logo
Cloud-seeding is not a threat — it's a time-tested tool to deal with water scarcity

Cloud-seeding is not a threat — it's a time-tested tool to deal with water scarcity

The Hill2 days ago
Farmers have an old saying: 'Pray for rain, but keep the plow in the ground.'
For generations, the people who feed this country have kept their faith while adapting to challenges with ingenuity and the use of new tools. Today American farmers, and the American people, face a dire risk that calls for the same approach.
Water scarcity now poses a permanent threat to our food supply, our economy and our families. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley estimate that nearly one million acres of farmland will be fallowed in California alone over the next 15 years due to lack of water. That means rising prices and fewer fruits and vegetables at the grocery store, but also fewer exports, fewer jobs, and more dependence on foreign supply chains in a time of global uncertainty.
Soon it may also mean cities and towns running out of drinking water, the failure of critical infrastructure and ecosystems across the nation facing collapse.
Farmers have always been the beating heart of our nation. In many ways they are also the canary in the coal mine, which is why we should pay close attention to the issues they face and the solutions they are exploring in times of need.
One such tool is cloud-seeding: a safe, scalable method that encourages more rain or snow from weather systems that are already moving through the sky. Used responsibly, it can provide supplemental water for farms, reservoirs and ecosystems at a time when every drop counts.
While relatively unknown to the general public, cloud seeding is nothing new. It was invented in the U.S. and has been used with little fanfare for over 80 years. Today, there are 10 states that actively invest in cloud seeding programs at either a local or state level across the American West: Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas, California, North Dakota, Nevada and soon Montana. In recent years, technological advances have made the process even faster, smarter and more reliable.
How it works is quite simple: We encourage moisture to fall by introducing a small amount of material that fits certain properties into clouds — often silver iodide. The silver iodide gives water vapor something to cling to and freeze, and then it falls as rain, mimicking natural precipitation caused by dust or sea salt.
When conditions are right, cloud seeding increases precipitation by as much as 10 to 15 percent — enough to recharge aquifers, extend growing seasons or shore up a reservoir over time. In Utah, a cloud seeding project has the potential to help refill the Great Salt Lake while adding over a year's worth of surplus drinking water over the course of a decade.
And here is what cloud seeding cannot do: It cannot create new clouds. It cannot control large weather systems. And it cannot cause disasters. Meteorologists and dozens of state and local regulatory officials across the country agree on these points.
Cloud seeding is a useful and scalable tool that can revitalize ecosystems, lower the incidence of wildfires, and promote hydropower stabilization. In times of drought and increasing water insecurity, to take such a solution off the table would be tremendously damaging to our national interest. Unfortunately, some are trying to do just that.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) recently introduced a bill that would criminalize precipitation enhancement nationwide. This proposal is built on conspiracy theories and ignores the overwhelming consensus of decades of science, threatening to cut off a lifeline to the farmers, communities and families who need access to a precious, life-giving resource.
When disinformation reaches the halls of Congress, the damage can harm everyday people and set back our country at a time when adversaries like China are investing billions in weather and water technologies as part of broader strategies for energy independence, food productivity and global competition. That is a race in which we cannot afford to fall further behind.
So here is the truth: Cloud seeding is neither a silver bullet nor a boogeyman.
I come to this work as both a man of faith and a believer in science. I believe we are meant to care for the land and leave it better than we found it, using the tools we have built with our own God-given abilities.
Today, realities on the ground call for a nuanced discussion about how novel technologies can make our planet more habitable. To me, stewardship of the earth starts with transparency, good science and humility about what technology can and cannot do.
Augustus Doricko is the founder and chief executive officer of Rainmaker Technology Corporation.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Administration Violated Order on U.C.L.A. Grant Terminations, Judge Says
Trump Administration Violated Order on U.C.L.A. Grant Terminations, Judge Says

New York Times

time7 hours ago

  • New York Times

Trump Administration Violated Order on U.C.L.A. Grant Terminations, Judge Says

A federal judge in California ordered the National Science Foundation to reinstate millions of dollars in grants awarded to the University of California, Los Angeles, finding that the agency had tried to circumvent a ruling in June requiring restoration of the funds. In a pointed order on Tuesday evening, Judge Rita F. Lin wrote that the Trump administration had misleadingly framed its latest attempt to cancel the grants as suspensions. 'N.S.F. claims that it could simply turn around the day after the preliminary injunction' and freeze 'funding on every grant that had been ordered reinstated, so long as that action was labeled as a 'suspension' rather than a 'termination,'' she wrote. 'This is not a reasonable interpretation.' Judge Lin, a Biden appointee, noted in the order that the University of California system had lost around $324 million in grant funding earlier this year as the Trump administration began culling science funding for projects it considered out of step with the president's agenda. In the previous ruling in June, Judge Lin informed the Trump administration that it could issue cancellations of individual grants for coherent reasons, but not blanket terminations. But beginning on July 30, the administration sent out a round of letters announcing what Judge Lin described as 'en masse, form letter funding cuts,' targeting U.C.L.A. specifically, freezing more than $300 million in research funds. That sum appeared to include around $81 million in funding awarded by the N.S.F. The judge said that letters on the cuts echoed familiar grievances about the university's handling of diversity in admissions practices, alleged antisemitism on campus and policies surrounding transgender athletes — the same grounds on which the administration has tried to extract enormous settlements from Harvard and other universities in recent weeks. Judge Lin said that the Trump administration's freezing of university grants appeared designed more to suspend research the Trump administration has associated with liberal causes than to sincerely address concerns about racism or antisemitism. In a related case focused on grants from the National Institutes of Health, a federal judge in Massachusetts described the cancellations of those grants as discriminatory toward racial and sexual minorities and driven by animus toward vulnerable groups. He similarly ordered that funding restored in an impassioned ruling from the bench in June. In Judge Lin's ruling, she directed the government to return next Tuesday to update the court on its progress in complying with the order.

Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants

Scientific American

time17 hours ago

  • Scientific American

Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants

US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store