Which U.S. states currently operate active cloud‑seeding programs and how are they funded?

1. Which states are operating active programs now — the federal tally

A 2024 GAO inventory, cited by Newsweek and the EPA, lists nine states with active cloud‑seeding operations: California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, and those are the states most agencies and reporters point to when they describe current U.S. activity ^{[1] [2]}. Independent outlets and scientific summaries echo that cloud seeding is concentrated in the West and parts of the Plains where snowpack and summer convective storms matter for water supply ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How funding is organized — a mosaic, not a single model

Federal reporting and agencies say cloud seeding is “primarily funded at the state or local level,” with some programs run by state agencies, others by utilities, irrigation districts or consortiums that pool money for operations ^{[2] [3]}. Utah’s program is an example of mixed financing: long‑running state support augmented by local water interests and explicit legislative appropriations, including a major 2023 package that designated $12 million one‑time and $5 million annually for expansion ^{[6] [7]}.

3. State examples that illustrate funding differences

Nevada’s Desert Research Institute operates widely across the West and received unanimous state legislative backing in 2023—a $1.2 million appropriation over two years to support statewide seeding operations—while DRI also carries out projects paid for by other states or boards that don’t come from Nevada’s budget ^{[8] [9]}. Idaho combines utility and private funding: Idaho Power reportedly spends roughly $4 million a year on its program, a locally funded model aimed at protecting hydro resources ^{[5] [10]}. Texas maintains many local rain‑enhancement projects but state matching funds largely ended in the mid‑2000s, leaving programs reliant on regional sponsors and agricultural beneficiaries ^[11].

4. Interstate cooperation and basin cost‑sharing

In the Colorado River Basin and adjacent watersheds, states have pursued cost‑sharing arrangements to align cloud‑seeding efforts across state lines; the Colorado River Basin cost‑sharing agreement finalized in 2018 is an example that persists through at least 2026, reflecting basinwide incentives to augment runoff ^[4]. DRI and other regional groups sometimes provide services for projects funded by other states or boards, complicating where the money legally originates versus who benefits hydrologically ^[9].

5. What the funding debate hides — effectiveness and accountability

Federal audits and scientific reviews warn that evidence for optimal, consistently effective cloud seeding is limited and that returns on investment are uncertain—an important context when states decide whether to spend millions on generators, aircraft or radar and staffing ^[3]. Proponents emphasize measurable increases in precipitation in seeded areas and operational experience (Utah cites 5–15% average precipitation boosts in targeted zones), while skeptics and GAO call for better evaluation and caution that downstream impacts and attribution remain unresolved ^{[6] [3] [1]}.

6. The political and practical drivers behind funding choices

Where state legislatures or utilities perceive direct water or power benefits, they have been willing to fund aggressive programs (Utah’s large 2023 appropriation is the clearest recent political commitment), while other states rely on local sponsors or have paused activity pending better science or budget pressures ^{[7] [11] [12]}. Media coverage and agency messaging often frame seeding as a drought tool, but federal reports emphasize the patchwork nature of funding and the need for stronger, independent evaluation before scaling further ^{[2] [3]}.