Idaho HJM018
House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee 12 Mar 2026
1. Session Overview and Legislative Intent
On March 12, 2026, the House Environment, Energy & Technology Committee met to consider House Joint Memorial 18 (HJM018). This revised memorial marks a strategic shift in Idaho’s atmospheric policy by specifically addressing solar geoengineering (SRM/SAI) and excluding broad prohibitions on weather modification that hindered previous efforts. By omitting traditional practices such as cloud seeding, the sponsors sought to address concerns from agricultural and water management stakeholders. The memorial formally petitions the U.S. Congress to prohibit unauthorised solar geoengineering under the Tenth Amendment.
The hearing began with presentations from the sponsor and a technical co-presenter, outlining the legislative and scientific rationale for the memorial, setting the stage for more detailed perspectives from both.
2. Sponsor and Co-Presenter Opening Arguments
Representative Clint Hostetler (District 24) introduced HJM018, as he considers it essential to protecting Idaho’s water, soil, and health. He noted that he refined the language in collaboration with vested interests to ensure the memorial targets global atmospheric interventions, not local weather modification.
Rep. Clint Hostetler (District 24) Key Arguments:
Definitions of SRM and SAI: Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) refers to techniques intended to reflect sunlight to reduce global temperatures. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a form of SRM that involves deliberately releasing particles into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation.
International Disparities: Cited a strategic global divide, noting that while the UK has admitted to funding/implementing research, nations like Mexico have moved to ban such activities following unauthorised experiments.
Academic and Institutional Support: Referenced the “Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement,” currently supported by over 600 academics and institutions across 70 countries.
He cited the 2023 White House SRM research plan, asserting that the federal government coordinates and funds SRM activities without public consent.
Following the sponsor’s statement, co-presenter Sara Allstott summarised multi-agency findings to highlight the risks of atmospheric experimentation, providing technical context for the debate.
The 2026 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-26-108013) identified a lack of transparency: of 1,084 weather modification reports in the NOAA database, only 4 involved solar geoengineering. Allstott noted that the GAO recommended that NOAA improve its reporting instructions to capture these activities better.
EPA Environmental Warnings
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned that SRM poses significant risks, including increased acid rain, worsened soil acidity, and disrupted hydrological cycles, which may lead to unpredictable rainfall and drought.
Congressional Research Services (2023)
The CRS report on Solar Geoengineering and Climate Change emphasises the need for Congress to weigh potential cooling benefits against the unknown risks to ecosystems and human health.
Expert testimony regarding the evidentiary nature of atmospheric particles further strengthened the technical foundation for HJM018, with these agency perspectives established.
3. Expert Witness Testimony: Blake Horwitz
Blake Horwitz, a federal trial practitioner, summarised the legal implications and evidence of nanoparticles from aviation and combustion emissions.
Summary of Technical Testimony:
Horwitz claimed that persistent aviation trails are not solely due to frozen moisture, challenging the ‘water vapour narrative.’
He defined nanoparticles as particles with dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers (one-billionth of a meter), explaining they typically originate from fuel combustion and turbine operation in jet engines.
He linked airport proximity and nanoparticle exposure to disease and ‘aerotoxic syndrome’ among crew.
He stated that these metallic particles form persistent stratospheric trails.
Horwitz recommended an Idaho-based lab study of these particles to create a framework for categorising public observations.
4. Public Testimony: Environmental and Biological Concerns
Public testimony emphasised agricultural integrity and ecosystem health, with a focus on heavy metal accumulation in Idaho’s northern and rural regions.
Gary Crandall, from an independent lab, cited a study of 28,000 calves linking sulfur dioxide to higher mortality, and found ‘abnormal’ synthetic pollutants in Idaho soil.
Ronna Snyder reported lab results showing aluminium, barium, and strontium in snow and water, and cited bee health concerns she attributed to these metals.
Carol Andrews cited environmental loss and an arborist’s observation that chemical accumulation dries trees and intensifies fires.
Wendy Cossette noted Idaho would join other states in restricting these activities.
Testimony then shifted from environmental concerns to the specific personal impacts on human health.
5. Public Testimony: Human Health and Personal Impact
A recurring theme of “non-consent” emerged in health-related testimony, with citizens describing perceived links between atmospheric layers and chronic disease.
Jackie Davidson described differences between commercial contrails and persistent exhaust, believing these reflect intentional sunlight management.
Jayel Lesh linked rising infertility and her mother’s Parkinson’s to heavy metals and atmospheric contaminants.
Rebecca Disney reported a ‘mental health crisis’ in children, associated with diminished sunlight and described the sky as a ‘milky, toxic soup.’
Sarah Bacon warned against entities profiting from geoengineering experiments without the consent of residents or transparency from the state.
6. Committee Deliberation, Clarification, and Final Vote
The committee focused on ensuring the memorial’s legal precision, particularly that the prohibition would not affect Idaho’s traditional water management tools.
Representative Erin Bingham requested clarification on the phrase “not weather modification generally” in line 15. Representative Hostetler explained that this exclusion protected the state’s cloud seeding programs. By focusing solely on solar geoengineering (SRM/SAI), the memorial addressed concerns about disrupting state-authorised weather modification.
Representative Jordan Redman moved that the committee send HJM018 to the House floor with a “Do Pass” recommendation. The committee carried the motion by a unanimous voice vote.