Have any government or scientific agencies acknowledged deliberate weather-modification programs?

1. Which agencies have said what — admissions, tracking and historical reviews

The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have publicly discussed weather‑modification programs and the need for coordinated federal attention, documenting both historical programs and contemporary cloud‑seeding activity ^{[4] [5]}. NOAA maintains a public repository of weather‑modification project reports and tracks activities reported under the Weather Modification Reporting Act (WMRA) of 1972, and the EPA’s pages on geoengineering cite those reporting requirements and NOAA’s tracking role ^{[6] [1]}.

2. Concrete programs acknowledged: cloud seeding at the state and local level

Multiple states run or have run cloud‑seeding programs and grant or permit frameworks for them; for example, Colorado administers a formal Weather Modification Program that issues permits and has conducted cloud seeding since the 1950s, and GAO found state and private entities currently operate programs in several states while others have banned or considered banning them ^{[7] [2] [8]}.

3. Federal statutes and formal reporting obligations exist

U.S. law explicitly addresses weather modification: the Weather Modification Reporting Act and later statutes require reporting of activities and authorized federal study and coordination, and the U.S. Code includes duties for federal agencies to furnish information and for the Secretary to oversee reporting and studies on weather modification ^{[3] [9]}. These legal instruments are part of why agencies like NOAA publish and maintain project reports ^[6].

4. Emergence of solar‑geoengineering research and how agencies frame it

Beyond traditional cloud seeding, federal materials and agency pages treat solar radiation modification (SRM) as a related category; the EPA references regulatory language that covers activities “modifying the solar radiation exchange” and notes reporting requirements can encompass such experiments, while the White House and OSTP have issued research roadmaps prompting federal coordination and debate ^{[1] [8] [10]}. Agencies characterise SRM as research needing governance rather than as deployment, and several states have moved to limit or regulate SRM experiments ^[8].

5. What agencies do not claim — regulation vs. tracking, and contested effectiveness

NOAA explicitly states it does not regulate weather modification or aircraft emissions but does track reported activities under WMRA; GAO and independent reporting note NOAA does not fund cloud seeding projects yet lists them in its public database ^{[6] [1] [2]}. The effectiveness of many modification techniques is disputed: GAO and news fact‑checks report cloud seeding’s impacts are variable and sometimes small, and uncertainty about measurable benefits is a central concern in federal hearings and GAO reviews ^{[2] [10]}.

6. Implications and the contested policy landscape

The factual record from GAO, NOAA, state agencies and statutory law is unambiguous that deliberate weather‑modification activities have been conducted, are tracked, and are governed by reporting requirements, while federal oversight remains fragmented and policy debates about effectiveness, environmental risk, and governance—especially for SRM—continue in Congress, state legislatures and agency reports ^{[4] [2] [3] [8]}. Alternative viewpoints exist within the record: proponents focus on potential water‑resource benefits and research value, while critics point to weak evidence of efficacy, governance gaps and the ethical and legal complexities of intentionally altering weather or solar radiation ^{[2] [10]}.