Florida‘s attorney general speculated that weather modification technology could have played a role in the deadly Texas flash floods.

On Monday, James Uthmeier wrote a letter to all public-use airports in the state, warning against any geoengineering or weather modification technology, which the state had recently banned. Most notable, however, was a line in the letter in which the Republican attorney general speculated that “cloud seeding” technology could have played a role in the Texas floods that have killed 132 people and left 101 missing.

Recommended Stories

• Deer Creek Fire on Utah-Colorado border engulfs more than 10,000 acres, remains 0% contained
• Historic Grand Canyon Lodge destroyed as wildfires rage in Arizona: What to know
• Red states follow federal footsteps to 'unleash American energy'

“As our hearts break for the victims of the flash floods in Texas, I can’t help but notice the possibility that weather modification could have played a role in this tragedy,” Uthmeier wrote. “Developing reports show that a weather modification company conducted ‘cloud seeding’ operations just days before the deadly flood.”

“Florida’s new law seeks to prevent anything like that from ever happening,” he added.

Uthmeier referred to concerns over a 20-minute cloud seeding mission by Rainmaker Technology Corporation on July 2 over Karnes County, southeast of the flood zone. Two clouds were targeted and dissipated later that day. RTC CEO Augustus Doricko produced documents showing no further missions were carried out on July 3-4, with the floods starting on July 4.

The mission triggered conspiracy theories that the mission played a role in triggering the flash floods, which shocked the public with its spontaneity and ferocity. Doricko posted a detailed thread on X, inviting any scrutiny but undercutting allegations that his company had any role in the floods.

“Natural clouds typically have lifespans of 30 minutes to a few hours at most, with even the most persistent storm systems rarely maintaining the same cloud structure for more than 12-18 hours. The clouds that were seeded on July 2nd dissipated over 24 hours prior to the developing storm complex that would produce the flooding rainfall,” he wrote.

Doricko also released a detailed meteorological report around the mission.

Meteorologists and other experts cast heavy doubt on claims that the mission could have had any role in the Texas floods.

Veteran Houston meteorologist Travis Herzog with ABC 13 argued against the theory, arguing that there was no scientific evidence for it. He pointed out that floods of the July 4 type are rare but had ample precedent long before cloud seeding technology was created. The unique terrain of the affected area, combined with remnant moisture from Tropical Storm Barry and Hurricane Flossie, produced a deadly combo.

“Due to the hilly terrain, when high amounts of rain fall in a short period of time, the water flows quickly through the creek and river valleys, sometimes with devastating and deadly consequences like we are witnessing on this July 4th holiday weekend. (See also the Blanco River flood in Wimberley on Memorial Day weekend in 2015, the Canyon Lake flood in July 2002, or the Guadalupe River flood in July 1987 for some of the more recent examples.),” He wrote in a post on Facebook.

He argued that cloud seeding technology can’t produce the significant rainfall needed to trigger the flash floods.

“Cloud seeding cannot create a storm of this magnitude or size. In fact, cloud seeding cannot even create a single cloud,” Herzog wrote. “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.”

EPA ADDRESSES WEATHER MODIFICATION FEARS WITH SITES ON CONTRAILS AND GEOENGINEERING

He added that “it is physically impossible for that to have created this weather system. This is a matter of scale. If I blow out a candle with my breath, does that mean I can then go blow out a raging wildfire? It is the same with cloud-seeding.”

Herzog also countered conspiracy theories from the other side, which claimed that the Department of Government Efficiency cuts to the National Weather Service hindered its forecast and warning operations. He wrote that his analysis found that the weather service had issued timely warnings as the events unfolded and that he saw no evidence that any cuts “hurt the situation.”