Every bill we have judged relevant. Filter by state, year or outcome, or search the text.
155 bills
Alabama's approach combines a prohibition on weather modification with the creation of an environmental fund, directing all criminal fines into a dedicated air pollution control fund and establishing multiple citizen reporting channels for violations.
Latest: Passed by house committee but no 3rd reading.
Alabama HB248 offers a bare-bones prohibition on weather modification activities, with no enforcement mechanism, penalties, or exemptions—making it more of a policy statement than an enforceable law.
HB2042 is the House companion to SB1278, carrying identical language banning solar radiation management with civil enforcement through the Attorney General. With both chambers having now independently passed their respective versions, the narrowly focused SRM prohibition is closer to enactment than any of Arizona's prior geoengineering proposals.
Latest: "HB2042 is a so-called solution to a non-existent problem"
Arizona HB 2125 is not a geoengineering ban but a comprehensive modernisation of the state's existing cloud seeding regulatory framework, adding dual-agency environmental review, mandatory public meetings, a NOAA-style transparency database, and citizen enforcement through Attorney General petitions.
Arizona's bill would abolish its existing weather modification permit program and criminalise geoengineering as a felony, with $100,000 in penalties per violation. Notably, the enforcement mechanism relies on a citizen complaint process rather than proactive state monitoring.
Arizona's SB1278 takes a surgically narrow approach to atmospheric modification, banning only solar radiation management while leaving the state's existing cloud-seeding licensing system entirely untouched—a sharp strategic retreat from the same sponsor's sweeping 2025 geoengineering ban, which included felony charges, $500,000 fines, and electromagnetic radiation investigations.
Latest: The bill initially passed the Senate, but was recalled from the House for reconsideration and died before a new vote could take place. This allowed bill HB2042 to progress.
Arizona's SB 1279 transforms the state's minimal weather modification oversight into a comprehensive dual-agency regulatory system requiring DEQ chemical approval, public meetings, mandatory insurance, an online tracking database modelled after NOAA's, and citizen enforcement through the Attorney General.
Latest: The bill cleared committee and caucus reviews but failed to receive a third reading in the Senate.
Arizona HB 2056 repeals the state's existing weather modification regulatory system and replaces it with an absolute geoengineering ban enforced through a citizen-reporting network, mandatory 2-hour emergency investigations, Class 4 felony charges, and minimum $500,000-per-day civil penalties—the most aggressive enforcement regime among current state weather modification legislation.
Latest: Passed by the Regulatory Oversight Committee, but there was a lack of action in Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee
Arizona SB 1432 prohibits solar radiation management activities while explicitly preserving the state's traditional weather modification regulatory system. This minimalist approach establishes a ban without any enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or investigative authority, making it essentially unenforceable.
Latest: Passed by the Senate; Failed to progress in the House
Connecticut's one-paragraph concept bill asks the state environmental agency to post federal atmospheric chemical releases online, but provides no mechanism for actually obtaining that information from federal sources.
Connecticut proposes regulating rather than banning weather modification, directing DEEP to create a permit system with environmental impact assessments - a notably moderate approach compared to the prohibition bills dominating other state legislatures in 2025.
Florida becomes the second state after Tennessee to ban weather modification, but goes further by creating a public airport surveillance network requiring monthly reports on aircraft "equipped with" potential dispersal components, and by dismantling its 68-year-old weather modification licensing program entirely rather than simply prohibiting new activities.
Latest: Laid on table in favour of SB56
Florida becomes the second state, after Tennessee, to ban weather modification, but goes substantially further by creating a mandatory airport surveillance network, establishing felony-level penalties with fines up to $100,000, and completely dismantling its 68-year-old weather modification licensing program rather than simply prohibiting new activities under it.
Rather than prohibiting geoengineering activities directly, Georgia takes a diplomatic approach by requesting a federal congressional investigation into chemical dispersion impacts on state environmental quality.
Idaho H0669 would shut down the state's entire cloud seeding program, which currently costs approximately $3 million annually, and make any weather modification activity a felony, carrying a five-year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine. Unlike many prohibition bills that simply ban geoengineering, this bill systematically strips cloud-seeding authority from multiple sections of Idaho water law and cites a 2024 GAO report questioning the effectiveness of cloud seeding as its factual basis.
Idaho H0977 does not ban cloud seeding outright but strips the Water Resource Board of its authority to run programs unilaterally, requiring explicit legislative sign-off for any future activity and imposing felony-level penalties on anyone who proceeds without it. In an unusual move, the bill writes a 2024 federal audit's finding — that cloud seeding's effectiveness is statistically indistinguishable from zero — directly into state law as a legislative finding.
Idaho's HJM015 is a congressional petition, not a law — it creates no enforceable rules within the state but instead formally asks the federal government to criminalise geoengineering over Idaho's skies and require state consent before any atmospheric modification program can operate. Notably, the memorial invokes the Tenth Amendment as a constitutional basis for state sovereignty over airspace, and explicitly calls for felony-level federal criminal penalties for violations conducted without state approval.
Idaho HJM018 is a joint memorial — a formal request to Congress, not a law — that asks the federal government to ban solar geoengineering over Idaho and to make it a felony. It carries no legal force on its own, but signals where the Idaho Legislature stands on the issue.
Latest: House adopted, but remained in the Senate Resources & Environment Committee
Idaho S1269 adds transparency guardrails to the state's established cloud seeding program, requiring public meetings, annual environmental impact reports, and monthly operator reporting — while notably narrowing the program's existing absolute liability shield by allowing claims based on gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Rather than banning cloud seeding, Idaho takes a "trust but verify" approach—requiring detailed public reporting on operations, environmental impacts, and effectiveness while subtly downgrading the legislature's prior endorsement from certainty ("cloud seeding has resulted in water increases") to scepticism ("may result").
Latest: Passed by the Senate; No progress in House committee
Idaho takes a "state monopoly" approach to weather modification. Rather than banning all cloud seeding, this bill criminalises unauthorised activities while explicitly preserving the Idaho Water Resource Board's existing cloud seeding program. The SRM prohibition is absolute with no exemptions.
Latest: No movement in committee
Idaho is cleaning house by repealing a dormant 1970s-era weather modification district law that was used by only one district and has sat unused for roughly 50 years. Unlike other states that have passed new geoengineering prohibitions, this is legislative housekeeping rather than a policy statement against weather modification.
Illinois opts for the most straightforward possible approach to weather modification regulation: a complete prohibition with no accompanying enforcement provisions, penalties, or an administrative framework.
Illinois SB2956 declares weather modification prohibited statewide but provides no enforcement mechanism, penalties, or regulatory framework—making it a purely symbolic prohibition that couldn't actually stop anyone from cloud seeding.
A minimalist two-page bill that would ban all weather modification in Illinois but provides no penalties, no enforcement agency, and no mechanism for compliance, making it a symbolic prohibition rather than an enforceable law.
A word-for-word reintroduction of Senator Anderson's failed 2023 weather modification ban, which met the same fate in a different committee - twice postponed, then returned to Assignments, where it died without a vote despite an attempted amendment.
HB 1335 represents the lighter-touch version of Indiana's weather control legislation, imposing only misdemeanour penalties with no felony escalation, making it the less aggressive of two nearly identical bills moving through the General Assembly simultaneously.
Indiana's SB 364 takes an unusually aggressive enforcement approach by imposing potentially decades-long felony sentences for atmospheric discharges that cause harm, while paradoxically providing no regulatory framework for detecting or investigating the prohibited conduct.
Iowa's geoengineering bill takes a minimalist statutory approach, establishing a bare prohibition while delegating the entire enforcement framework—including penalties—to the Environmental Protection Commission through administrative rulemaking.
Latest: Renumbered as HF 927
Iowa's HF2173 goes beyond a simple geoengineering ban by establishing a statewide airport surveillance network requiring monthly reports on aircraft equipped for atmospheric dispersal, with felony penalties for violations and personal liability for corporate officers up to $100,000.
Latest: Renumbered as HF 2640
Iowa's bill takes a pure criminal-law approach to geoengineering prohibition, placing it in the criminal code as a class D felony with per-day offence stacking. An amendment stripped the bill's original airport surveillance apparatus while adding a carve-out for agricultural aerial applicators.
Iowa establishes a geoengineering prohibition through a regulatory framework rather than direct criminal penalties, delegating implementation details entirely to the Environmental Protection Commission's emergency rulemaking authority.
Iowa's approach combines expansive definitions covering electromagnetic fields, sound pollution, and radiation with Class D felony penalties, cease-and-desist authority for the Department of Public Safety, and provisions explicitly challenging federal authority by empowering state officials to order the cessation of federal programs.
Iowa's bill takes the unusual approach of making Department of Public Safety cease-and-desist orders carry immediate court-order weight based solely on suspicion, while defining prohibited atmospheric activities broadly enough to include electromagnetic fields, sound waves, and light pollution when weather manipulation is intended.
Iowa's bill takes the unusual approach of making Department of Public Safety cease-and-desist orders carry immediate court-order weight based solely on suspicion, while defining prohibited atmospheric activities broadly enough to include electromagnetic fields, sound waves, and light pollution when weather manipulation is intended.
Latest: Replaced by bill SF2208 (2025-2026)
Kansas HB 2439 would impose felony charges and fines up to $100,000 for geoengineering activities while creating a unique airport surveillance network, requiring all public-use airports to file monthly reports on aircraft equipped with potential weather-modification equipment or risk losing state funding.
Kansas SB 449 goes beyond standard geoengineering prohibitions by authorising the Air National Guard to intercept violating aircraft and by making artificial intelligence systems criminally liable. The bill also includes unusual limits on radiofrequency signal strength for communications facilities and completely dismantles the state's 50-year-old weather modification regulatory framework.
Kentucky’s HB 60 takes an aggressive stance by creating felony-level criminal liability for geoengineering activities with mandatory $500,000-per-day civil penalties, while explicitly including federal agencies and international bodies within its enforcement scope—setting up potential constitutional confrontation over federal preemption.
Latest: Reported favorably but recommitted back to committee
SB 25 is the Senate companion to HB 60, with identical text establishing felony-level geoengineering prohibition with $500,000-per-day penalties—parallel introduction in both chambers on the session’s opening days signals coordinated legislative effort to advance this measure.
Kentucky's fourth attempt at geoengineering legislation strips away the elaborate administrative framework of the 2024 bills in favour of a straightforward criminal statute empowering any peace officer to make arrests, while retaining the same $500,000-per-day civil penalty that has characterised Kentucky's aggressive approach to this issue.
Kentucky's 2025 geoengineering push features identical companion bills in both chambers, with SB 62's unusual routing to the Appropriations and Revenue Committee rather than Judiciary suggesting the Senate may be focusing on the bill's $500,000 civil penalty structure rather than its criminal provisions.
Kentucky's HB 506 represents the most aggressive geoengineering prohibition attempted in the 2024 legislative cycle, combining felony criminal penalties with a $500,000 minimum daily civil penalty, mandatory citizen reporting requirements, and provisions purporting to prohibit federal and international atmospheric activities over the state.
Kentucky's SB 217 is a word-for-word Senate duplicate of HB 506, representing a coordinated bicameral push for the state's most aggressive geoengineering prohibition and, notably, the only version to advance beyond the procedural gateway committee during the 2024 session.
Kentucky's HB 552 represents the minimalist approach to geoengineering legislation: a single-page bill that prohibits government involvement in atmospheric modification activities but lacks any penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or restrictions on private actors.
Senator Fesi returns to amend the atmospheric modification ban he authored just last year, adding seven words – “including by the burning of fuel in an aircraft engine” – to a prohibition that already covers dispersal “by any means,” making this less a legal expansion than a pointed declaration about what his law was always meant to cover.
Louisiana's more aggressive geoengineering bill combined atmospheric prohibitions with telecommunications infrastructure mandates and electromagnetic radiation limits, but failed on the House floor 21-72 after the legislature had already enacted the simpler SB 46.
Louisiana becomes the latest state to enact a geoengineering prohibition, but uniquely accomplishes this by simultaneously repealing its existing weather modification licensing framework, effectively transitioning from regulated permission to outright ban.
Latest: Enacted as Act No. 95 of the 2025 Regular Session.
Louisiana's legislature unanimously memorialises Congress to investigate geoengineering activities over the state, with the resolution's preamble explicitly referencing atmospheric trails "distinct from ordinary contrails" as a matter of public concern.
Maine's geoengineering prohibition attempted to criminalise not just practitioners but also funders and authorizers of atmospheric intervention activities. The bill died in April 2025 after a divided committee vote and a floor rejection, despite receiving a fiscal note approving funding for a dedicated enforcement position.
This broader Maine geoengineering bill attempted to regulate electromagnetic emissions down to the milligauss level and would have required the state to formally notify the federal government that it was banned from atmospheric activities over Maine. With $500,000 daily fines and felony penalties, it represented one of the more aggressive enforcement approaches seen in 2025 geoengineering legislation.
Prohibiting a person from injecting, releasing, or dispersing a chemical compound, substance, or apparatus into the atmosphere within the State for the purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of the sunlight; and requiring the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Emergency Management, to establish a method for evaluating a report of weather engineering activity and investigate any report that the Department of the Environment deems in need of further review.
Michigan opts for statutory simplicity by adding a single-sentence prohibition to existing environmental law with no specified penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or implementation framework.
Latest: Unmoved for over a year - unlikely to ever see progress before the session closes at the end of the year.
Minnesota’s HF 2310 prohibits all weather modification activities and asserts the state’s sovereign claim over its airspace, treating each day of violation as a separate misdemeanor offense. Notably described as “reenacting prior law,” this suggests Minnesota is reviving a previously repealed or expired weather modification ban.
Minnesota's SF 2462 prohibits all weather modification activities and asserts the state's sovereign claim over its airspace, treating each day of violation as a separate misdemeanour offence. Notably described as "reenacting prior law," this suggests Minnesota is reviving a previously repealed or expired weather modification ban.
Minnesota's HF 4687 goes far beyond typical weather modification bans by establishing a felony offence with $500,000 fines, mandating an elaborate citizen reporting system with 2-hour emergency response requirements, setting specific limits on electromagnetic radiation, and asserting Tenth Amendment authority to override federal approvals for atmospheric activities. The bill uniquely requires officials to actively encourage public monitoring and grants immediate cease-and-desist powers with National Guard enforcement authority.
Minnesota's SF 4630 goes far beyond typical weather modification bans by establishing a felony offence with $500,000 fines, mandating an elaborate citizen reporting system with 2-hour emergency response requirements, setting specific limits on electromagnetic radiation, and asserting Tenth Amendment authority to override federal approvals for atmospheric activities. The bill uniquely requires officials to actively encourage public monitoring and grants immediate cease-and-desist powers with National Guard enforcement authority.
Mississippi HB1083 criminalises atmospheric modification activities as felonies and creates a public reporting system through the Department of Transportation, but its most distinctive feature is the mandatory monthly airport surveillance requirement compelling all public airports to report the presence of any aircraft equipped with dispersal capability.
Mississippi HB1086 is a textual duplicate of HB1083 filed by a different sponsor, criminalising atmospheric modification as a felony and creating mandatory airport surveillance reporting; the simultaneous introduction of identical bills by Representatives Arnold and Byrd suggests a coordinated legislative strategy to maximise the chances of committee advancement.
Mississippi HB1087 is a stripped-down version of the geoengineering prohibition that omits all enforcement mechanisms, criminal penalties, public reporting systems, and airport surveillance requirements found in the companion bills HB1083 and HB1086, effectively creating a symbolic policy statement rather than enforceable law.
This bill assigns enforcement to the Department of Transportation rather than environmental or health agencies, creates an unusual public reporting system for "chemtrail-equipped" aircraft at airports, and uses funding leverage rather than direct criminal penalties to ensure airport compliance with monthly surveillance requirements.
This is a symbolic prohibition with no teeth: the bill declares atmospheric modification illegal but provides no penalties, an enforcement agency, or a mechanism for anyone to do anything about violations.
Mississippi's HB 552 takes an institutional approach to geoengineering prohibition by embedding it within the state's existing environmental regulatory framework under the Department of Environmental Quality. The bill features a notably severe penalty structure with a $500,000 minimum fine and mandatory two-year minimum imprisonment, among the harshest proposed in any state.
Mississippi SB 2254 proposes one of the strictest geoengineering penalties in the nation, with a minimum $500,000 fine and mandatory two-year imprisonment for each day of violation, while embedding the prohibition within the state's existing environmental regulatory apparatus rather than creating standalone legislation.
Mississippi's bill takes the regulatory integration approach, embedding a prohibition on geoengineering within the state's existing Air and Water Pollution Control Law and delegating rulemaking authority to the environmental commission, rather than creating standalone prohibition language. The minimum penalties—$500,000 fine and two years imprisonment per day of violation—rank among the most severe proposed in any state.
Latest: Subcommittee recommended "Do pass" - Failed to be read in full committee
Mississippi's SB 2666 embeds a geoengineering prohibition directly into the state's existing pollution control framework, giving the Commission on Environmental Quality explicit regulatory authority rather than creating a standalone enforcement mechanism. The $500,000 minimum fine and mandatory 2-year minimum imprisonment rank among the harshest proposed penalties nationwide.
Mississippi House Bill 788 prohibits the intentional injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals into the atmosphere for the purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or sunlight intensity, integrating this ban into the state’s existing air pollution control framework administered by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and Permit Board.
Mississippi Senate Bill 2005 bans all geoengineering activities in the state with felony penalties including minimum $500,000 fines and two years imprisonment, authorizing the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality to enact regulations and issue orders to enforce the prohibition.
Mississippi Senate Bill 2013 bans all geoengineering activities in the state with felony penalties including minimum $500,000 fines and two years imprisonment, authorizing the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality to enact regulations and issue orders to enforce the prohibition.
Missouri's "Clean Skies Act" (HB 2388) bans all geoengineering, weather modification, and cloud seeding activities in the state, imposing felony charges with minimum $100,000 fines and up to two years' imprisonment for violations; each day of continued activity constitutes a separate criminal offence.
Latest: House committee recommended "Do pass" on their substitute, but never received a third reading
Missouri House Bill 2389 bans all weather modification activities in the state—including cloud seeding and dispersing atmospheric agents—while allowing citizens to report violations and empowering the Department of Natural Resources to investigate and pursue civil penalties against violators.
Missouri's Clean Skies Act proposes felony penalties for geoengineering with a citizen reporting system and National Guard enforcement authority, while notably designating artificial intelligence as a criminal entity capable of felony conviction and imprisonment.
Latest: Committee reported "Do pass" - No 3rd reading.
Senate Bill 1368 bans weather modification in Missouri with Class E felony penalties and up to $200,000 in civil fines, while requiring monthly airport reporting of weather modification-equipped aircraft starting January 1, 2027, and prohibiting state funding to airports that harbor such aircraft.
Senate Bill 860 bans weather modification in Missouri while requiring any entity deploying atmospheric chemicals to disclose contents to state authorities and post a $25 million bond, with violations subject to civil litigation including damages, injunctions, and attorney's fees.
Latest: Committee voted "Do pass" - no 4rd reading
Senator Moon strips the environmental manipulation ban from his repeatedly-failed "Freedom to Farm Act" and reintroduces it as a standalone two-page bill during a special session - identical definitional language, identical civil-only enforcement, but without the agricultural deregulation baggage that may have doomed previous attempts.
A minimalist atmospheric modification ban that prohibits intentional weather and climate intervention but punts all enforcement details to the Air Conservation Commission through rulemaking - a sharp contrast to Missouri's sprawling "Freedom to Farm Act" attempts that bundle weather modification bans with agricultural deregulation.
Senator Moon's third consecutive attempt at the "Freedom to Farm Act," now entering the 103rd General Assembly with only a date change from its two failed predecessors. The persistent reintroduction suggests either strong constituent interest or the sponsor's personal commitment, but the lack of any substantive amendments after two committee deaths raises questions about prospects for breakthrough.
A near-verbatim reintroduction of the previous session's failed "Freedom to Farm Act," now sponsored by Senator Moon instead of Senator Carter, with only the licensing cutoff date updated from 2023 to 2024. The weather modification ban remains buried within a broader agricultural deregulation package.
A sprawling "Freedom to Farm" bill that bans weather modification while simultaneously stripping the governor of emergency food control powers and immunising farmers from nuisance suits and product liability claims. The environmental manipulation ban is almost incidental to the bill's broader agenda of insulating agricultural operations from government oversight.
Montana Senate Bill 473 passed the Senate in March 2025. Still, it died in the House, prohibiting large-scale geoengineering practices such as stratospheric aerosol injection and solar radiation management, while explicitly protecting cloud seeding for agriculture and water management.
Latest: Passed by the Senate - not concurred in the House
Nevada's 2025 cloud seeding appropriation demonstrates the stark policy divide among western states—while neighbouring states debate geoengineering bans, Nevada continues funding weather modification as routine water infrastructure, unanimously passing its third consecutive biennial appropriation for the program.
Nevada continued its legislative support for weather modification with this $1.2 million appropriation to fund the state's official cloud seeding program—demonstrating that while some states move to ban atmospheric intervention, others actively fund it as water supply infrastructure.
New Hampshire would restrict cloud seeding to verified extreme drought conditions lasting at least 90 days, replacing the state's existing open-ended weather modification authorisation with a drought-contingent regulatory framework that requires environmental review and public disclosure.
New Hampshire's HB1618 creates an aggressive enforcement regime against atmospheric interventions involving pollutants, establishing a citizen deputy system where county sheriffs must deputise volunteers to help enforce felony prohibitions carrying minimum $500,000 fines, while simultaneously empowering the Air National Guard to interdict aircraft and imposing strict electromagnetic radiation limits on communications facilities—making artificial intelligence entities themselves subject to criminal prosecution.
New Hampshire's House urges the prohibition of atmospheric geoengineering through a formal resolution requiring the state environmental agency to notify 27 federal entities of the policy. However, the measure creates no enforceable penalties or regulatory framework—representing legislative intent rather than binding law.
This geoengineering prohibition bill received an overwhelming 17-1 negative committee recommendation but was rescued by the full House through a procedural table motion, leaving it in legislative limbo. The bill's Tenth Amendment rationale and requirement that New Hampshire formally notify 25 federal agencies - including nuclear regulators - of its new atmospheric restrictions reflects an assertive states' rights posture rarely seen in environmental legislation.
This predecessor to HB 764 combined geoengineering prohibition with electromagnetic radiation limits and a mandatory citizen reporting system deputizing the public as atmospheric monitors. The bill was decisively rejected 315-58 on the House floor after a 16-3 negative committee vote, representing one of the most lopsided defeats for geoengineering legislation in any state.
New Jersey's bill takes a distinctive approach by limiting its prohibition to "hazardous" substances used for geoengineering rather than banning all atmospheric releases, while also creating a citizen-science-style monitoring program that accepts everything from smartphone photos to spectrometry reports as evidence of potential violations. Introduced as an identical companion bill to S934
Latest: Companion bill to S934, but no committee movement since its introduction in June - Unlikely to progress further,
New Jersey's bill takes a distinctive approach by limiting its prohibition to "hazardous" substances used for geoengineering rather than banning all atmospheric releases, while creating a citizen science-style monitoring program that accepts everything from smartphone photos to spectrometry reports as evidence of potential violations.
Latest: No movement since the beginning of the year - unlikely to see progress.
New Jersey's S4161 takes the regulatory rather than criminal approach to geoengineering prohibition, imposing escalating civil fines up to $50,000 per day while requiring DEP to establish a citizen monitoring program, but limiting the ban only to substances deemed "hazardous."
New Mexico's cloud seeding pilot project would have addressed one of western water law's thorniest questions—whether artificially enhanced precipitation belongs to existing rights holders—while providing state liability protection for cloud seeding activities. The bill passed the House but died in the Senate despite clearing committee.
New York's A05476-A would make geoengineering and weather modification a Class E felony, with a mandatory monthly reporting requirement that compels operators of public infrastructure — airports, transit systems, bridges — to file reports on any aircraft they observe that appear configured for atmospheric modification activities.
New York's S.8529-A goes far beyond simple prohibition by establishing a dual surveillance system requiring mandatory monthly aircraft monitoring by all public infrastructure operators and a citizen reporting portal, backed by class E felony charges that expose corporate officers to up to 5 years' imprisonment.
North Carolina's H 362 prohibits atmospheric modification using language nearly identical to companion bill S 485, but with a critical difference: the House version uses "intentional or sole purpose" rather than "intentional and sole purpose," creating a broader prohibition that could capture activities where atmospheric modification is one of multiple objectives rather than requiring it to be the exclusive aim.
North Carolina's S 485 prohibits atmospheric modification, including stratospheric aerosol injection, cloud seeding, and electromagnetic radio frequency emissions, by amending the state's Air Pollution Control statute, while notably carving out licensed agricultural pesticide application and delegating rule development for enforcement to the Environmental Management Commission without specifying dedicated penalties.
North Dakota House Bill 1514 failed in the House in 2025, proposing to ban cloud seeding, weather engineering, and stratospheric aerosol injection as Class C felonies with $500000 fines, while establishing a citizen complaint system requiring sheriffs to investigate suspected atmospheric activities within 2 hours.
Latest: Committee report "Do not pass" was accepted
North Dakota Senate Bill 2106 failed in the Senate in 2025, proposing to ban all weather modification, including cloud seeding, as a Class B misdemeanour while repealing the state's entire county-based weather modification regulatory framework.
Latest: The committee report "Pass" was rejected by the full Senate
North Dakota House Bill 1166 passed the House in 2023 but failed in the Senate requiring cloud seeding operations to stop when seeded storms cross into counties without active weather modification programs and restructuring county weather modification authority procedures.
Latest: Passed by the House, rejected by the Senate
Ohio's HB 272 buries a straightforward prohibition on weather modification within an omnibus consumer protection bill covering PFAS chemicals, food dyes, and water fluoridation. The atmospheric release provision is notably modest compared to Ohio's other pending weather modification bill (HB 290), imposing misdemeanour penalties rather than felony charges, suggesting different legislative philosophies on enforcement severity even within the same chamber.
Latest: This bill stalled in 2025 because it covered too many topics. Unlikely to resurface in 2026
Ohio's "Atmosphere Protection Act" imposes some of the harshest penalties in state weather modification legislation—a mandatory 3-year prison term and a minimum $500,000 fine under strict liability, meaning prosecutors need not prove intent. The Legislative Service Commission's own analysis notes uncertainty about what the undefined term "sunlight reflection methods" actually prohibits.
Latest: Ignored by committee in 2025, unlikely to resurface in 2026
Ohio's 2024 Atmosphere Protection Act takes an unusual regulatory approach by directing the Ohio EPA to establish public monitoring and reporting systems for solar radiation modification, essentially crowdsourcing detection before issuing cease-and-desist orders. The bill carries harsh penalties but notably limits its scope to SRM only, without addressing cloud seeding.
Oklahoma's HB1429 would ban all intentional atmospheric modification while simultaneously dismantling the state's 50-year-old Weather Modification Act, but notably lacks any enforcement mechanism or penalties for violations.
Oklahoma's SB1021 would authorise the Air National Guard to intercept aircraft suspected of weather modification activities and escort them to airports for investigation, while simultaneously repealing the state's existing weather modification licensing program that has regulated cloud seeding operations for decades.
This bill authorizes the Governor to deploy the Oklahoma Air National Guard to intercept suspected weather modification aircraft, collect air samples using mass spectrometers, and escort violators to airports for investigation—while simultaneously dismantling Oklahoma's existing weather modification regulatory framework through a wholesale repeal of 23 statutory sections.
Oklahoma's SB430 is a companion bill to SB1021, using the same prohibition language but taking a conventional criminal penalty approach with misdemeanour charges and a $10,000 fine, rather than SB1021's Air National Guard interdiction authority.
Oklahoma's HB1429 would ban all intentional atmospheric modification while simultaneously dismantling the state's 50-year-old Weather Modification Act, but notably lacks any enforcement mechanism or penalties for violations.
Oklahoma's SB 1021 authorises the Air National Guard to intercept aircraft suspected of weather modification and escort them to airports for investigation, but the bill contains no penalties for violators. This represents one of the more aggressive enforcement mechanisms proposed in any state, yet it is toothless due to the absence of any actual sanctions.
SB 430 is the simpler sibling to Oklahoma's SB 1021, which bans weather modification with a $10,000 misdemeanour fine but lacks the Air National Guard fighter jet provisions. Interestingly, Senator Jett (author of SB 1021) is a coauthor on this bill, suggesting the two may be legislative alternatives rather than competing approaches.
Oregon SB 58 would create a state-authorized cloud seeding program with a focus on drought mitigation, but uniquely shields operators from trespass and nuisance lawsuits while exempting them from all permitting requirements, a notable departure from typical regulatory frameworks for atmospheric modification activities.
Pennsylvania's Clean Air Preservation Act creates a sweeping felony prohibition on atmospheric interventions, including solar geoengineering experiments like stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening, with the unique feature of listing artificial intelligence as a criminal entity subject to minimum penalties of $500,000 and two years imprisonment per day of violation, enforceable by sheriffs and State Police against any entity including federal agencies.
Latest: No committee movement in 2025, unlikely to resurface in 2026
Pennsylvania's Clean Air Preservation Act creates a sweeping felony prohibition on atmospheric interventions, including solar geoengineering experiments like stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening, with the unique feature of listing artificial intelligence as a criminal entity subject to minimum penalties of $500,000 and two years imprisonment per day of violation, enforceable by sheriffs and State Police against any entit,y including federal agencies.
Latest: No committee movement in 2025, unlikely to resurface in 2026
Pennsylvania's Clean Air Preservation Act creates a sweeping felony prohibition on atmospheric interventions with comprehensive definitions covering everything from cloud seeding to electromagnetic fields and artificial intelligence, empowering sheriffs and State Police to issue binding cease-and-desist orders against any entity, including federal agencies, with minimum penalties of $500,000 and two years imprisonment per day of violation.
Rhode Island's "Clean Air Preservation Act" builds a muscular enforcement regime around its geoengineering ban -- authorising Air National Guard aircraft interdiction, mandating dual citizen reporting portals from two separate agencies, and classifying violations as felonies with per-day stacking penalties -- while also venturing into unusual territory by listing artificial intelligence as a prosecutable "entity" and defining pollutants broadly enough to encompass electromagnetic pulses, smart dust, and sound waves.
Rhode Island's Senate version of the "Clean Air Preservation Act" pairs its geoengineering ban with a $500,000-per-violation penalty floor, mandatory citizen deputization by state police, and -- reaching well beyond atmospheric modification -- imposes specific RF signal strength limits on all wireless telecommunications infrastructure and requires statewide fiber-optic deployment to homes, schools, and businesses, effectively bundling telecommunications regulation into an atmospheric pollution bill.
H 5217 is the House companion to S 0405, introduced nearly a month earlier with bipartisan sponsorship—the House version has already been held for further study, suggesting legislative scepticism about the bill's expansive scope, combining geoengineering bans with wireless infrastructure regulation.
This Rhode Island bill starts as a geoengineering prohibition but rapidly expands into wireless infrastructure regulation, requiring citizen deputization for enforcement, the formation of a state guard to defend the airspace from federal activities, and treating artificial intelligence as a legal entity capable of committing felonies.
This House version of Rhode Island's 2024 Clean Air Preservation Act assigns enforcement to the Department of Environmental Management rather than the State Police, embedding a prohibition on geoengineering within an environmental regulatory framework while still combining it with extensive restrictions on wireless infrastructure.
Rhode Island's 2024 Clean Air Preservation Act combines a prohibition on geoengineering with regulation of electromagnetic radiation, requiring State Police to respond within 2 hours to citizen reports while explicitly invoking states' rights to override federal weather modification programs.
South Carolina's H. 3083 takes a minimalist approach to weather modification prohibition, adding a simple ban on intentional atmospheric emissions for climate purposes without specifying penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or exemptions—leaving implementation entirely to existing air quality regulations.
South Carolina's H. 3915 establishes a mid-tier enforcement approach to weather modification, combining federal-level felony penalties with whistleblower protections for citizens suing the government, while notably omitting the more aggressive airport employee prosecution and bounty provisions found in companion bill H. 4624.
South Carolina's H. 4010 represents the most agriculture-friendly version of the state's weather modification bills, explicitly exempting both cloud seeding and crop dusting operations while notably omitting any criminal penalties or enforcement mechanisms for violations—essentially creating a prohibition without teeth.
South Carolina's bill establishes the nation's most aggressive enforcement regime against weather modification activities, featuring life imprisonment for third-time offenders and an unprecedented private citizen lawsuit provision that awards damages without requiring proof of harm—creating a de facto bounty system against stratospheric aerosol injection operations.
South Carolina's S. 110 is the Senate companion to the minimalist House approach, creating a bare-bones weather modification prohibition without penalties or exemptions—but its referral to the Medical Affairs Committee rather than environmental or agriculture committees signals a unique legislative focus on public health impacts.
South Dakota's HB 1181 takes a notably comprehensive approach by creating a dedicated enforcement fund, requiring quarterly aircraft inspections at all airports, and extending jurisdiction to businesses merely headquartered in the state, even when operations occur elsewhere. The $100,000 minimum fine plus $10,000 daily penalties represents one of the steeper civil penalty structures among similar state proposals.
South Dakota's HB 1271 creates a comprehensive prohibition on atmospheric modification, with substantial civil penalties ($100,000 minimum plus $10,000/day), funded through a self-sustaining enforcement mechanism in which collected fines pay for monitoring activities. The bill is notable for requiring all airports to file quarterly reports on aircraft equipped with dispersal equipment and for attempting to reach businesses operating from outside state borders through the Secretary of State disclosure requirements.
South Dakota's HB 1294 is a bare-bones geoengineering prohibition—just six lines of text making it a felony, with no enforcement infrastructure, no funding, and a narrow definition that specifically targets climate change countermeasures rather than weather modification generally.
South Dakota's 2024 geoengineering bill would have deputised county sheriffs as atmospheric enforcement agents with authority to ground aircraft, invoke the National Guard, and issue cease-and-desist orders against federal operations—while establishing two-hour emergency response requirements for citizen reports of excessive electromagnetic radiation.
Tennessee's bill takes an unusual enforcement approach by routing weather modification violations through consumer protection law rather than creating direct criminal prohibitions, treating cloud seeding as essentially a form of commercial fraud. The narrow application only to "weather-related companies" makes a significant gap—the same activities would remain legal if conducted by entities outside this defined category.
Tennessee's HB 1112 creates one of the more aggressive enforcement frameworks among state weather modification bills, combining criminal misdemeanour charges with a substantial $100,000-per-violation administrative fine and extending liability up the supply chain to anyone providing materials with knowledge of their intended use. The bill has already passed the House 69-21 and crossed over to the Senate.
Tennessee's bill takes an unusual enforcement approach by routing weather modification violations through consumer protection law rather than creating direct criminal prohibitions, treating cloud seeding as essentially a form of commercial fraud. The narrow application only to "weather-related companies" makes a significant gap—the same activities would remain legal if conducted by entities outside this defined category.
Tennessee's HB 1112 creates one of the more aggressive enforcement frameworks among state weather modification bills, combining criminal misdemeanour charges with a substantial $100,000-per-violation administrative fine and extending liability up the supply chain to anyone providing materials with knowledge of their intended use. The bill has already passed the House 69-21 and crossed over to the Senate.
Tennessee transformed a technical caption bill about permit timelines into a comprehensive atmospheric intervention ban through floor amendment, with enforcement tied to existing air quality violations rather than creating new criminal statutes.
Tennessee's geoengineering ban includes legislative findings asserting that federal atmospheric experiments may occur in the state, while its own fiscal analysis assumes no such activities are happening or will occur, creating an unusual disconnect between the stated justification and the projected impact.
Texas would transform from a state that licenses and regulates weather modification to one that criminalises it entirely—repealing decades-old cloud seeding statutes while requiring the licensing agency to refund fees to permit holders whose operations would become illegal overnight.
While one Texas bill would criminalise weather modification entirely, this companion measure takes the opposite regulatory approach—preserving the existing program but requiring state pre-approval of chemicals and techniques with mandatory exclusion of any substance known to harm human health.
Texas's third weather modification bill of 2025 takes a middle path—neither banning the practice entirely nor merely strengthening oversight, but instead creating a public-private divide in which governments are prohibited from atmospheric intervention while private, licensed operators may continue.
The federal "Clear Skies Act" (H.R. 4403) bans all weather modification activities nationwide with criminal penalties up to 5 years imprisonment and $100,000 fines per violation, while repealing all existing federal authorities that permit such activities and establishing a public EPA reporting system for suspected violations.
Latest: No movement after Marjorie Greene's meeting in September 2025
A federal study-only bill requiring the Department of Energy to investigate health and environmental effects of federally-connected geoengineering projects, with no regulatory teeth or prohibition provisions—essentially a fact-finding exercise that commits Congress to nothing beyond receiving a report.
Latest: No movement since January 2026
This federal bill goes beyond simple prohibition by creating dual reporting systems—one requiring airlines to disclose weather modification equipment on aircraft, another for public violation reports—while simultaneously repealing all existing federal weather modification authorities and banning even federally-funded research on atmospheric intervention.
Latest: No movement since Feb 2026
The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Reauthorization Act of 2026 modernises NOAA's meteorological research, severe storm forecasting, AI weather modelling, and commercial satellite data integration. It focuses strictly on observational technology and public warning systems and includes no provisions for atmospheric intervention or weather modification.
Latest: Now eligible for floor consideration, but its window for enactment before the end of the 119th Congress is narrow.
Utah's SB0023 takes a narrower approach than many state geoengineering bills, focusing solely on aircraft-based solar geoengineering while explicitly preserving the state's existing weather modification program. The bill creates a tiered reporting chain from airport operators through the Department of Transportation to the Attorney General.
Utah's failed geoengineering bill carved out explicit protection for traditional cloud seeding while targeting solar radiation management activities, establishing felony penalties but offering no enforcement mechanism beyond criminal prosecution and relying entirely on citizen reports filtered through the Department of Transportation.
Vermont's H.217 combines a standard geoengineering ban with an unusual RF radiation compliance regime for communications facilities and mandatory citizen deputization by sheriffs for enforcement. The bill explicitly makes artificial intelligence subject to both its prohibitions and criminal penalties.
Virginia's HB 1425 takes a minimalist approach to geoengineering prohibition, adding just three short subsections to existing air pollution law and relying entirely on standard civil penalty mechanisms rather than creating new criminal offences or specialised enforcement structures.
Washington bill replaces the state's 60-year-old weather modification licensing system with a total ban, creating felony penalties up to $1,000,000 and establishing an airport surveillance program. The bill's text explicitly references "chemtrail events" and includes 5G, 6G, and RF waves among prohibited weather modification methods.
West Virginia's HB 5160 creates one of the most comprehensive geoengineering prohibition frameworks seen in state legislation, featuring Air National Guard interdiction authority, explicit coverage of AI systems as potential criminal violators, and million-dollar-per-day penalties for federal agencies conducting unauthorised activities over the state.
West Virginia's HB 5513 is a comprehensive geoengineering ban with a citizen monitoring framework, requiring the DEP to publish quarterly newspaper notices encouraging the public to document and report suspected atmospheric activities -- but its penalty section appears to have been borrowed from another state's code, referencing a "cabinet" and "secretary" that do not exist in West Virginia's environmental regulatory structure.
West Virginia's SB 514 combines one of the broadest definitions of prohibited atmospheric activity seen in this legislative wave—encompassing electromagnetic fields, mechanical vibrations, and even AI-directed releases—with a mandatory citizen reporting infrastructure and the unusual inclusion of hazardous waste management provisions within a geoengineering prohibition bill.
West Virginia proposes one of the most aggressive geoengineering bans yet, with a $500,000 minimum daily penalty for knowing violations, mandatory 24-hour reporting by government officials, and the unusual provision that Artificial intelligence can be subject to felony liability for atmospheric modification activities.
West Virginia's geoengineering bill is notable for what it lacks—no penalties, no enforcement mechanism, no exemptions—creating a prohibition statement without legal teeth, while its legislative findings explicitly acknowledge federal geoengineering activities that state law may be unable to reach.
West Virginia's second geoengineering prohibition bill of 2025 is a near-verbatim duplicate of the first, filed two weeks later by different sponsors, "By Request"—suggesting constituent-driven introduction of identical legislation through multiple channels to maximise advancement opportunities.
West Virginia's most comprehensive geoengineering bill creates felony liability with minimum $500,000 daily fines, explicitly subjects artificial intelligence to criminal prohibition, requires state officials to report suspected activity within 24 hours, and mandates formal notice to the federal government that its atmospheric activities cannot lawfully occur over the state.
Wyoming's comprehensive geoengineering ban creates felony penalties of up to 5 years' imprisonment and $500,000+ fines for atmospheric interventions, while explicitly preserving the state's existing cloud seeding permit system and uniquely tasks the Department of Environmental Quality with monitoring all aircraft, space-based platforms, and ground facilities for prohibited atmospheric contaminant dispersal.
Wyoming's Legislature is requesting Congressional action to prohibit unauthorised atmospheric geoengineering over the state, citing concerns that federal agencies and military contractors are dispersing chemicals such as aluminium oxide, barium, and stratospheric sulphates without public knowledge, while explicitly preserving Wyoming's existing ground-based cloud seeding operations.
Wyoming's geoengineering ban would have ended the state's 13-site cloud seeding program, which brings in $570,000 annually from out-of-state water authorities desperate to boost Colorado River snowpack. The bill died in committee after its fiscal impact on existing water development operations became clear.
No bills match those filters.