The Texas flood tragedy should be the last time we ask “What went wrong?” without a real investigation.
Last week, central Texas witnessed one of the deadliest weather disasters in recent U.S. history. Torrential rainfall, driven by the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, overwhelmed river systems like the Guadalupe and Blanco, triggering intense flash flooding. Communities were submerged in the predawn hours. A summer camp lost dozens of children. Families were swept away in vehicles. Homes were obliterated. These events mostly happened overnight during a holiday weekend, making things even more challenging. As of now, we know:
- At least 121 confirmed fatalities across multiple counties
- Dozens of children lost, particularly in Kerr and Travis Counties
- More than 160 people reported missing in the first 72 hours
- Billions in damage to homes, roads, bridges
Despite the loss, what has followed has been painfully familiar: vague press briefings, finger-pointing, defensive statements, and eventually, silence.
It’s time for something better. It’s time for an NTSB-style review process for extreme weather disasters.
Disasters like this are often chalked up to “acts of God.” But extreme weather in 2025 is not a surprise. Climate change is making heavy rainfall more intense. Central Texas is part of what hydrologists have long called “Flash Flood Alley", a region notorious for dangerous runoff due to terrain, soil, and propensity for heavy rainfall.
We cannot stop rain from falling, but we can stop systems from failing.
What If weather disasters were treated like ✈️ crashes?
When a plane crashes in the U.S., the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) initiates an immediate, independent, and methodical investigation. Every aspect of the crash is examined—mechanical, human, systemic. The public is kept informed. Recommendations are issued. Aviation evolves.
But when dozens die in a flood, tornado, or wildfire? We get vague answers, internal reviews, and “thoughts and prayers.” Then the cycle resets.
Aviation has accountability. Weather disasters do not.
This must change.
What could a review board look like?
We need a Weather Disaster Review Board (WDRB). An independent, interdisciplinary body modeled after the NTSB, with the authority and credibility to investigate high-impact weather events. This board must comprised of external experts. Local and state reviews are often reactive and politically constrained. The same agencies that made questionable decisions are asked to assess themselves. It breeds defensiveness, not accountability. An external board can review these disaster thoroughly, not conveniently. Failures are exposed constructively, not weaponized politically. Solutions are proposed, tracked, and implemented (or publicly questioned).
The review body must be institutionally and politically independent. It cannot be housed within the same agencies responsible for forecasting or emergency response. Independence ensures objective analysis, free from conflicts of interest or reputational shielding. The review board should be authorized, through federal or state statute, to investigate extreme weather events that result in significant loss of life, major evacuations, or system-wide failures. Its jurisdiction should include all types of high-impact natural hazards: floods, hurricanes, tornado outbreaks, wildfires, and winter storms.
The scope of review should go beyond meteorological performance alone. It must encompass the full chain of preparedness and response, including but not limited to: Forecast accuracy and timeliness, warning communication (NWS, local alerts, public access), emergency management response timelines, infrastructure vulnerabilities, land use planning and zoning decisions, and community vulnerability and equity concerns.
Investigations should follow a formal timeline. Preliminary findings should be shared within 90 days of the event, with a final report released publicly within 12 to 18 months. Public hearings or listening sessions should be held to incorporate stakeholder input, including testimonies from affected residents and responders.
All findings, reports, and supporting data should be made publicly available. The final report must include a clear, readable summary of what happened, what failed, and what should change. This must happen without technical obfuscation or bureaucratic language. This transparency builds public trust and enables policy action.
Each report must conclude with specific, actionable recommendations for federal, state, and local agencies. These may include guidance on warning systems, infrastructure upgrades, land use alterations, communication protocols, or emergency planning standards.
Agencies named in the final report should be required to formally respond to the recommendations. They must outline steps taken (or planned) to address the findings, or explain why action isn’t feasible. These responses should also be published, creating a feedback loop that prevents findings from being shelved or forgotten.
To mayors, governors, and federal agencies: *you* have the power to build this.
Congress can legislate a Weather Disaster Review Board. State emergency management agencies can advocate for independent review. Universities and nonprofits can serve as transparent conveners.
We owe this to the families in Texas who lost loved ones on July 4.
We owe this to the memory of children swept away while sleeping.
We owe this to ourselves—to stop asking “what went wrong?” and start insisting that we find out.
