Which U.S. states currently issue weather‑modification permits and what are their specific application requirements?
Executive summary
Three U.S. states—Colorado, Nevada and Texas—maintain active statutory or regulatory systems that issue weather‑modification permits and set explicit application requirements, while federal law requires reporting of weather‑modification activities to NOAA; beyond those jurisdictions public reporting and a patchwork of state bills and proposals complicate the map [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] geoengineering/government-action" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[7] [8]. The following sections summarize who issues permits in each state, what applicants must submit, and key federal reporting backstops, and also note limits of available public reporting about other states’ practices [1] [3] [4] [5] [7].
1. Colorado — formal project permits with public hearings and qualified project managers
Colorado’s Weather Modification Program, run by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), requires a permit for each cloud‑seeding project and sets a predictable procedural path: applicants (typically a contractor on behalf of project sponsors) must demonstrate a qualified project manager, file detailed plans, participate in a public hearing, and resolve issues before the CWCB director signs a permit; the CWCB also issues a record of decision when a permit is granted [1] [2]. The CWCB administers ongoing monitoring and public notification responsibilities for permitted projects, and the agency explicitly ties eligibility for state grant funding to having an approved permit and local project plan in place [1].
2. Nevada — statutory licenses, separate permit per operation, notice and fee rules
Nevada’s statutory code requires both licensure and a permit to conduct weather modification, with a separate permit required for each operation; licensees must file a notice of intention with the Director, publish that notice, conform to time and area limits in the permit, and are subject to conditions or modifications imposed by the Director [3]. Nevada law also prescribes a fee structure tied to the estimated cost of the operation—equal to 1.5 percent of estimated cost with mechanism for partial payment and security for the balance—and requires activities to remain substantially within the permit’s authorized scope [3].
3. Texas — licenses, multi‑year permits, operations plans, insurability and local notices
Texas requires both a weather‑modification license and project‑specific permits issued by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR); permits are typically issued for four‑year terms, projects must submit detailed Operations Plans evaluated by TDLR staff and its advisory board, and applicants must publish notices of intent in local media and provide proof of insurability before a permit will be issued [4] [5] [6]. Fee schedules and licensing costs are publicly posted (for example, a $750 original license fee and $100 permit fee are listed in TDLR materials), and TDLR reports that several million acres are covered by active target areas and that a small number of permits (six at one recent count) are in force at any given time [4] [5].
4. Federal overlay — reporting requirements to NOAA and statutory framework
At the federal level, the Weather Modification Reporting Act (WMRA) and related statutes do not create a federal permitting regime for most weather modification but require that persons intending to engage in weather modification provide notice to NOAA at least 10 days prior to undertaking the activity; NOAA serves as the repository for reports and tracks activities under the WMRA while other federal authorities (e.g., EPA or Marine Protection permits) may apply in special cases such as ocean releases [7] [8]. Federal rulemakings unrelated to state weather‑modification permits—such as Army Corps nationwide permits or DOT hazardous‑materials special permits—can affect related operational logistics but do not substitute for state weather‑modification permits [9] [10] [11].
5. Gaps, contested politics, and why the map looks uneven
Public sources document Colorado, Nevada and Texas as operating permitting systems with explicit requirements, but comprehensive, current national consolidation of every state’s program is lacking in the provided reporting; advocacy groups and some state legislatures are simultaneously moving to ban or sharply restrict forms of geoengineering and solar‑radiation modification, which creates political pressure and patchwork regulation across the states [12]. Where statutes or agency pages are silent in the sources assembled here, this analysis does not assert absence of permits; rather it reflects the explicit, documented obligations and processes in the three named states and the federal reporting rule that overlays all U.S. activity [1] [3] [4] [5] [7].