‘They Bought Our Rain.’ The Gauges Upwind Fell Just As Far.
The tribunal never reached the physics. It dismissed on standing: the growers pay a levy that part-funds the seeding contract they were suing. What actually changed in 2017 was the lead claimant's water allocation.
ALAMOSA, Colorado — Delbert Whitcomb-Sena has written down the rain at his gate every morning since 3 January 1994. Fourteen exercise books, 11,742 entries, no gaps.
They are better records than the district's. The district's gauge was moved twice and stood unemptied for a fortnight in 2011. His was not moved and has never been missed.
That is what he brought to a tribunal at Alamosa, and it is why this newspaper sat all eleven days.
The claim
Nine growers and one ditch company alleged that nine seasons of winter cloud seeding, flown over the range upwind of them between 2016 and 2024, had taken rainfall out of their catchment before it could arrive. They asked for $14.2m and an injunction.
The operator, Cordillera Atmospherics, entered its flight logs on the first morning: 1,247 flight hours, 4,180 silver-iodide flares, eighteen ground generators, $2.9m across the nine years. Nobody disputed a line of it. The seeding happened.
What the tribunal did not decide
It did not decide whether seeding takes rain from anybody.
On 11 June it dismissed the claim on standing, at paragraph 44, and the reasoning is short enough to quote. The claimants pay a per-acre assessment to the Rio Alto Conservancy District. Sixty-one per cent of the seeding contract is paid out of that assessment pool. They had, in the tribunal's phrase, commissioned the nuisance they came to complain of.
They were suing a service they were buying, and they had been buying it since before the first aircraft flew.
What the physics would have done to them anyway
The merits would not have rescued the case, and this is the part nobody at the hearing asked for, so we paid for it.
Dr. Hyacinth Okereke-Lindqvist was given the operator's own flight logs and seeding rates and asked a single question: how much column water vapour can a seeded plume plausibly remove before the air crosses the range?
Her central figure is 0.38 per cent. Her most generous assumption set — every flare burning to spec, every plume precipitating out, no replenishment over the ridge — reaches 1.1.
The claimants' own rain gauges have a catch error of about four per cent. The effect they came to prove is an order of magnitude smaller than the instrument they came to prove it with. This is roughly what the pooled trials in our vault, PX-1986, have been saying for sixty years: the signal is real and it is small, and small enough that most of the people arguing about it are arguing about noise.
And then there is the arithmetic nobody had run.
Over the same nine years, the upwind district — the one under the aircraft, the one that was supposedly having its rain bought for it — recorded a rainfall decline of 11.4 per cent. The downwind district recorded 11.1.
Both of them are the drought.
The year it changed
Mr Whitcomb-Sena is precise about when he first noticed, because he wrote it down. It was 2017.
In 2017 his subdistrict's annual withdrawal allowance was cut by 22 per cent, from 1.9 acre-feet per irrigated acre to 1.5, under a delivery rebalancing between the compact states.
He learned this from a box on his assessment form. One page. A new figure where the old figure had been, on the same sheet that told him what he owed. No covering letter. He telephoned, was read a sentence off a screen, was promised a call back, and did not get one.
We asked the district for the notice it sent him. It sent us the blank template. It is four lines long and one of them is a payment address.
What this desk takes from it
A man kept an unbroken daily record for thirty-two years, which is more than any agency in the valley managed, and used it to detect something real: his farm changed in 2017.
He then attached that observation to the only defendant in the landscape with an address on it.
The aeroplanes were the visible thing. They have tail numbers, a contract, a signature and a start date within a season of the change. The compact has none of those. You cannot serve papers on an agreement signed in 1938 between four states, and three lawyers told him so before one of them found him a way into a room.
His letter, printed below entire and at his request, says the thing this desk cannot improve on: somebody at a desk in that valley knew exactly what had happened to his water, and could have put it on one page, and in nine years nobody did.
The six o'clock edition
Three stories a morning, in your inbox before the coffee is made.
Sources & Method
We attended all eleven sitting days and then bought the transcript rather than relying on our own shorthand. The operator's flight logs were exhibits, so we applied for the public file on the second day. We then paid an atmospheric physicist to compute the moisture budget the tribunal never asked for, from the operator's own numbers, without telling her whose case the answer would help.
Who we spoke to
- Transcript of the hearing, eleven sitting days, Official transcript, 2,214 pages. Our correspondent attended all eleven days; the transcript was then bought from the tribunal's contracted reporter at $1.85 a page rather than worked from our notes February to June 2026 Cost $4,096, disclosed below. Quoted here only where our notes and the transcript agree.
- Cordillera Atmospherics, Inc. — flight logs and consumables billing, 2016–2024, Exhibits R-4 to R-11. Entered in open session by the operator and released to the public file on written application; we applied on the second day March 2026 1,247 flight hours, 4,180 silver-iodide flares, 18 ground generators, $2.9m.
- Dr. Hyacinth Okereke-Lindqvist, Atmospheric physicist; commissioned to compute a downwind column-moisture budget. Given the operator's own flight logs and seeding rates and asked for a budget, without being told who had brought the claim or which answer would help whom April and May 2026 Her working is published with this story, including the assumption set that produces the largest number rather than the likeliest one.
- Delbert Whitcomb-Sena, Lead claimant; barley grower. Interviewed at his kitchen table twice and at the tribunal on four days; all fourteen exercise books photographed page by page; given the full draft and three weeks February to August 2026 His reply is printed entire at the foot of this page and is the most serious criticism of it we received.
- Subdistrict assessment and allocation notices, 2014–2019, Six annual notices and the district's blank template. Taken from Mr Whitcomb-Sena's own files and checked against the template, which the district confirmed; the district declined to discuss individual accounts July 2026 The 2017 notice is one page. The new figure appears in a box. There is no covering letter with it.
Documents
- PX-1986 — Effect sizes and confidence intervals from 31 randomised cloud-seeding trials, 1961–2024 accepted
What we could not confirm
- Whether anybody in the district office ever wrote to Mr Whitcomb-Sena about the 2017 cut. He says nobody did. The district says notices went to all account holders and has produced the template but not a mailing list. A template is not proof that a letter was sent, and it is not proof that one was not.
- The upper bound of the moisture budget. Dr. Okereke-Lindqvist's central figure is 0.38 per cent of downwind column water vapour; her most generous assumption set reaches 1.1. Both sit inside the gauges' own catch error, and 'inside the error' means we cannot see an effect, not that there is none.
- Why the upwind and downwind declines match so nearly. Two gauge networks falling by 11.4 and 11.1 per cent over the same nine years is what a regional drought looks like. It is also what two networks sharing an exposure or siting problem would look like. We did not audit the siting of either, and nobody at the hearing did either.
How Others Covered This
The same events, as reported elsewhere on the same day. We list what each outlet had that we did not, as well as what we had that they did not — including where we come off worse. Why we print this.
-
The Hollow PostTHEY BOUGHT THE RAIN AND THE COURT LOOKED AWAY
Read the standing dismissal as an arranged evasion, on the grounds that the body being sued and the body levying the claimants share an auditor.
Had that we did not
The levy arithmetic, correctly, and before anybody else had it. This newspaper checked their figures and they hold.
Left out
That standing was raised by the operator on day one and argued for two full days in open session, on the tribunal's own published list, in front of the claimants.
-
Signal & LedgerStanding, Not Science: What Alamosa Means For Seeding Contracts
A trade read for operators and districts on how to structure a contract so that the levy question cannot be raised again.
Had that we did not
The reasoning at paragraphs 39 to 47, laid out more clearly than the ruling lays it out itself.
Left out
The growers, who appear as 'the claimants' for 2,400 words and are not quoted once, in a case whose entire evidential core is one man's handwriting.
-
They Buriedthis newspaper‘They Bought Our Rain.’ The Gauges Upwind Fell Just As Far.
Sat all eleven days, bought the transcript, and paid a physicist to compute the moisture budget the tribunal never asked for.
Had that we did not
The flight logs, the moisture budget with its most generous assumption set published alongside its central one, and the upwind gauges.
Left out
We put a man's rain records at the centre of this story because they are beautiful, and gave the allocation notice that actually changed his farm the last four paragraphs. — V. Ashcombe-Doyle, standards editor
Right of Reply
They Buried contacted Delbert Whitcomb-Sena, lead claimant on 4 August 2026 in person, with the full draft, the moisture budget, the upwind gauge series and his own 2017 notice laid out on the table, and three weeks to answer. Replied by letter on 21 August 2026, asking that it run entire and that nothing be tidied. Printed unedited.
I have read it twice and I want to say first that you got the rain right, because the rain is the part I can check.
You have my books to the day. You did not make me sound like a crank and I know that you could have. I am aware of how it sounds — nine years, a courtroom, an aeroplane. I have a nephew who sends me things off the internet about aeroplanes and I do not read them, and I would like that in the paper, because I did not come to this from there. I came to it from the gate.
Now the part where you have it wrong.
You have written it as though because I was mistaken about the aeroplanes I was mistaken about everything, and the second does not follow from the first. I was wrong about the cause. I was not wrong that something happened. Your own figures say the rain came down eleven per cent and my allocation came down twenty-two, and you have put the second one in the last quarter of the story like a twist at the end of a film. For me it was not the ending. It was 2017.
Let me tell you what 2017 was. It was a piece of paper with a number on it. Not a letter. A number, in a box, on the same form that tells you what you owe. I paid the assessment that year the same as every year, and the feet of water I was allowed to take went down by a fifth, and nobody signed anything. I telephoned. I got a young woman who was kind to me and who read out a sentence off a screen with the word compact in it. I asked who I could write to. She said she would find out and call me back. That was nine years ago.
So when you ask me — and your Mr Pell did ask me, politely, twice — why I went after the seeding people instead of the district, here is the answer, and I would like it printed in full, because I do not believe you understood it when I said it out loud.
Because there was somebody to sue.
The aeroplane has a tail number. The operator has a street address. The contract has a signature on it and a dollar figure and a start date, and the start date is near enough the year my water changed that a man at a gate with a notebook can put the two things side by side. The compact does not have an address. You cannot serve papers on an agreement between four states signed in 1938. I asked three lawyers. The first two told me there was nothing there. The third told me there was nothing there and then said, well, there is the seeding contract — and I went with that, and I knew by about the third year, if I am honest with you and I am trying to be, that it was a way of getting into a room.
I got eleven days in the room. It cost me about ninety thousand dollars and most of my son's patience. And then a woman I have no complaint about at all — she was straight with everyone, and she let me read my rainfall into the record for forty minutes when she did not have to — told me I could not be heard, because I pay the levy that buys the aeroplane. Which is true. I do pay it. I have paid it since before there was an aeroplane.
Here is my objection to your newspaper, and it is not about accuracy.
Your headline has me saying they bought our rain, in quotation marks, and then it corrects me in the same breath. I did say it. I said it on the courthouse steps to a television camera on the worst afternoon of a bad decade. I would ask you to consider whether the most useful sentence out of the four thousand I have said to your reporter is the one I said when I was angriest.
I do not want a correction. I want the last part of your story to be the first part. A man kept records for thirty-two years, good ones, better than the district's, and used them to ask a question, and got the question wrong — and in nine years not one person put in writing what the right question was. Somebody knew. Somebody at a desk in this valley knew exactly what happened to my water in 2017 and could have told me on one page.
Print the rain figures. Print that I was wrong about the aeroplanes. And then print that I am seventy-one and still nobody has written to me.
Published unedited under our right-of-reply guarantee.
How was this story?
We publish the result, whatever it is. Reader verdicts appear on the front page and in our newsroom metrics.
Readers' Letters 0
Printed at once under the name you give and read by the desk afterwards; anything unfit is removed, with a note saying so, and nothing else is ever deleted — only corrected. Letters that changed something in the story carry a mark saying so, and there are 5 of those across the archive.