For the past three years, Illinois State Senator Neil Anderson has tried to stop weather modification by introducing SB0134 (2023), SB3095 (2024), and SB1426 (2025-2026), all of which aim to ban cloud seeding. But why did he pivot to a tax law, and why do his bills keep vanishing before debate or a vote? The answer lies in obscure state rules and the hidden influence of legislative procedures.

The Bills Don’t Fail in a Vote: They Disappear into a Procedural Black Hole

The main thing to know about Senator Anderson’s proposed bans is that lawmakers never debated their content. The bills were not voted down in committee or on the Senate floor. Instead, a procedural rule quietly and efficiently blocked them.

In the Illinois Senate, all new bills first go to the Committee on Assignments. This committee does not take public testimony or discuss the details of bills. Instead, it acts as a gatekeeper, sorting bills and deciding which ones move ahead.

This gatekeeping role is where a little-known but powerful mechanism comes into play: Senate Rule 3-9(a). This rule functions as a legislative kill switch, allowing the committee to hold a bill indefinitely. The first bill, SB0134, sat in Assignments for the entire session before officially dying upon Sine Die adjournment in January 2025, the point at which all unfinished business expires as the session concludes. Its successor, SB3095, was killed more explicitly when it was “Re-referred to Assignments” in March 2024—a specific legislative manoeuvre that removes a bill from active consideration. This procedural limbo is where the latest bill, SB1426, now sits.

The Real Target Became a Hidden Tax Loophole

The most significant change came in 2024 with SB3095. This bill raised the stakes after someone found a little-known part of the Illinois Property Tax Code. That provision allows local governments to use tax money to fund weather modification quietly.

This rule allowed local governments to collect funds for weather modification by creating Special Service Areas (SSAs), special tax districts for specific purposes. The bill’s sponsors saw three problems that made this a possible loophole:

1. Authorisation: Under 35 ILCS 200/27-5, “weather modification” is explicitly listed as a fundable “special service,” giving local officials authority to tax for it
2. Stealth Notice: Section 27-30 is essential. Usually, creating an SSA requires a mailed notice to each taxpayer. However, for "weather modification purposes," the law only requires a notice in a legal newspaper. Consequently, most property owners may not learn about this specific tax levy directly.
3. Barriers to Escape: Section 27-60 adds another hurdle: this statute makes it harder for residents to remove their property from a weather modification SSA than from other district types. The provision restricts property owners' ability to opt out once local officials create a tax district.

This loophole shifted the controversy from weather modification itself to two key issues: the hidden authority of local governments to tax for it, and the limited options property owners have to escape such taxes once imposed.

The Fight Escalated From a Simple Ban to a Felony Crime

The 2024 amendment to SB3095 went beyond closing the tax loophole. It made the act itself a crime, with a clear and severe penalty:

“Any person who knowingly engages in weather modification is guilty of a Class 4 felony.”

For context, a Class 4 felony in Illinois can carry a sentence of 1 to 3 years in prison. This change shifted the issue for the bill’s sponsor. It was no longer just a rule to enforce. People now saw it as a serious public safety threat, similar to crimes like aggravated assault or stalking. The message was clear: changing the weather was not just a bad idea, but a serious offence that deserved real punishment.

Local Weather Modification with National Geoengineering Concerns

The EPA clearly distinguishes local weather modification, such as cloud seeding for rain, from solar geoengineering. Solar geoengineering aims to reflect sunlight and cool the planet.

Anderson uses an alternative approach, citing the Illinois tax code rather than conventional scientific definitions. He addresses funding for these activities and, by adding terms such as "health, public safety, and welfare" to SB3095, shifts focus from agricultural benefits to public protection. This method aligns with how some national activists discuss the topic by treating all atmospheric interventions as matters of public health.

It’s a Solution in Search of a Problem in a State Controlled by the Opposition

The newest bill, SB1426, was filed for the 2025-2026 session. This time, Senator Anderson has a co-sponsor, Senator Andrew S. Chesney, suggesting the issue is gaining support among Republicans.

Even so, the bill’s chances are slim. The same Committee on Assignments that blocked the earlier bills has stuck SB1426. Illinois is run by a Democratic supermajority, with a 40 to 19 edge in the Senate, and leaders see these bills as “culture war” distractions from their main climate goals.

There is also a practical issue: unlike Western states such as Utah and Colorado, Illinois does not have any significant, active cloud-seeding programs. To state leaders, banning something that is not really happening seems like a “solution in search of a problem.” With the current political situation, the bill is unlikely to move forward, especially since 2026 is an election year. During election years, leaders are even less likely to let controversial bills reach the floor if they might energise the opposition.

A Battle for the Sky, Fought in the Fine Print

The three-year effort to ban weather modification in Illinois shows how modern lawmaking works. What began as a simple ban became a complex challenge to a hidden tax law, but each attempt was quietly stopped by the power of legislative rules.

These bills are unlikely to become law, but their journey through the legislative process highlights a larger national debate. The issue is no longer just about the weather. It is about transparency, who controls taxes, and who decides what happens in the sky above us. For Illinois and the 33 other states that considered similar bills in 2025, the question is: when does a fringe issue become significant enough to spark a public debate?