Texas floods ignite outrage as cloud seeding company faces blame
TOI World Desk | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Jul 12, 2025, 01:40 IST
( Image credit : AP )
Highlight of the story: Following devastating floods in Texas that claimed over 100 lives, conspiracy theories have emerged accusing weather modification startup Rainmaker of triggering the disaster through cloud seeding. Despite scientific dismissal and Rainmaker's limited operations, public anger has been fueled by social media and political figures. The incident has renewed debate over the ethics and accountability of weather modification technologies.
Over 100 people have died in the devastating floods that swept across parts of Texas over the Fourth of July weekend, and now conspiracy theories are gaining ground online. At the center of the controversy is Rainmaker, a California-based weather modification startup accused of triggering the disaster through cloud seeding. Despite widespread scientific dismissal of the claim, public anger has escalated, fueled by social media posts and political figures echoing the allegations.
Rainmaker’s founder, Augustus Doricko, launched the company in 2023 to provide cloud-seeding services aimed at boosting rainfall in drought-stricken areas. But following the floods, Doricko and his team have become targets of online attacks. In an interview, Doricko described the backlash as “constant chaos,” as accusations poured in accusing the company of manipulating the weather in a way that caused fatal flooding in Kerr County.
Among those amplifying the claims were Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who suggested Rainmaker’s operations may have contributed to the historic rainfall. Social media users circulated documents showing the company’s registration for weather modification activities in Texas, while others shared images of its office and address online.
Cloud seeding involves dispersing small particles—typically silver iodide—into clouds to encourage precipitation. It has been practiced in various parts of the world for decades, but scientists emphasize its impact is modest and localized. Experts say the idea that cloud seeding could produce the 15 inches of rain that fell in some areas of south-central Texas is not scientifically plausible.
Bob Rauber, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the energy involved in producing such a storm far exceeds anything achievable with cloud seeding. “We’re talking about a very small increase on a natural process at best,” Rauber said.
According to Rainmaker, its only operation in Texas during the days leading up to the flooding took place on July 2, over Runge, more than 100 miles from Kerr County. A single-engine aircraft released about 70 grams of silver iodide into two clouds during a 20-minute flight. The effort resulted in a brief drizzle, with less than half a centimeter of rain reported. Doricko said the mission was part of a contract with the South Texas Weather Modification Association to help increase rainfall over cropland.
Meteorologists working with Rainmaker quickly suspended further operations after observing the approach of a major storm system. The flooding that followed was caused by the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which dropped as much as 15 inches of rain across the region by the morning of July 4.
Despite these facts, conspiracy theorists online have demanded investigations and accountability, framing the cloud-seeding flight as a potential trigger for the disaster. Doricko said he has responded to public concerns by participating in live discussions on X and addressing serious questions about the company’s work, while pushing back against doxxing attempts and false narratives.
Cloud seeding and other forms of geoengineering have long been the subject of public skepticism, with concerns ranging from health effects to environmental impact. Though the federal government halted cloud-seeding experiments in the 1980s, several drought-prone states continue to support such efforts. Rainmaker, which employs 58 people and has raised $31 million in venture capital, is among the private companies attempting to meet demand for weather modification technologies.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently acknowledged growing public concern around geoengineering and called for increased oversight, regulation, and transparency. While no evidence supports the claim that Rainmaker’s cloud seeding caused the Texas floods, the incident has renewed debate over the risks, ethics, and accountability of human intervention in weather systems.
Rainmaker’s founder, Augustus Doricko, launched the company in 2023 to provide cloud-seeding services aimed at boosting rainfall in drought-stricken areas. But following the floods, Doricko and his team have become targets of online attacks. In an interview, Doricko described the backlash as “constant chaos,” as accusations poured in accusing the company of manipulating the weather in a way that caused fatal flooding in Kerr County.
Among those amplifying the claims were Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who suggested Rainmaker’s operations may have contributed to the historic rainfall. Social media users circulated documents showing the company’s registration for weather modification activities in Texas, while others shared images of its office and address online.
Cloud seeding involves dispersing small particles—typically silver iodide—into clouds to encourage precipitation. It has been practiced in various parts of the world for decades, but scientists emphasize its impact is modest and localized. Experts say the idea that cloud seeding could produce the 15 inches of rain that fell in some areas of south-central Texas is not scientifically plausible.
Bob Rauber, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the energy involved in producing such a storm far exceeds anything achievable with cloud seeding. “We’re talking about a very small increase on a natural process at best,” Rauber said.
According to Rainmaker, its only operation in Texas during the days leading up to the flooding took place on July 2, over Runge, more than 100 miles from Kerr County. A single-engine aircraft released about 70 grams of silver iodide into two clouds during a 20-minute flight. The effort resulted in a brief drizzle, with less than half a centimeter of rain reported. Doricko said the mission was part of a contract with the South Texas Weather Modification Association to help increase rainfall over cropland.
Meteorologists working with Rainmaker quickly suspended further operations after observing the approach of a major storm system. The flooding that followed was caused by the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which dropped as much as 15 inches of rain across the region by the morning of July 4.
Despite these facts, conspiracy theorists online have demanded investigations and accountability, framing the cloud-seeding flight as a potential trigger for the disaster. Doricko said he has responded to public concerns by participating in live discussions on X and addressing serious questions about the company’s work, while pushing back against doxxing attempts and false narratives.
Cloud seeding and other forms of geoengineering have long been the subject of public skepticism, with concerns ranging from health effects to environmental impact. Though the federal government halted cloud-seeding experiments in the 1980s, several drought-prone states continue to support such efforts. Rainmaker, which employs 58 people and has raised $31 million in venture capital, is among the private companies attempting to meet demand for weather modification technologies.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently acknowledged growing public concern around geoengineering and called for increased oversight, regulation, and transparency. While no evidence supports the claim that Rainmaker’s cloud seeding caused the Texas floods, the incident has renewed debate over the risks, ethics, and accountability of human intervention in weather systems.