Recent catastrophic floods in Texas, leaving at least 79 dead, have reignited discussions about cuts made by the Trump administration to the National Weather Service (NWS). The floods occurred in Texas Hill Country, notorious for rapid flash floods. Some local officials criticized the NWS for underestimating rainfall forecasts, while President Trump dismissed calls for an investigation into staffing cuts as “disgusting.”
Independent meteorologists and former NWS officials suggested that, given the real-time data available, the forecasts and warnings were as accurate and timely as possible. Chris Vagasky, a meteorologist, emphasized the importance of effective communication to ensure people receive alerts, stating that the forecasting process is inherently challenging, particularly for pinpointing extreme rainfall and flash flooding.
A detailed timeline showed that the NWS issued a flood watch and followed up with urgent warnings just before the deluge. However, Texas Emergency Management Chief W. Nim Kidd noted that the rains exceeded the forecasts. There were unfilled leadership roles in the San Antonio office, raising concerns about staffing, yet officials maintained that their meteorologists were adequately equipped to respond.
Despite staffing reductions and significant layoffs in the NWS—around 600 employees lost in cuts—Texas offices remained relatively well-staffed. Concerns lingered about unfilled vital positions like hydrologists, with local officials promising to review their emergency notifications.
Prominent meteorologists claimed that the NWS had done a commendable job despite unfilled positions affecting decision-making at some level. They stressed that improvements in quantitative precipitation forecasting are necessary but are jeopardized by budget cuts. Overall, while factors leading to the tragedy are complex, meteorologists indicated that better staffing likely wouldn’t have changed the outcome significantly.
Photo credit
www.nbcnews.com
