What are the current U.S. laws and regulations governing peaceful weather modification research and commercial cloud seeding?
Executive summary
Federal law today creates a reporting-and-tracking regime for weather modification but stops short of a comprehensive federal licensing or permitting system: NOAA must be notified of planned activities and maintains public records, Congress and agencies have directed research and reviews, and states govern much of the substance through a patchwork of statutes and recent bans or proposals [1] [2] [3] [4]. Emerging legislation — both federal proposals that would ban weather modification outright and a raft of state bills that sometimes conflate cloud seeding with solar geoengineering — is reshaping the legal landscape but has not yet produced a single national regulatory framework [5] [6] [7].
1. Reporting duty but no federal regulator: the statute that matters
The core federal obligation is the Weather Modification Reporting requirement created under Public Law 92-205 and implemented in 15 CFR Part 908: persons or companies planning to conduct weather modification, including cloud seeding, must submit activity reports to NOAA at least ten days before the activity and NOAA keeps those project reports on file [1] [2] [8]. NOAA is required by law to track weather modification activities but explicitly has no authority to regulate or approve those activities — its role is recordkeeping, notification and advisory, not licensing [9] [1].
2. Federal criminal and civil penalties exist in the regulations but limited in scope
The implementing regulations provide that knowing and willful violations of the rules adopted under Public Law 92-205 can expose violators to fines (the eCFR cites fines up to $10,000), and the Administrator may issue public notifications or recommendations when proposed projects depart from common practice or pose potential risks [2]. The statutory chapters also direct study of legal, social, and ecological implications and the possible formulation of model codes or international agreements, signaling Congress intended oversight through research and policy development rather than an operational licensing regime [3].
3. Agencies are watching geoengineering and related activities, but roles are fragmented
Multiple federal entities — NOAA, OSTP, NSF, DOE and EPA — have been tasked with research, tracking, or planning around solar geoengineering and aerosols, and EPA has signaled that certain marine or ocean-disposing experiments could require permits under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act depending on circumstances [10]. NOAA and EPA materials make clear that while agencies are deepening research and monitoring, they are still determining whether new statutory authorities or a lead regulator are needed to govern outdoor experiments beyond the existing reporting rule [10] [11].
4. States fill the gap with diverse laws and a wave of new bills
Because federal law provides reporting but not operational control, states have long held the primary regulatory role in permitting and bans: a partial survey finds roughly twenty-nine states with statutes or regulations that address weather modification, while some states have repealed laws or imposed explicit prohibitions; in 2024–25 many state legislatures introduced bills aimed at banning solar geoengineering or restricting weather modification, and Tennessee enacted a ban in 2024 that prohibits intentional atmospheric dispersal to affect temperature or sunlight [4] [12] [7]. Advocacy and tracking groups note that many recent state bills conflate traditional cloud seeding with larger-scale solar radiation management, producing policy confusion [7].
5. Political fights and proposed federal bans are changing the terrain
At the federal level new proposals such as the Clear Skies Act (H.R. 4403) would criminalize weather modification within the United States and repeal existing federal statutes, regulations and executive orders that authorize weather modification, while directing EPA to investigate complaints — a sharp departure from the current tracking-and-reporting regime [5] [6]. That proposal reflects a broader political backlash and illustrates an implicit agenda among sponsors to halt both commercial programs and research perceived as geoengineering, even as scientific bodies urge careful study and governance options [5] [3].
6. Bottom line: legal patchwork, active tracking, and contested policymaking
The present U.S. legal framework requires reporting of weather modification projects to NOAA and supports federal research and policy studies, but lacks a unified federal permitting or approval system; enforcement tools in the regulatory text are modest and NOAA’s function is informational rather than regulatory [1] [2] [9]. Meanwhile, states are the battleground for substantive rules, and a mix of federal bills, agency reviews, and evolving scientific programs means the regulatory picture for peaceful research and commercial cloud seeding is in flux [10] [7] [3].