SB 364 creates a new chapter in Indiana environmental law titled “Weather Control” and makes it unlawful for a person, with the intent of affecting the intensity of sunlight, temperature, or weather, to discharge a chemical or apparatus into the atmosphere. The bill includes a narrow exemption for misting devices and similar temperature-regulation devices used to warm or cool people on the same premises as the device. A violation of the new weather-control prohibition is a Class A misdemeanor, and the bill also adds a higher felony penalty if the conduct results in serious bodily injury or death.
The bill also amends Indiana’s environmental criminal penalty provisions to increase or clarify fines tied to certain violations of hazardous waste, air, water, and permit requirements. In several sections, it preserves existing misdemeanor classifications but adds a minimum criminal fine of $10,000 per day per violation for specified environmental offenses. It also creates enhanced felony penalties when certain knowing violations place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, with penalties increasing further if the conduct causes injury or death.
Impact
If enacted, SB 364 would add a new criminal prohibition to Title 13 and expand the state’s environmental enforcement framework by creating a specific offense for intentional atmospheric discharge aimed at changing weather or sunlight. It would also amend existing environmental penalty statutes to impose substantial per-day fines and, in some cases, elevate violations to felony offenses when they create serious risk or actual harm. The bill would affect individuals or entities engaged in environmental operations, permit holders, and anyone accused of weather-modification activity, while leaving ordinary misting and local cooling/heating devices outside its scope.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and enforcement-oriented rather than collaborative or negotiated. The bill’s structure suggests concern about environmental manipulation and stronger deterrence for regulatory violations. Because no discussion transcript or vote history is included, there is no documented public support or opposition in the supplied record, but the proposal itself indicates a strong regulatory and punitive stance.
Contention
The most likely point of contention is the weather-control ban itself, especially the breadth of the phrase covering discharges intended to affect sunlight, temperature, or weather. Questions could arise about how intent would be proven, what technologies or activities might be covered, and whether the provision could reach legitimate scientific, agricultural, or atmospheric activities. Another likely issue is the bill’s steep penalty structure, including $10,000-per-day fines and felony enhancements for conduct that creates danger or causes injury or death. Environmental compliance interests may support the enforcement provisions, while regulated industries and civil liberties or scientific stakeholders may be concerned about overbreadth and criminalization.