Welcome, welcome to Meteorology Matters. Today
we're embarking on a really deep and sadly incredibly
somber dive into a catastrophic event that just
gripped the heart of Texas. It's been devastating.
Just days ago, the Texas Hill Country was brutally
ravaged by these awful floods. The sheer suddenness,
the raw ferocity of those floodwaters, it's almost
impossible to grasp. And the human cost is truly
heartbreaking. It really is. As of the latest
reports we have, over 100 lives have been claimed
and a chilling 171 people are still missing.
171. It's a tragedy that just serves as this
powerful, stark reminder of nature's immense
power, isn't it? Absolutely. Lives changed forever
or tragically just extinguished with shocking
speed. It really forces us to look beyond the
immediate devastation and understand the layers
beneath. It truly does. And on this deep dive
of the Meteorology Matters podcast, our mission
really extends far beyond just talking about
the weather itself. Right. The weather was the
catalyst, no doubt. But the full story is much
bigger. Exactly. We're going to meticulously
explore the complex interwoven layers that contributed
to such a devastating event. This isn't just
about rain or river levels. It's profoundly about
preparedness. It's about the vital lines of communication.
And it's deeply rooted in the underlying societal
decisions that ultimately shape how vulnerable
we are to these powerful natural forces. And
our aim for you, our listener, is to help you
quickly but thoroughly grasp what happened and
maybe even more importantly, why it happened
without feeling completely overwhelmed by just
the sheer volume of information that always surrounds
a disaster like this. Yeah, information overload
is real. It is. So we're committed to unpacking
these interval factors, providing clear, concise
insights and sharing compelling details that
truly illuminate the scale and complexity of
this tragedy. So settle in because this is an
extraordinarily important conversation. It touches
upon critical aspects of community, governance,
human behavior. All of it. Before we jump into
the details, though, just a quick reminder to
connect with meteorologist Rob Jones. You can
find him on Instagram. His handle is Meteorologist.
He's great. Follow him. Definitely. And on TikTok,
he's TV Meteorologist. And make sure you subscribe
to the Rob Jones Hurricane YouTube channel. That's
also where you'll find the entire Meteorology
Matters podcast playlist. Lots more deep dives
like this one. OK, let's begin to unpack this.
Let's do it. Our journey into this really profound
event begins right at the heart of the tragedy
itself. The Texas Hill Country floods. The scale
of devastation here is just grim. It's hard to
even talk about the numbers sometimes. They represent
real people, real families. Exactly. They're
not just statistics. As we speak, over 100 confirmed
deaths have been reported. And five days after
the flood event, a staggering 171 people are
still unaccounted for. This isn't some distant
event. It's recent. It's raw. And what's particularly
heartbreaking, you know, really puts a face to
these numbers, is how concentrated the casualties
were in certain areas. Kerr County, it bears
the heaviest burden. They reported 84 deaths
there alone. 84 in one county. And within that
awful count, at least 30 children lost their
lives. Many of these young victims were campers
from Camp Mystic. It's a Christian summer camp
right there along the Guadalupe River. Oh, the
summer camp. I heard about that. Just horrific.
It is. A specific tally actually indicates 27
campers and staff members from Camp Mystic were
killed. And as of the most recent reports we
have, the bodies of five young girls and a 19
-year -old counselor still haven't been recovered.
Still missing. The agony for those families must
be unbearable. Imagine. The grief, the sheer
void left behind, it just sends chills down your
spine thinking about it. It's unimaginable. That
concentration of loss in one place, especially
involving so many young lives and the families
still waiting. And the devastation wasn't just
Kerr County, right? Though it was certainly the
worst hit. No, definitely not. The floods reach
extended quite far. It claimed seven lives in
Travis County, eight in Kendall County, five
in Burnett County, three in Williamson County,
and one life lost in Tom Green County. So it
really spread across the region. It paints a
vivid picture of the sheer overwhelming force
of this water event. It affected multiple communities,
large and small. And the descriptions of the
scene? The physical aftermath sounds just as
harrowing. Oh, absolutely. The landscape itself
just screams destruction. Searchers, emergency
responders, volunteers, they're still meticulously
sifting through immense amounts of debris. twisted
metal, splintered wood, fragmented personal belongings.
That's everything torn apart. Everything. They're
navigating down trees that used to stand tall,
wading through this thick black mud that covers
everything like a suffocating shroud. With a
blanket of sludge. Exactly. And the scenes described
by those on the ground are heartbreakingly vivid.
Finding little girl suitcases, still packed with
clothes, plush toys, now just caked and heavy
with detritus and mud. Oh, that's tough to hear.
These are just objects, you know? They are poignant,
tangible reminders of the lives that were suddenly,
violently, and as we'll discuss, without effective
warning, swept away. Each item tells a silent
story of what was lost. Underscoring the deep
human cost of such rapid inundation. And when
we talk about the speed, I mean, the term flash
flood feels almost inadequate here, doesn't it?
It really does. The rapid inundation in Kerr
County was, well, astonishing. A real display
of nature's raw power. Consider the Guadalupe
River in Kerrville. OK. It surged from just one
foot. One foot to over 34 feet between 2 a .m.
and 7 a .m. on that Friday morning. 33 feet.
in five hours, in the middle of the night. And
get this, one report cited an incredible, almost
unbelievable rise of 26 feet in just 45 minutes
at one point. 26 feet in under an hour? That's
not a rising river, that's a wall of water. Exactly,
a terrifying sudden wall engulfing everything.
It makes you wonder, what warnings, if any, were
in place? And how were they communicated given
that impossible speed? What chance did people
really have? Right. So were there warnings? Did
the system work at all? The initial warnings
were in fact issued. The system was trying to
do its job. The National Weather Service had
put out a flash flood watch for the region on
Thursday afternoon, July 3rd. That's sort of
the preliminary heads up. OK, a watch. They then,
as the situation rapidly escalated into the very
early hours of Friday, July 4th, a flash flood
warning with a considerable tag was issued specifically
for Bandera and Kerr counties at 1 14 a .m. 1
14 a .m. And that considerable tag is important,
right? Doesn't that trigger phone alerts? Yes,
exactly. That specific type of warning is designed
to automatically trigger wireless emergency alerts
or WEA's to cell phones in the affected areas.
They're meant to blare loudly. way people up
with that distinctive attention -grabbing tone.
So theoretically phones should have been going
off around 1 .15 a .m. but clearly the situation
got even worse. Much worse and quickly. By 4
.04 a .m. Friday just under three hours later
a flash flood emergency was issued. That signifies
an even graver, more immediate threat. Emergency?
That's the highest level, isn't it? Pretty much.
And it was followed just 19 minutes later by
an even more urgent, particularly dangerous situation
alert at 4 -2 -3 a .m. Wow. So the alerts were
escalating rapidly. Watch, warning, emergency,
PDS, all in the dead of night. The warnings from
authorities were clearly intensifying, indicating
a severe threat demanding immediate attention.
The critical question then becomes... How were
these increasingly dire warnings actually received,
or perhaps tragically not received, by people?
Especially when most were asleep. And that's
precisely where the perception and the grim reality
of these alerts diverge so significantly. It
reveals critical vulnerabilities. Like what?
Did people just sleep through them? Well, some
did. For instance, residents like Sue J. Martin,
she did get phone alerts around 2 a .m., but
she reportedly went back to sleep. Why? I mean,
a blaring alert at 2 a .m. It's not uncommon,
sadly. It's a psychological phenomenon. People
in areas like the Hill Country, they get frequent,
but often less severe, flood warnings. They can
become desensitized. Ah, the cry wolf effect.
Exactly. If warnings become routine without dire
consequences happen every time, the perceived
urgency diminishes. So when a truly life threatening
event occurs, the alarm might not be taken seriously
enough, or it's dismissed as, ah, just another
warning. That's a dangerous complacency. It's
a really delicate balance for emergency managers.
Yeah. How to warn effectively without causing
this warning fatigue. Makes sense. The brain
tries to filter out perceived non -threats. But
it sounds like for others, the issue wasn't desensitization,
but the warnings never even reach them. Precisely.
An even more fundamental breakdown. Louie Kokorek,
for example. He recounted that he never received
an official government text alert at all. Zero.
None. How did he find out? He relied instead
on a private service called Coder Red. It's a
common community notification system. Sends alerts
via calls, texts, emails to subscribers. Okay,
Coder Red. Did that work? For him, that alert
arrived too late. By the time it came, the power
was already out, roads were impassable, the notification
was useless. Power out, roads closed. Yeah, too
late. And Linda Clanton. A retired schoolteacher.
She said she was only woken by a desperate call
from her sister at 8 .30 a .m. that morning,
hours after the most critical warnings had gone
out. 8 .30. That highlights huge gaps in communication,
doesn't it? Especially when warnings go out in
the middle of the night or infrastructure fails.
Profound and dangerous gaps. What other factors
made communication so difficult? I mean, the
Hill Country has its own challenges, right? Terrain,
cell service. That's... Crucial to understand
here, it's this complex intersection of technology,
human behavior, and the specific geographic and
infrastructural challenges of rural areas, like
the Hill Country. OK. Wireless emergency alerts,
WEAs, they're designed to blare loudly, sure.
But they only work if your phone is on, charged,
and critically, if you're in an area with reliable
cell service. Right. Three big ifs. Big ifs.
Many were asleep, phones silent or on do not
disturb, and a profound point often overlooked.
Many children at summer camps and their counselors
often didn't have cell phones at all. Oh, right.
The camps, unplugged environments. Exactly. Creates
a massive, often invisible blind spot in the
warning system, especially in a region packed
with summer camps and outdoor activities. And
the cell service itself. Yeah. In rural landscapes
like the Hill Country, spotty cell service and
limited communication towers are persistent,
well -known problems. It makes broad, reliable
dissemination of digital alerts incredibly difficult.
The hills and trees probably don't help either.
Definitely not. The physical terrain itself,
rolling hills, deep valleys, dense tree cover,
can significantly interfere with signal transmission.
Creates natural communication dead zones where
even a working phone might not get a timely alert.
So a digital warning system, no matter how sophisticated,
just runs into fundamental barriers in these
kinds of places. It really does. Which makes
you think about other ways to warn people, maybe
older methods. Which brings us to this stark
contrast we saw between Kerr County and a nearby
town, Comfort. It is indeed a stark contrast,
just 20 miles away. In Comfort, it's a town of
about 2 ,300 people in Kendall County. they had
a very different experience during the same flood.
Okay, Comfort, what happened there? Their success
offers a powerful, tangible lesson in preparedness,
stands right in contrast to Kerr County's tragedy.
What did they do differently? What made their
experience so tragically different? Comfort had
recently, and crucially, updated their disaster
alert system. This wasn't just a minor tweak,
it was a strategic upgrade. What kind of upgrade?
They installed a brand new siren at the Volunteer
Fire Department headquarters, and very intelligently,
they moved an older siren to a low -lying, highly
flood -prone area right along Cypress Creek.
Sirens? Actual physical sirens? Yes. And during
this flood, for the very first time on site of
routine tests, this new two -siren system was
activated. Yeah, the result. Danny Morales, the
Assistant Chief of the Comfort Volunteer Fire
Department, reported a stark and incredibly positive
outcome. Zero deaths in comfort. Zero deaths.
Wow. When did their sirens go off? They sounded
at 10 -5 -2 a .m. Mid -morning, not the middle
of the night. Right. A time by which many residents
were already awake, much more receptive to the
warnings. The critical insight here isn't just
that sirens save lives, though clearly they can,
but that the will to prioritize and fund them,
despite costs or inconveniences, is the real
key. Comfort made that choice. That's compelling.
Timing helped that the infrastructure was there.
And their system isn't fully automated, is it?
There's a human element. That's a key detail.
Speaks to local understanding. While comfort
system is linked to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, via satellite
dish, the local officials actually trigger the
sirens manually when water levels rise past a
certain point they've determined. So local control.
Exactly. This human element and activation is
crucial. It allows for local discretion. They
know their terrain, their conditions. They can
act on real -time observations, not just automated
thresholds that might miss the nuance of a flash
flood in their specific environment. That makes
a lot of sense. Combining tech with local expertise.
Powerful. But then we look back at Kirk County,
the devastation. And starkly, no similar siren
system, despite years of talk about it. No, none.
And this wasn't a new idea that came too late.
The discussions about a flood warning system
in Kerr County go back almost a decade. A decade?
Yes. Detailed conversations, for instance, took
place way back in 2016. That was right after
those really destructive floods in Hayes County
in 2015 that tragically killed 13 people. So
they knew the risk. They saw what happened nearby.
Absolutely. Former Kerr County Commissioner Tom
Moser, for example, had actively looked into
implementing such a system then. The groundwork
for discussion was there. The lessons were considered.
This wasn't ignorance. It was about choices made
despite knowing the risks. So the need was identified,
the conversation ongoing, a nearby tragedy as
a warning. Who was arguing for the sirens? Why
did they think they were so vital? Former Kerr
County Sheriff Rusty Hireholzer was one of the
most vocal advocates. He was adamant about the
need for sirens and crucially, in addition to
phone systems like Coda Red, not instead of them.
A layered approach. Exactly. He said, and I'm
quoting him directly, you need the sirens and
you need code red to try and make sure we'll
notify everybody as we can when it's coming up.
His point was clear. Sirens provide redundancy,
a distinct auditory warning, especially when
digital alerts might fail middle of the night,
no cell phones at camps, bad service, a necessary
compliment. Makes sense, a multifaceted approach.
Yet despite those strong arguments, the sirens
were never installed. Why? What were the reasons
for rejection? Sounds complicated. You're absolutely
right. It was multifaceted, driven by various
concerns and priorities. It really shows how
complex these public policy decisions get. The
most common reason cited, predictably, cost.
How much? An estimated $1 million for a comprehensive
system, sensors and sirens included. That was
considered too expensive for Kerr County, which
has an annual budget around $67 million. A million
out of 67 million. Kerr County Judge Rob Kelly
explicitly said taxpayers won't pay for it. That
statement highlights a key psychological thing
we'll talk about later, the framing effect. How
so? If you frame it not as a vital SACE investment,
a relatively small fraction of the budget, but
as an excessive burden on taxpayers, it's a much
harder sell. especially in a fiscally conservative
area, an extra expense versus a life -saving
necessity. So the financial hurdle was presented
as insurmountable. Did they try to get outside
money, grants? Yes, attempts were made, but they
failed. The county put in a bid for a $1 million
federal emergency management agency, FEMA, grant.
They could have fully funded it, but they lost
out. And former Commissioner Moser also noted
that at the time, no other timely grants seemed
available. Plus, the Upper Guadalupe River Authority
looked into applying to the state's Flood Infrastructure
Fund, a fund specifically for this stuff, but
they dropped the idea. Why drop it? Because it
would only provide about 5 % of the needed money.
Just not enough to make a dent. It shows a critical
problem. Even when need is identified, grant
funding can be piecemeal, leaving communities
stuck. It's systemic. So cost and funding failures
were big parts of it, but were there other objections?
Maybe less tangible ones? Resistance to the idea
itself. Absolutely. There was this perception
of this system as, well, an extravagance, an
unnecessary imposition. Then Commissioner H .A.
Buster Baldwin openly questioned its necessity.
He famously called it a little extravagant for
Kerr County with sirens and such. Extravagant.
That's a strong word for a safety system. It
is. It goes beyond just cost. Touches on maybe
relatability. If officials or influential people
didn't personally feel the immediate, dire need,
maybe never experienced a bad flood themselves,
saw it as rare, then a million bucks for an occasional
noisy siren could easily seem extravagant. And
didn't Baldwin also vote against even studying
it? He did. He voted against a $50 ,000 engineering
study that would have detailed the feasibility
and actual costs. That signals a preexisting
skepticism about the whole idea, not just a data
-driven objection. So a feeling it was too much
for the area. What about practical concerns?
False alarms, noise? Yes, very much so. That
was a common concern voiced. The potential for
false alarms. Some residents and officials just
dislike the idea because sirens could go off
accidentally, causing, as they termed it, disturbance
in the hill country. Disturbance. While it seems
minor compared to safety, it touches on maybe
cultural values, that strong preference for peace
and quiet in a rural setting. For some, that
tranquility might, paradoxically, outweigh the
perceived need for a loud, startling warning
system, an intrusion. The desire for quiet contributing
to a lack of safety measures. Wow. What about
effectiveness? Do people think they'd even work
in the hill country terrain? There was skepticism
there, too. Rep. Wes Verdil and others questioned
if sirens would be effective for people indoors
or spread out across hills and dense trees where
sound might not carry well. OK, a legitimate
physical concern. And they also raised the issue
of spotty cell service, sort of arguing that
if cell service was already bad, maybe sirens
wouldn't reach everyone either, making them a
poor investment. That logic seems a bit circular.
It can seem that way. It also speaks maybe to
information overload and confirmation bias. If
you're already skeptical about warning systems,
maybe due to phone alert fatigue or cost to any
new solution like sirens, can be viewed through
a lens of potential failure. It's easier to find
reasons why something won't work if that aligns
with your preference to avoid the cost or perceived
disturbance. So a real perfect storm of obstacles?
Cost? Grant failures, feeling it was extravagant,
worries about noise and false alarms, doubts
about effectiveness. It's a lot. A lot of reasons
piled up to prevent action. And it wasn't just
the lack of sirens. The other methods, like the
cell alerts, they had their own distinct challenges
too, didn't they? That's crucial. While wireless
emergency alerts, DOEA's, were technically issued,
they went out when most people were fast asleep.
Limited impact. An alert's effectiveness depends
on someone being awake and aware to act immediately.
Right. And the kids at camp? Can't stress that
enough. Many children in summer camps, their
counselors, totally without cell phones. An unplugged
environment means a total blind spot for digital
warnings. A huge, tragic blind spot. Beyond that,
the fundamental issue. Rural areas with bad cell
service, limited towers. Even if phones were
on, alerts might not arrive reliably or quickly.
And finally, as Kerrville City Manager Dalton
Rice noted, that desensitization to frequent
phone alerts, people just tune them out. dangerous
complacency. It really is a confluence of tech,
behavior, geography, and political decisions.
So what about now? After this horror, are local
officials changing their tune or sticking to
the old rationales? There's a palpable shift,
a clear sense of reflection. The tragedy has
undeniably forced a painful re -evaluation for
many. Like who? Kerrville County Judge Rob Kelly,
who initially said We didn't know this flood
was coming and noted the lack of a river warning
system. He's now facing immense pressure and
seems open to reconsidering. Okay. Creville City
Manager Dalton Rice, who talked about that delicate
balance in evacuations too late, puts people
on flooded roads. But flash floods are so fast,
he's now talking about a comprehensive reevaluation
of all warning systems. A full review. And a
particularly telling example. City of Ingram
Council Member Raymond Howard. He admitted he
initially ignored three flash flood warnings
himself. Wow three warnings ignored but now He
plans to advocate passionately for warning sirens
in his community This immediate painful experience.
It's been a brutal undeniable lesson It shows
that openness to change driven by direct undeniable
evidence when the devil you know No sirens just
phone alerts proves devastating the unfamiliar
solution suddenly looks necessary That's a profound
turnaround for someone who ignored the warnings,
lived experience, shifting perspectives. And
it's not just local folks, right? Even at the
state level, there's rethinking. Precisely. State
Rep Wes Verdell, who actually voted against a
bill meant to improve disaster warning systems
statewide. He voted against it. Yes. But now
he explicitly states, in hindsight, watching
what it takes to deal with a disaster like this,
my vote would probably be different now. Hindsight
is 20 -20. tragically. It shows how personal
observation of tragedy can cut through established
political stances. Kerrville's city manager Rice
confirmed they definitely want to dive in and
look at all those things from cell service tower
to radio communications or emergency alerting.
Once search and rescue ends, a comprehensive
review is planned. Good. And significantly, Governor
Greg Abbott has also left the door open to future
legislation on emergency warning systems. acknowledging
the urgent need for reassessment at the highest
state levels. So maybe, finally, the political
will might be there. Sometimes, sadly, only the
stark reality of tragedy can overcome that ingrained
resistance to change, cost aversion, or political
inertia against big safety investments. It forces
a reevaluation of priorities. Which brings us
to the broader legislative debates. If officials
are now open to revisiting this, what happened
before? Why did bills fail? Let's look at the
state capital, the wider political landscape.
This is where we see those broader patterns of
decision making, influenced by powerful political
motivations, fiscal priorities. A key piece of
legislation, House Bill 13, HB 13, was designed
to address precisely these kinds of issues statewide.
HB 13, what was it supposed to do? Authored by
Rep. Ken King, a Republican from Canadian, it
proposed creating a new government council to
set up a statewide emergency response plan. Crucially,
it would also manage a grant program for counties
across Texas. Grants for what? For buying essential
emergency communication equipment, building infrastructure
like radio towers, and yes, outdoor warning sirens
and new alert systems. A direct attempt to provide
the tools communities like Kerr County lacked.
Sounds exactly like what was needed. Proactive,
comprehensive. Where did the idea come from?
Directly from last year's devastating wildfires
in the Texas Panhandle. Over a million acres
burned. Three people died. The intent at HB 13
was clear. Learn from that. Prevent similar tragedies
statewide by improving communication and warnings.
For fires, floods, any disaster. Makes sense.
Learn from one disaster to prevent the next.
But it failed. It failed to pass in the Texas
Senate. Never made it into law. Why not? What
were the arguments against it? It seems so necessary.
The primary argument, as often happens, was cost.
The initial price tag was $500 million. That
drew heavy criticism right away. Half a billion
dollars. That's a big number. It is. State Rep
Tony Tinderholt, a Republican from Arlington,
called it half a billion dollars and suggested
voting against it should be one of the most simple
votes we should be able to take today, implying
it was an easy no because of the cost. Again,
that framing effect. Half a billion sounds huge,
maybe irresponsible rather than a long -term
safety investment. Exactly. Emphasis squarely
on the cost, not the potential benefits lives
saved, property protected. Were there other objections
besides the sticker shock? Practical concerns?
Yes. Concerns about timeliness and relevance,
especially given how fast technology changes.
Stephen Irani, a spokesperson for LTE and Gov.
Dan Patrick, argued the bill's proposed 10 -year
rollout for local grant money meant systems would
be outdated due to advances in technology before
they were even fully implemented. Hmm. The obsolescence
argument. Right. The idea was, why invest in
something that might be outdated soon? He also
claimed the grants were limited to planning purposes
only. They did not support disaster response
directly, implying a disconnect from immediate
needs. Is that accurate? Planning grants don't
help response. Well, planning is the first step
to effective response in infrastructure. But
the argument taps into that bias if you're already
against a big spend. Focusing on future obsolescence
or lack of immediate response capability helps
justify the opposition. It's easier to dismiss
a long -term plan by highlighting potential future
flaws rather than the current, tangible need
for any improvement. Did Irani suggest other
areas were funded instead? As an alternative
justification? He did. He emphasized that lawmakers,
including the Senate, had made unprecedented
investments in other disaster response areas
that session, totaling $547 million. Like what?
He listed things like $257 million for disaster
response aircraft, $135 million for regional
operation facilities, $90 million for rural ambulances,
$65 million for emergency response drone technology.
So helicopters, buildings, ambulances, drones,
more tangible response tools. Exactly. The argument
was while each B -13 focused on warning infrastructure,
these more direct response tools were being prioritized.
It illustrates a key point. There's often a political
preference for funding visible, immediate disaster
response capabilities over less visible proactive
prevention and warning infrastructure. Even if
prevention could save more lives and money long
term. Potentially, yes. But response tools are
tangible. Politicians can point to them. Easier
to justify to voters than a complex warning system
that ideally you hope you don't have to use often.
So a focus on reacting rather than preventing.
This connects to the bigger picture. Right. The
overall state of flood management funding in
Texas. Absolutely. Zoom out and Texas faces an
immense growing backlog of needed flood management
projects statewide. Estimated cost. Yeah. A staggering
fifty four billion dollars. Fifty four billion.
Billion. With a B. It speaks to decades of underinvestment.
The state flood plan from the Texas Water Development
Board explicitly called for substantial extra
funding. But so far... Lawmakers have allocated
only about $669 million through the state's flood
infrastructure fund. Less than $700 million allocated
for a $54 billion known need. That's a huge disparity.
It is. And this kind of fiscal decision often
ties back to things like partisan loyalty or
identity politics. Funding infrastructure might
be less immediately appealing to a party's base
than other priorities like tax cuts or certain
social policies, even if the long -term safety
benefit is huge. And speaking of tax cuts...
Didn't Texas lawmakers do something big on that
front recently? They did. This relatively tiny
allocation for critical flood infrastructure
happened in the same legislative environment
where lawmakers approved a colossal $51 billion
in property tax cuts this year. $51 billion in
tax cuts versus less than $1 billion for a $54
billion flood infrastructure need. It highlights
a very stark prioritization. It's a deliberate
choice about where resources are deemed most
urgently needed. or perhaps where they're most
politically expedient to win voter support. Tax
cuts are popular, visible, immediate. Infrastructure
is long -term, less visible until it fails. Precisely.
Broad, popular measures like tax cuts often win
out over those less visible long -term investments,
even when those investments directly impact public
safety and resilience against disasters that
are clearly getting worse. So the path to better
warnings and flood protection seems blocked by
money and politics. But after these floods, is
there new momentum? Are things changing? There
certainly appears to be renewed urgency, at least
for now. Senator Paul Bettencourt publicly stated
he plans to file a new bill as soon as possible
to reinstate civil defense sirens specifically
targeting flood -prone river valleys. A direct
response. Seems like it. And Governor Abbott
confirmed the Republican -controlled Texas legislature
will investigate the floods and discuss prevention
during a special session later this month. So
while past efforts failed, this tragedy has undeniably
pushed the issue back onto the agenda. The human
cost might finally be the catalyst for that openness
to change. Let's hope so. Now, widening the lens
even further, beyond Texas to federal agencies'
forecasting capacity, this disaster has ignited
a national debate, hasn't it, about funding,
effectiveness, and some specific political connections?
That's right. This tragedy brought renewed, intense
scrutiny to federal spending on weather forecasting
and disaster preparedness nationwide. And at
the center of this discussion is legislation
known broadly as President Donald Trump's Big
Beautiful Bill. The big, beautiful bill, what
was that? A wide -ranging piece of legislation
passed very narrowly, 51 -50 in the Senate with
Vice President J .D. Vance casting the tie -breaking
vote and 218 -214 in the House. Very politically
contentious. And what's its relevance to weather
in these floods? Why is it being discussed now?
Because of specific language included in it,
they removed significant funding from critical
federal weather agencies. Specifically, Texas
Senator Ted Cruz signed language into the bill
removing $150 million intended for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA,
and the National Weather Service, the NWS. $150
million cut from NOAA and NWS. What was that
money for? explicitly earmarked to accelerate
advances and improvements in research, observation
systems, modeling, forecasting, assessments,
and dissemination of information to the public.
Basically making forecasts and warnings better.
Okay. Any other related cuts? Yes, a separate
$50 million for grants to study climate impact
on oceans, weather, and coastal ecosystems was
also removed. So a combined $200 million in cuts
to programs directly aimed at improving forecasting,
observation, and public alerts. Wow, $200 million.
That's the point of contention whether cuts like
these undermine our ability to get timely warnings.
Precisely. But just to be clear, these specific
cuts hadn't actually taken effect yet, right?
They didn't directly impact the forecasting for
this flood. That is correct. Crucial point. The
cuts hadn't been implemented yet, so they didn't
directly influence these events in Texas. They
weren't the cause of any warning failure in this
instance. OK. However, the mere existence of
these planned cuts and the debate around them
has definitely spurred a renewed, intense discussion
of the overall funding capacity and future readiness
of these vital federal services. It raises the
question. Would cuts like these diminish future
capabilities for similar extreme events, which
seem to be happening more often? Yeah, fair question.
And the voting record on this bill, it's specific
and under scrutiny now. Who supported it, especially
from Texas? Certainly. In the Senate, 50 Republican
senators voted yes, plus VP Vance breaking the
tie. That included both Texas senators, Ted Cruz
and John Cornyn. OK, Cruz and Cornyn and the
House. In the House, 218 Republican representatives
voted for it. From the Texas delegation, it's
quite a list. Dan Trenshaw, Monica de la Cruz,
Beth Van Dyne, Pat Fallon, Brandon Gill, Craig
Goldman, Tony Gonzalez, Lance Gooden, Wesley
Hunt, Ronnie Jackson, John James, Morgan Littrell,
Michael McCall, Nathaniel Moran, Troy Nels, August
Fluger, Chip Roy, Keith Self, Pete Sessions,
Randy Weber, and Roger Williams. That's a lot
of Texas representatives. It shows broad support
within that party delegation for the bill and
its provisions, including those NOAA and WS cuts.
Understanding this is key to seeing the national
legislative landscape affecting weather preparedness
and how deeply partisan loyalty can shape decisions
with major public safety implications. Understood.
Now, shifting to the immediate debate, the effectiveness
of the warnings for this flood, some Texas officials
were critical of the National Weather Service
forecast, weren't they? Yes. That was a significant
point of contention right after. Emergency Management
Chief W. Nimkid, for instance, stated publicly
that the original NWS forecast predicted three
to six inches in one area, four to eight inches
in the hill country. But he added, pointedly,
the amount of rain that fell in this specific
location was never in any of those forecasts.
Implying they underestimated it badly. That was
the implication. Kerrville City Manager Dalton
Rice echoed that, saying the storm dumped more
rain than what was forecast. The suggestion from
these local officials is that NWS underestimated
the severity and localization impacting their
preparedness and warning decisions. So local
officials pointing fingers at the NWS forecasts.
How did the NWS and the broader weather community
respond? There's been a strong defense. Many
independent meteorologists and a former NWS official
stated the agency performed as well as it possibly
could given how notoriously difficult flash floods
are to predict precisely. They are very localized
and rapid, right? Incredibly, pinpointing exact
rainfall totals in tiny areas is hugely challenging,
even with the best models. The NWS itself put
out a statement saying flash flood warnings were
issued with preliminary lead times of more than
three hours before warning criteria were met,
which is considered substantial for such rapid
events. Three hours lead time is pretty good
for a flash flood. Generally, yes. And White
House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also weighed
in, stating that false claims about the NWS have
been repeatedly debunked. The counter -argument
is basically, forecasts aren't perfect, especially
for these extreme localized events. But the NWS
gave timely, escalating warnings based on the
best available science. It highlights scientific
limits, not necessarily agency failure. It clearly
became political very fast. different sides blaming
different things, the Weather Service, legislative
decisions. How did key political figures frame
this, especially regarding those funding cuts?
Immediately polarized. Republican Senator Ted
Cruz quickly dismissed talk about the NOAA -NWS
cuts as partisan finger pointing. He suggested
opponents were exploiting the tragedy. OK, how
did he justify that? He argued the National Weather
Service Union itself had publicly said staff
reductions had no impact whatsoever on their
ability to warn about this event. He called for
a review, but warned against using the crisis
to attack political opponents. Classic deflection,
framing it as political opportunism, making the
funding cuts off limits for criticism. And President
Trump, how did he characterize it, given his
administration's role in the funding decisions?
When asked about rehiring meteorologists after
the flood, President Trump said he would think
not. He characterized the event saying, it happened
in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it.
once in a hundred years. So framing it as an
unforeseeable anomaly. Exactly. Implying no amount
of forecasting investment could have prevented
it. Minimizing the role of preparedness and prediction.
That once in 100 years framing serves to deflect
responsibility from policy decisions by making
it seem like a freak event. But obviously not
everyone agreed with that assessment. Not at
all. Democratic Texas Representative Joaquin
Castro took a different view. He said a full
investigation should determine if previous job
cuts played any role in NWS capacity. He emphasized,
I don't think it's helpful to have missing key
personnel from the National Weather Service not
in place to help prevent these tragedies. directly
challenging the idea staffing is irrelevant.
And there was sharper criticism, too, specifically
about Senator Cruz's role in those cuts. Yes.
Cassidy DePaola, who writes the fossil free memo
newsletter on Substack, stated very directly
that Senator Ted Cruz, quote, helped pass the
so -called Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping fossil
fuel giveaway that also slashed 200 million dollars
from Noah's weather forecasting and public alert
programs. The money was meant to improve early
warnings for exactly the kind of fast moving,
deadly flooding that just hit his own state.
Wow. And she specified his role. She did. She
added. The cuts weren't in the House version.
Cruz added them in the Senate behind closed doors
as chair of the committee that oversees NOAA.
This perspective directly links specific legislative
actions and the alleged motivations behind them
to the impact on public safety. highlights the
deep political dimensions of these funding decisions.
This whole intense debate over funding, warnings,
responsibility, it really brings us to a crucial
point. Understanding why these decisions get
made locally, statewide, nationally. Exactly.
We've seen how costs, politics, perceptions can
block safety measures, how lack of preparedness
leads to tragedy. But to really grasp it, we
need to look beyond policy debates into something
more fundamental, the complex human psychology
behind voter and political decision making. That's
such a critical lens. It's essential to acknowledge
political and public choices aren't always purely
rational. They're driven by this incredibly complex
mix of incentives, deep feelings, subjective
interpretations of reality. Everyone brings their
own outlook, their own... Which often leads to
outcomes that might seem illogical from the outside,
right? Absolutely. Counterintuitive sometimes.
So this final section is about providing a framework
for understanding those public and political
choices. How these deep motivations shape our
vulnerability or our resilience to events like
these floods. Peeling back the layers of human
motivation behind every decision or non -decision.
So let's unpack some of these key motivations
influencing voting and, by extension, decisions
about community safety. First up, a really powerful
one, partisan loyalty. How does that play into
rejecting sirens or debating weather service
funding? Partisan loyalty is huge, almost gravitational.
For many people, being a Democrat or Republican
isn't just preference, it's part of their identity,
built over decades. Shared values, memories,
rallies, even merchandise, strong social bonds
form around the party. So it's deep. Very. So
if their party or representative makes a decision
that seems off, like voting against warning systems
like HB 13, or for cuts like those in the Big
Beautiful bill, they might still feel an overwhelming
urge to support it or rationalize it, just to
keep their party in power or show loyalty. Even
if it goes against their own ideals. Sometimes,
yes. They might suppress or ignore their own
ideals to justify it, often reinforced by consuming
media that favors their party and slams the opposition,
creates powerful echo chambers, makes it hard
to critically evaluate decisions, even ones affecting
safety, like neglecting flood infrastructure.
Party power can override policy specifics. Identity
and belonging trumping policy makes sense. What
about identity politics more broadly and ideologies?
How do they shape things here? Another incredibly
strong motivator. Voters often gravitate to candidates
they feel represent their specific identity,
race, gender, orientation, socioeconomic status.
When parties champion these identities, people
feel a stronger emotional connection, deep allegiance.
Feeling represented matters. Hugely. Plus, people
are motivated by policies promising better circumstances
for their social in -groups, especially if they
feel their group is marginalized or ignored by
the other side. So how does that connect to flood
safety? Well, for example, if a party champions
tax cuts and reduced government spending in ideology
appealing to a certain identity group, voters
might prioritize supporting that party, even
if it means less funding for collective infrastructure
like flood control or emergency services. The
ideology itself limited government, physical
conservatism can become an identity, leading
to decisions consistent with that framework,
even if not directly focus on flood risk at that
moment. And how information is presented, the
framing, that must be massive. Paramount. The
framing effect is all about the subtle but powerful
tone, phrasing, filters used to communicate ideas,
policies, events. It significantly influences
perception. Like the Kerr County sirens. Perfect
example. Framed positively livesaved resilience,
minimal cost per resident and might get support.
Framed negatively extravagant. burden on taxpayers,
disturbance like Commissioner Baldwin did. It's
a much harder sell. Or the big, beautiful bill
cuts. Right. Critics frame it as slashing vital
services. Proponents frame it as responsible
fiscal management or prioritizing other more
effective tools like Arani did. Very different
realities for the voter. Campaigns carefully
frame things like patriotism, too, making opponents
seem less patriotic, influencing how voters see
issues, even safety ones. Language shapes reality.
Not just what is said, but how. And the emotional
resonance. What about social circles? Group influence,
especially in tight communities. Social influence
is pivotal. Creates powerful dynamics that can
override individual logic, even self -preservation.
People look to friends, family, colleagues, online
groups for guidance, reinforcement. Leads to
groupthink. Easily. The desire for harmony, acceptance,
loyalty within the group causes individuals to
make decisions contradicting their personal logic.
Suppressing dissent, prioritizing consensus over
critical analysis. That's how echo chambers form,
reinforcing biases, reducing exposure to alternatives.
So someone might see the value in sirens, but
stay quiet if the group dismisses them. Exactly.
To maintain social cohesion, avoid being an outlier.
Emotional bonds amplify this, makes it incredibly
hard to break ranks even with compelling evidence
of a threat like a flood next door. And today
we're drowning in information and misinformation.
How does that overload affect voters trying to
grasp complex issues like disaster preparedness?
Information overload is a massive challenge.
fundamentally alters engagement. The average
voter is bombarded. Social media, TV ads, reports,
podcasts, forums, conflicting headlines, so much
information, so much disinformation. It's overwhelming.
Totally. Trying to sift through it logically,
determine credibility, synthesize it into a justifiable
choice. It's too much for most people. Leads
to mental shortcuts, relying on trusted, maybe
biased sources, or just disengagement. Meaning
simple messages cut through. Exactly. A well
-funded, repeated sound bite, even if inaccurate,
like extravagant or obsolete, cuts through the
noise more effectively than a nuanced, evidence
-based argument for complex solutions like flood
infrastructure. People tune out when overwhelmed,
leaving them vulnerable to simplified narratives.
Does education level play a role in navigating
this? Does it correlate with how people assess
policies or candidates? Research suggests it
does, yes. Studies indicate more educated voters
are more likely to align their candidate choice
with their broader ideologies, seeing the bigger
picture, interconnected issues like disaster
prep and funding. And less educated voters. According
to research, like from political science professor
Diogo Ferrari, they're more likely to focus intensely
on a single appealing policy from a candidate,
say, property tax cuts. Right. While perhaps
overlooking or giving less weight to other policies
that might not be in their overall best interest
long term, like the impact of those cuts on funding
for flood control. Not about intelligence, but
how complex policy interactions are processed
when overwhelmed. Precisely. A difference in
focus and prioritization. And for many, cultural
or religious values are core. How do those factor
in potentially overriding things like safety
measures? They're foundational. incredibly powerful
drivers. If a party promotes policies contradicting
cherished religious or cultural norms, they'll
likely lose that group's favor, regardless of
other positions. Conversely, aligning with those
values wins support. Very likely, yes. Even if
the individual voter might prefer the competitor's
other policies, maybe one's offering more direct
safety benefits. For example, prioritizing a
candidate's stance on social issues tied to faith
over their stance on infrastructure spending.
And religious gatherings. They create opportunities
for influence by authoritative figures. Imams,
preachers voicing support for candidates or policies,
reinforcing group cohesion. Conversely, some
voters strongly believe in separation of church
and state, voting for parties with fewer overt
religious preferences. So even the presence or
absence of religiosity is a factor. Huge factor,
potentially overriding pragmatic safety concerns.
What about just relatability, personal story?
Crucial. often underestimated. When candidates
share stories that resonate with voters' lives,
struggles, aspirations, it creates a powerful
emotional bond, often outweighs cold policy differences.
People prefer candidates who seem genuine, approachable.
Frequently. Believing they understand their struggles
because they've lived similar experiences. This
emotional connection can lead people to support
candidates who might not align perfectly on policy,
maybe weak on flood control, but feels like one
of us. because they feel understood, more powerful
than a policy brief sometimes. Feeling seen.
Finally, what about openness to change itself?
Do we embrace new solutions when old ones fail,
or stick with the familiar? a profound challenge.
There's a strong tendency to stick with familiar
parties, policies, ways of doing things perceived
as safer, less risky. Even if things aren't working.
Even then, voters might keep electing the same
party or sticking with established practices,
assuming the devil you know is better than the
devil you don't. Often stems from self -preservation,
avoiding unknown risks, not necessarily a desire
for progress. It explains why a community like
Kerr County might resist new siren tech for years,
despite known risks. And this ties into confirmation
bias, right? Seeking out what we already believe.
Absolutely. When people research, they tend to
seek info confirming their existing beliefs,
dismissing contradictory evidence. If someone
believes new infrastructure is too expensive,
they'll gravitate to opinions reinforcing that,
dismissing reports on siren effectiveness and
comfort, or the long -term costs of flood damage.
even open -minded people. Even then, it's a conflict.
We might inadvertently gravitate towards familiar
narratives confirming biases. Floods don't happen
here. We've always managed without sirens, supporting
decisions or politicians who, in hindsight, aren't
acting in the interest of safety, especially
with worsening natural phenomena, a powerful
psychological hurdle for proactive solutions.
As we bring this deep dive to a close, it's just
so clear. Understanding something like the Texas
Hill Country floods. It requires looking so much
further than just the weather. So much further.
It demands examining community preparedness,
the legislative landscape hindering or helping
safety infrastructure, federal support for forecasting,
and crucially, that complex human psychology
behind decisions at all levels. Local councils,
federal lawmakers, every voter. It's not just
about water. It's about human choice. The lessons
are profoundly difficult, but so important. They
force us to confront this intricate web contributing
to disaster. How our collective choices, large
and small, conscious and unconscious, influence
our vulnerability to phenomena that are only
intensifying. A stark reminder that resilience
isn't just meteorology or engineering. It's deeply
about the social, political, psychological currents
shaping our response to nature. A call to look
inward at our own biases and motivations as much
as outward at the forecasts. That really frames
the enduring question for all of us, doesn't
it? In the face of intensifying nature, the painful
lessons learned. How do we as communities, as
a society, foster greater collective foresight
and responsiveness? How do we bridge those gaps
between immediate threats and long -term planning?
And how do we navigate the diverse, often conflicting
motivations shaping our actions and inactions,
especially when those actions mean life or death?
It's a conversation that has to continue. Requires
understanding the science, yes, but also ourselves
and our collective will. We really hope this
deep dive provided you with clearer understanding,
maybe sparked some reflection. Thank you for
joining us for this crucial discussion. Your
engagement in these complex topics is absolutely
vital for building a more resilient future. And
thank you for listening to Meteorology Matters.
Remember, staying informed is key. You can follow
meteorologist Rob Jones on Instagram. He's meteorologist.
On TikTok, TV Meteorologist. And subscribe to
the Rob Jones Hurricane YouTube channel. You'll
find the full Meteorology Matters podcast playlist
there too, filled with more insights and deep
dives. We'll be back soon with another critical
exploration.