In the early hours of July 4, a flash flood of the Guadalupe River devastated Kerrville, Texas, with water levels reaching up to 36 feet. As of July 19, 135 people have died as a result of the flooding, and at least 100 remain missing. Making headlines too was the story of one Texas girls’ camp, “Camp Mystic,” where 27 campers and counselors died from the floods.
In the aftermath, viral online claims sprouted, following ideological lines about climate change solutions and Trump-era federal funding cuts. Let’s take a look at the accuracy of some of these statements.
CLAIM 1: NEW “CLOUD SEEDING” COMPANIES — WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO FIGHT Climate change — ACCIDENTALLY triggered the flood.
VERDICT: MYTH
Right-wing voices alleged the flood’s severity and high death toll was a result of “cloud seeding,” a weather modification technique that enhances natural rainfall to combat droughts and prevent severe weather swings.
According to the nonprofit Desert Research Institute, cloud seeding uses chemical reactions from ground generators, drones and other aircraft to create new ice in existing subfreezing clouds. Snowflakes form around the ice and cause the precipitation to fall, encouraging regular rain or snow before it can accumulate and strengthen into an extreme weather event. Early forms of the practice date back nearly a century and utilized research from General Electric.
Rainmaker Technology Corporation specializes in the practice and, under government contract, has used high-performance weather-resistant drones to plant ice nuclei in clouds over Texas. Allegations on social media after the flood began to call out the company and its management specifically.
"CEO of Rainmaker ‘seeding’ clouds over Texas just 2 days before flood. Should they be held responsible?”
The comment section amplified the claims and alleged legal liability. “Everyone who lost family members and property due to flooding caused by cloud seeding should come together and sue,” one user wrote. Another called Rainmaker’s work “crimes against humanity.”
While it is correct that Rainmaker Technology Corporation conducted cloud seeding over south-central Texas on July 2, it is incorrect to imply or outright state that this comparably minuscule process could ever cause something like the July 4 flooding.
Experts have repeatedly confirmed that the practice is not strong enough to have created or even contributed to flooding this massive. Instead, the precipitation moved from one area of the globe to another. The convergence of remnants from Tropical Storm Barry and existing storms in the region caused the rainfall that prompted the fatal flash flooding.
Houston-based meteorologist Travis Herzog explained in an official post that cloud seeding is only able to enhance rainfall in already-present cloud systems by 20% or less, and isn’t even capable of making its own cloud.
“If I blow out a candle with my breath, does that mean I can then go blow out a raging wildfire?” Herzog said. “It is the same with cloud-seeding.”
CLAIM 2: Trump’s emergency-service cuts and firings slowed officials’ response time in texas.
VERDICT: MORE MYTH THAN FACT
A National Weather Service “watch” signals that it’s likely for a weather event to occur, while a “warning” alerts that hazardous weather is either already happening or imminent. Around 1 p.m. on July 3, the National Weather Service issued a flood watch to parts of central Texas and indicated a flash flood risk for that day and the day after; then, twelve hours later, in the middle of the night, the NWS elevated the notice and issued a flash flood warning for the region.
By the morning of July 4, Texans awoke to the flood already in progress. According to Chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management W. Nim Kidd, the NWS ultimately predicted between three to eight inches of rain across the region. In actuality, some areas saw up to 15 inches.
It is accurate to say that especially early forecasts on July 3 underestimated the amount of rainfall that would occur the following day. However, it is misleading to attribute this underestimation to Trump’s cuts.
As of mid-May, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s workforce by approximately 11%, including 500 buyouts and 800 terminations.
However, Congress has yet to vote on Trump’s proposed 28% budget cut to NOAA. Additionally, Trump has proposed an increase in the funding of the National Weather Service by 6.7%. The NWS is part of NOAA, and it provides weather forecasts and warnings based on collected water, weather and climate data.
“Donald Trump’s cuts to the National Weather Service played a roll [sic][role] in Texas Floods! Donald Trump’s cuts to the National Weather Service are already causing harm, as Texas officials say, forecast did not prepare them for the amount of rain that they received.”
Trump has made cuts to FEMA, and over 20 states have sued his administration because of it — but the agency’s role is typically in disaster relief, prevention and clean-up. FEMA is not as heavily involved in warning systems as NOAA and the NWS are. The preventative work FEMA has ended under Trump, if anything, will impact future responses to disasters, not those of the most recent one in Texas.
In the afternoon on July 3, state emergency management officials did issue emergency response resources and flood watches across the region. The NWS flash flood warnings came over three hours before the flash flooding, which is relatively common timing for weather warnings on systems that shift. These warnings trigger Wireless Emergency Alerts — emergency notifications sent via cell towers to every cellphone in the area. According to Bob Fogarty, a meteorologist in the NWS Austin/San Antonio office, the NWS updated and reissued this warning nine separate times on July 4, with each update triggering a new Wireless Emergency Alert to Texans’ phones.
DOGE oversaw the firing of hundreds of NWS meteorologists this year, and the NWS Austin/San Antonio office’s warning coordination meteorologist retired early in April, announcing that funding cuts were to blame. There were staff vacancies in the San Angelo/San Antonio NWS forecasting offices on July 4 — ten vacancies out of 49 positions. But, according to Service Coordination Hydrologist at the NWS West Gulf River Forecast Center Greg Waller, the forecasting offices had adequate staffing and were operating as normal at the time of the flood.
Ultimately, there is no single party to blame for the July 4 Guadalupe River flash floods. Known as “Flash Flood Alley” by geographers, the area the Guadalupe River runs through has experienced extreme flooding for over a century. It is critical that weather services retain funding and are properly staffed so that during disasters, rapid warnings and evacuations can be made. However, forecasting is an imperfect science. Weather — especially extreme weather — can change in an instant.