Utah has a complex history with weather control. The state invests millions in cloud seeding to combat water shortages, while lawmakers also seek to restrict other forms of weather modification. The story of Senate Bill 126 (SB0126) reveals a debate not only about technology but also about legislative obstacles, including limited budgets, procedural barriers, and last-minute manoeuvres.

Utah’s Mixed Feelings About Weather Modification

A recent Salt Lake Tribune report explains that local water needs and changing national politics have caught Utah lawmakers off guard. As background, Utah, one of the driest states in the country, has used cloud seeding since the 1950s. In 2023, the state increased its cloud seeding budget from $200,000 to $16 million, expanding to 190 generators. This setup is now the most extensive program of its kind in the world.

The Tribune humanises the issue by presenting Dan Anderson, a local farmer who views cloud seeding as vital. He argues, “People need to realise that without water, there are no farms. Without farms, there’s no food.” The report also notes rising national scepticism. Public figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marjorie Taylor Greene, together with the 'Make America Healthy Again' movement, urge bans on geoengineering. They contend that weather modification is not a drought remedy, but a hazardous practice that may introduce chemicals into the environment without adequate oversight.

Examining the 2025 Geoengineering Ban Bill

This conflict is at the heart of SB0126, the 2025 bill sponsored by Senator Ronald M. Winterton and Representative Rex P. Shipp. SB0126 focused on banning 'Solar Radiation Management' (SRM)—releasing chemicals to block sunlight—while making an exception for state-approved cloud seeding.

This clear distinction helped the bill win support in the Senate. After review by the Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee, it passed 19-4-6, with six abstentions. In the House, aviation industry advocacy prompted lawmakers to adopt Substitute #3, introducing a 'safe harbor' clause shielding airport operators from liability. This compromise was key to advancing the bill.

How Budget Concerns and Timing Stopped SB0126

Legislative process and budget issues—not just public debate over technology—determined SB0126’s fate despite support.

The 'Fiscal Note Trap' occurred when UDOT was required to create a public reporting system for suspected geoengineering, adding a fiscal note. With a $112 million budget gap, reported by Kuer, the House returned the bill to committee, halting it due to cost concerns.

A last-minute parliamentary move ultimately defeated the bill during the 2025 session.

The 2026 Bill Is Stricter and More Punitive

After SB0126 failed at the end of the 2025 session, the sponsors introduced SB0023 for the 2026 session. Instead of looking for compromise, this new 2026 bill raises penalties and covers more activities.

After some amending, the final version of SB0126 (2025) made violating the act a Class A Misdemeanour, kept fines within standard limits, and shielded airport operators from liability. Under SB0023 (2026), the penalty rises to a Third Degree Felony, with fines up to $100,000, and airports must report suspected activity. This side-by-side shows that the new proposal is significantly harsher and assigns extra duties.

Raising penalties to a third-degree felony and $100,000 fines signals that Utah now treats geoengineering as a serious criminal issue.

Airports Now Required to Report Geoengineering

SB0023 (2026) removes the previous airport exemption, ending liability protection for airport operators suspected of geoengineering.

SB0023 also compels airport operators to report any suspected solar geoengineering. Failure to report exposes them to prosecution. Stripped of their previous protections, airports now face greater legal risk, which is likely to intensify aviation industry opposition.

Conclusion: Uncertainty Ahead

Utah’s geoengineering debate reflects national divides between scepticism and water needs, shaped by money and industry influence. The 2026 bill will challenge lawmakers to overcome the same legislative and budget barriers.

With the 2026 session nearing, the key question is whether Utah will regulate geoengineering or face renewed opposition.