English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In December 1955 a severe tropical storm caused severe flooding throughout Northern California with damage exceeding $200,000,000. One area suffering large-scale flooding was at Yuba City, at the confluence of the Feather and Yuba Rivers. The levees broke and consequent damage was in the magnitude of $65 million. Property-owners sought recompense through suits brought in the Superior Court of Sutter County against the State of California, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&amp;E), and North American Weather Consultants (NAWC). PG&amp;E, through its contracting agent, NAWC, had undertaken cloud seeding operations in three places in the high Sierras, one of which was in the Lake Almanor water-shed in the Feather River system. NAWC had interrupted seeding activities in that area three days before the levees broke at Yuba City. Plaintiffs charged that PG&amp;E and NAWC were negligent in the operation of their generators, had contributed to the total quantity of water produced by the watershed and therefore were legally liable, and that cloud seeding was ultra-hazardous activity so that those engaged in such activities were strictly liable for damages. The suit was begun in 1958 and concluded in 1964. Trial before a judge only began in October 1963 and a decision was rendered in April 1964. The judge ruled that neither PG&amp;E nor NAWC was liable. In accordance with an agreement among the parties no appeal was taken. Plaintiffs were successful, however, against the State, basing their claim for damages on the doctrine of inverse condemnation which holds that the State must recompense for damages incurred in the lawful exercise of its powers—in this case, the construction of levees. The litigation raises important questions of public policy with regard to weather modification and these are considered in the light of this case.

the Yuba City flood: a case study of weather modification litigation*