In early July 2025, catastrophic flash floods ravaged Central Texas, claiming over 80 lives and leaving communities, including the Camp Mystic summer camp, in devastation. The National Weather Service attributed the deluge to a potent combination of monsoonal moisture and the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which dumped over a foot of rain on the region. Yet, a growing chorus of voices on social media and beyond has raised a provocative question: Was this natural disaster entirely natural, or could weather modification, specifically cloud seeding, have played a role? The speculation gained traction when it emerged that Rainmaker Technology Corp., a California-based weather modification company, conducted a cloud-seeding operation in South Central Texas on July 2, just days before the floods. This modern controversy echoes a historical precedent—the infamous case of Charles Hatfield, the “Rainmaker,” whose early 20th-century exploits in San Diego offer a cautionary tale about tampering with the weather.
The Rainmaker Connection: A Modern Controversy
Rainmaker Technology Corp., led by CEO Augustus Doricko, is a private company specializing in drone-based cloud seeding to combat drought and restore ecosystems. On July 2, 2025, Rainmaker conducted a 20-minute cloud-seeding mission over eastern South Central Texas, approximately 150 miles from the hardest-hit flood areas in the Texas Hill Country. According to Doricko, the operation was halted the same day due to high atmospheric moisture levels, and the seeded clouds dissipated within hours, well before the catastrophic storms began on July 4. The company released flight logs and meteorological data to support its claim that the seeding had no connection to the flooding, and meteorologists like Travis Herzog and Matthew Cappucci have backed this stance, emphasizing that cloud seeding cannot create storms of such magnitude. Herzog noted, “Cloud seeding cannot even create a single cloud. All it can do is take an existing cloud and enhance the rainfall by up to 20%—and even that is on the high end.”
Despite these assurances, the timing of Rainmaker’s operation—funded in part by federal agencies—has fueled rampant speculation. Posts on social have pointed to the lack of public oversight and accountability, with some users alleging that weather modification programs are being conducted covertly. One user claimed, “Federal agencies paid a private cloud seeding company to spray Texas skies—just 2 days before deadly floods killed 60+. No public comment. No oversight. No accountability.” Another linked Rainmaker’s actions directly to the floods, noting the coincidence of the operation occurring in the same region. While these claims lack definitive evidence, they tap into a broader distrust of weather modification, amplified by the involvement of private entities like Rainmaker and historical parallels to figures like Charles Hatfield.
Charles Hatfield: The Rainmaker Who Drowned San Diego
The story of Charles Hatfield, a self-styled “moisture accelerator,” provides a striking historical parallel. In 1915, San Diego, gripped by a severe drought, hired Hatfield for $10,000 to fill the Morena Reservoir using his secret concoction of 23 chemicals, which he evaporated from towers to attract rain. Hatfield, a sewing machine salesman by trade, had built a reputation as a rainmaker, claiming over 500 successful operations. His method, an early precursor to modern cloud seeding, relied on a combination of meteorological knowledge and what some describe as “pseudoscience,” although he never revealed his formula.
Hatfield began his work in early January 1916, and within days, light rain fell. By January 10, the drizzle turned into a deluge. Over the next two weeks, nearly 30 inches of rain soaked San Diego, making it the wettest period in the region’s recorded history. The San Diego River overflowed, bridges and railroads were washed away, and the Lower Otay Dam burst, killing an estimated 20 people and causing $3.5 million in damages (equivalent to roughly $100 million today). While Hatfield considered the operation a success, having filled the reservoir as promised, the city was furious. Facing lawsuits from flood victims, city officials refused to pay Hatfield unless he accepted liability for the damages, which he declined. The legal battle dragged on until 1938, with courts ultimately ruling the floods an “act of God,” leaving Hatfield unpaid and the city uncompensated.
Hatfield’s story is a reminder of the unpredictable consequences of weather modification. While some dismissed him as a charlatan who capitalized on natural weather patterns, others saw him as a pioneer of cloud seeding, a practice that would later gain scientific legitimacy. His case underscores the fine line between enhancing precipitation and triggering unintended disasters, a concern that resonates with today’s speculation about Rainmaker’s activities.
Weather Modification: Science, Scale, and Skepticism
Cloud seeding, the modern equivalent of Hatfield’s rainmaking, involves dispersing substances like silver iodide or dry ice into clouds to encourage precipitation. Texas has a long history of such programs, dating back to the 1950s, when drought prompted the state to regulate and fund weather modification efforts. Today, over 31 million acres of Texas land are under cloud-seeding projects, often aimed at alleviating drought in agricultural regions. Rainmaker’s mission aligns with this tradition, using drones to deliver sustainable cloud seeds in an effort to reverse desertification.
However, the science of cloud seeding remains contentious. While it can enhance rainfall in existing clouds by up to 20%, experts emphasize that it cannot create storms or control weather on the scale of a major flood. They insist the Texas floods were driven by a massive storm system fueled by natural factors, including a stalled jet stream and moisture from Tropical Storm Barry. Meteorologists argue that the energy required for such a storm—equivalent to billions of gallons of water—far exceeds the capabilities of cloud seeding. Robert Henson of Yale Climate Connections called the floods a “once-in-a-generation event,” exacerbated by the region’s drought-hardened soil, which failed to absorb the rapid rainfall.
Yet, skepticism persists, fueled by the opacity of weather modification programs and their growing prevalence. Globally, 52 countries had active cloud-seeding programs in 2014, and private companies like Rainmaker are increasingly involved. High-profile figures like Bill Gates, who has funded geoengineering research since 2006, including Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, have also drawn scrutiny. Conspiracy theories, amplified by figures like Georgia congressional candidate Kandiss Taylor and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, allege that weather modification is being used to manipulate climate or even weaponize weather. Greene’s proposed federal ban on weather modification, modeled after Florida’s 2025 law, reflects this growing distrust, though meteorologists have dismissed her claims as scientifically inaccurate.
A Question of Accountability
The parallels between Hatfield’s era and today are striking: both involve private actors tampering with the weather, public desperation for water, and devastating floods that raise questions about responsibility. In 1916, San Diego’s lack of a written contract with Hatfield left accountability murky. Today, Rainmaker’s transparency—releasing flight logs and engaging in public discussions via X Spaces—contrasts with the secrecy of earlier rainmakers, yet public trust remains fragile. The company’s federal funding and the absence of immediate oversight have only deepened suspicions, even if the scientific “consensus” dismisses a direct link to the floods.
While there is no conclusive evidence that Rainmaker’s July 2 operation caused the Texas floods, the speculation cannot be dismissed outright. Weather modification, though limited in scope, is a real and growing practice, and its unintended consequences remain poorly understood. The Hatfield saga serves as a historical warning: even well-intentioned efforts to control the weather can spiral beyond human control. As Texas mourns its losses, the debate over cloud seeding underscores a broader tension between technological ambition and the unpredictable power of nature. Until more is known about the long-term impacts of weather modification, such controversies will likely persist, blending legitimate concern with the allure of conspiracy.
Sources:
Yahoo News, “Rainmaker CEO To Speak Publicly Amid Cloud Seeding Scrutiny Over Texas Floods”
Wikipedia, “Charles Hatfield”
Bloomberg, “After Texas Floods, Misinformation on Cloud Seeding Swirls”
PolitiFact, “Naturally occurring rainfall caused deadly Texas flooding, not a corporation’s cloud seeding”
Houston Chronicle, “Fact check: Can cloud seeding cause the Texas Hill Country floods?”