Weather control has long sat at the boundary of science and fiction. On January 14, 2026, New Hampshire lawmakers and the public debated three bills: a non-binding resolution (HR 35), an emergency-only compromise (HB 1128), and a strict ban with felony penalties (HB 1618).

This hearing followed several years of failed attempts. Lawmakers tried in 2024 (HB 1700) and 2025 (HB 764) without success. The new approach, with three bills, was a key test for regulation. Supporters focused on health and sovereignty; opponents cited industry experience and science.

The debate was complex. Hours of testimony highlighted technical issues, public concerns, and a gap between lawmakers’ goals and what is possible. The key moments came from compromises, expert advice, and honest admissions of unpreparedness.

The Hardline Ban Died Without a Fight

The sponsor withdrew the strictest bill.

HB 1618, the strictest bill, followed two failed attempts—HB 1700 (2024) and HB 764 (2025)—both titled the 'Clean Atmosphere Preservation Act.' It aimed to ban Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), which uses technology to reflect sunlight and cool the Earth, as well as other activities. The bill included felony charges and hefty fines, and many thought it would be the day's primary focus.

But the debate ended quickly. The sponsor was absent due to a family emergency, so another representative introduced the bill and immediately moved to withdraw it, as requested. The committee watched a fast withdrawal, not a defence.

"I'm here to introduce House Bill 1618 for the sponsor who has asked that we find this bill inexpedient to legislate due to the fact that there's other bills that cover the same topic."

This withdrawal quietly ended the bill and was a primary strategy for the movement. For a proposal with strict penalties, being dismissed without public testimony was the day’s first big surprise and led to more unexpected events.

Industry Expert Says the Emergency Drought Bill Won't Work

An industry expert then addressed the practicality of the "emergency-only" bill.

Lawmakers intended HB 1128 as a compromise bill. It would allow the state to use weather modification, specifically cloud seeding, only during a severe drought declared by the governor. In cloud seeding, specific substances are released into clouds to encourage rainfall. The bill’s supporters thought this tightly controlled, emergency-only approach was both reasonable and cautious.

Gee’s testimony was surprising. Instead of an opponent, an industry supporter challenged the bill’s main idea. Greyson Gee from Rain Maker Technology Corporation, a cloud seeding startup, explained in detail why the bill would not work. He said the process is "fully and completely dependent on natural processes to be effective." It requires certain weather conditions, especially clouds containing supercooled liquid water, which, according to Gee, do not occur during a severe drought.

So, limiting cloud seeding to droughts makes no sense. Using the technology in those conditions, Gee said, only wastes resources. "If the state of New Hampshire were to ever propose cloud seeding in an emergency setting in a drought context, it wouldn't be very effective, and it would probably be a waste of taxpayer resources."

This testimony highlighted the gap between lawmakers’ aims and scientific reality. It was one of several problems revealed during the hearing.

The State's Own Environmental Agency Is Unprepared

New Hampshire’s environmental agency lacks the staff, funding, and expertise to enforce these laws.

While the industry expert revealed technical problems, the state’s environmental agency discussed how to manage the laws, Michael Fitzgerald from the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) outlined the state's limits and confirmed concerns about unfunded mandates, which had stopped previous efforts.

Speaking on HB 1128, Fitzgerald said the DES lacks staff with experience in cloud seeding, which is the process of adding substances to clouds to promote rainfall. He said the state has no programs or funding for weather modification. He also explained that the bill’s 14-day environmental review rule was unrealistic, since federal reviews for this process can take years.

"The one thing I question is a 14-day environmental review. I'm not sure that we can get the title page on an environmental review in 14 days."

Fitzgerald’s testimony again revealed the gap between lawmakers’ goals and state resources. The state lacks people and funds to enforce these rules. Later, personal stories broadened the debate.

The Debate Pitted Organic Farmers Against Airline Pilots

Testimony during the hearing soon revealed a personal dimension to the conflict.

Personal stories grounded the debate. People whose jobs depended on the weather shifted the conversation, moving the focus from science to property, health, and financial security.

Representative Mary Murphy, a certified organic elderberry farmer, described her family’s investment in their 117-acre farm. They spent nearly a million dollars to buy and improve the land. Murphy warned that weather interventions could ruin their work. If soil tests fail due to outside substances, "Our investment is gone."

In contrast, Kyle Haynes, an airline pilot with experience in weather modification, explained that the technology—especially silver iodide—has been used safely and effectively for decades. It protects crops, property, and aeroplanes by reducing hail. These views clarified the debate’s human impact as the discussion turned technical.

Making it rain and blocking the sun are very different.

"Cloud seeding" and "geoengineering" are not the same thing.

The hearing showed that the bills attempted to regulate two different technologies. Confusing them had caused trouble before, like with 2024’s HB 1700, which grouped geoengineering with "excessive electromagnetic radio frequency." This time, a clear distinction showed a more informed debate.

• Weather modification, or cloud seeding, was described by Greyson Gee and Kyle Haynes as a method used in specific local areas. It involves releasing substances like silver iodide into clouds. These substances help tiny water droplets in clouds collect and fall as rain or snow. The effects are temporary and local, including increased snowpack and reduced hail damage.
• Geoengineering, in contrast, encompasses global projects such as SRM and SAI, as described by Gerald Bushnell, one of the public witnesses. These methods involve intentionally sending particles or aerosols into the stratosphere—the upper layer of the atmosphere—to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. This technology is still in the research stage and not yet in use.

The hearing showed that regulating local weather modification is very different from controlling global geoengineering. Mixing the two creates significant differences in risk, scale, and the readiness of the technologies.

A Complicated Forecast

The January 14 hearing made clear that regulating the sky brings real consequences and high stakes. Technical and administrative barriers repeatedly blocked progress, and the hearing exposed just how far the debate still has to go.

Even the most cautious compromise fell apart under scrutiny. The hearing starkly revealed a dilemma: issues that science, funding, and society barely grasp are pressing lawmakers to act. The push to 'do something' is growing, but until leaders bridge the distance between policy and reality, the future of weather control will remain uncertain and contentious.

Source: Public hearing of the New Hampshire House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, 14 January 2026. Video available on the NH General Court website.