seeding-india/
  30. Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 228, 228 n.13 (8th Cir. 1977).
  31. Majzoub, T., Quillerd-Majzoub, F., Abdel Raouf, M. El-Majzoub, M. (2009), Cloud Busters: Reflections On the Right to Water in Clouds and a Search for International Law Rules, 20 J. L.r'L. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/colenvlp20&div=18&id=&page=
  32. Mandeville, B. (2016), Equine Liability Statutes: Are the Courts Moving in the Wrong Direction?, Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law, Michigan State University College of Law, Vol. 12. https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/jouranimallawvol12.pdf
  33. Matthews, R. (2015), Congress and Chaos: Reexamining the Role of Congress in Combating Climate Change, OF PAC. L. REV. 6. Vol. 47, 7 Issue. 1,.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=uoplawreview&httpsredir=1&referer=
  34. McCaffrey, S. C. (2000), Water, Water Everywhere, But Too Few Drops to Drink: The Coming Fresh Water Crisis and International Environmental Law, 28 J. INT'L. L. & PoL'Y 325, 329. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp/vol28/iss3/4/
  35. National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/about/
  36. Natural Weather Ass’n v. Blue Ridge Weather Modification Ass’n, 44 Pa. D. & C.2d 749 (C.P. 1968).
  37. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 520 (2ND ED. 1979).
  38. Rizzardo, David (2016), California’s Water Supply Forecasting, California Department of Water Resources, The University of the Pacific Law Review. https://www.watereducation.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/forecasting__drizzardo.pdf?1461867093
  39. Sharing Colorado River Water: History, Public Policy and the Colorado River Compact, UNIV. OF ARIZONA (Aug. 1, 1997), https://wrrc.arizona.edu/publications/arroyo-newsletter/sharing-colorado-river-water-history-public-policy-and-colorado-river
  40. Simms, V. (2010), Making the Rain: Cloud Seeding, the Imminent Freshwater Crisis, and International Law, INT’L LAW, Vol. 44, No. 2. https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol44/iss2/10
  41. Slutsky v. New York, 197 Misc. 730 (Sup. Ct. 1950).
  42. Smith, W. (1925), A classical dictionary of Greek and Roman biography, mythology and geography, London: Murray.
  43. Sommer, L. (2014), It’s Not Magic On The Mountain, It’s A Rain-Making Machine, NPR. http://www.npr.org/2014/01/09/261070150/its-not-magic-on-the-mountain-its-a-rain-making-machine
  44. Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Duncan, 319 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958).
  45. Standler, R. B. (2006) WEATHER MODIFICATION LAW IN THE USA 4. http://www.rbs2.com/weather.pdf
  46. Steinberg, T. (1996), Slide Mountain: Or, The Folly of Owning Nature, University of California Press, 1st Edition.
  47. Taubenfeld, H. (1970), Controlling the Weather: A study of Law and Regulatory Procedures, New York, Dunellen Co. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss4/13/
  48. S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
  49. S.-Canada, Mar. 26, 1975, E103819 - CTS 1975 No.11, available at: https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=103819
  50. Unmanned Aircraft Systems, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, https://www.faa.gov/uas/
  51. Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act, 111 S. 601, 111th Cong. (2009).
  52. Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act, S. 2170, 108th Cong. (2004).
  53. Weiser, M. (2013), Cloud Seeding, No Longer Magical Thinking, is Poised For Use This Winter, SACRAMENTO BEE. https://zerogeoengineering.com/2019/cloud-seeding-no-longer-magical-thinking-is-poised-for-use-this-winter/
  54. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/
  55. Witt, A. W. (2016), Seeding Clouds of Uncertainty, Jurimetrics, 57(1), 105–144. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26322705
  56. Wolf, A. T. (1999), Water and Human Security, Aviso, http-/www.gechs.org/aviso/03/.
  57. Woodhouse, P., Muller, M. (2017), Water governance - An historical perspective on current debates, World Dev. 92 (Apr): 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics