Very well. They will not rebuild then in the same area then. So, what are we talking about?

Predicted storm can still be a freak storm

Quote:

---

TIMELINE: When the warnings began
5:47 p.m. Wednesday, July 2: Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) announced the agency activated state emergency response resources in anticipation of flooding in West and Central Texas
Morning of Thursday, July 3: National Water Center issues Flood Hazard Outlook, identifying flash flood potential for Kerrville and surrounding areas, according to the Department of Homeland Security
Approximately 1:45 p.m., Thursday, July 3: A Flood Watch was issued for Kerr County
6:22 p.m. Thursday, July 3: National Water Center warns of considerable flooding risks north and west of San Antonio, including Kerrville, according to the Department of Homeland Security
Approximately 8:12 p.m. Thursday, July 3: The Flood Watch was extended
1:14 a.m. Friday, July 4: Flash Flood Warning with "Considerable" tag issued for Bandera and Kerr Counties, triggering Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) and NOAA Weather Radio notifications, according to the Department of Homeland Security
Approximately 2:37 a.m. Friday, July 4: The Flash Flood Watch was extended
3:06 a.m. Friday, July 4: NWS posted on X that a "very dangerous flash flooding event is ongoing across south-central Kerr County into northwest Bandera County"
Approximately 3:32 a.m. Friday, July 4: A River Flood Warning was issued for the Guadalupe River at Hunt
Approximately 3:28 a.m. Friday, July 4: A Downstream River Flood Warning was issued for the Guadalupe River in Kerrville
Approximately 3:36 a.m. Friday, July 4: A Flash Flood Warning was issued for south-central Kerr and northwest Bandera Counties
Approximately 3:56 a.m. Friday, July 4: A new River Forecast Warning was issued for the Guadalupe River at Hunt
Approximately 4:04 a.m. Friday, July 4: A Flash Flood Emergency was issued
4:23 a.m. Friday, July 4: NWS posted on X that "a PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION and a Flash Flood EMERGENCY is in effect"
Approximately 5:36 a.m. Friday, July 4: A Flash Flood Emergency for the Guadalupe River from Hunt through Kerrville and down to Center Point was issued

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a freak storm and people most likely still would've died, but sirens may have reduced the number of deaths..

---

People need to stop saying this. It was not a freak storm. It was a predicted storm with defined flood parameters and largely behaved exactly as modeled. We knew it would flood. We knew where it would go. And it did just that.

---

Who did you tell this was going to happen?

---

FEMA's published flood map told everyone it was going to happen.

---

Nice crawfish. And flood maps do not predict weather events as much as you are pretending they do.

---

It's not a crawfish. We, the general populace, are given these maps to tell us what will happen. They are updated periodically to reflect current flood hazards. They exist for a reason.

And while you are correct that they do not predict weather events, they do in fact model and show the limits of flood events based on predictable return events. I assure you there is no "pretending" when it comes to the rational method, scs method, or the mannings equation. Water behaves in predictable ways when it travels over land.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Very well. They will not rebuild then in the same area then. So, what are we talking about?

---

My point is simple. We are trying to sit around and devise a very expensive, cumbersome, and elaborate warning system so we can wake campers up in the middle of the night, so we can then rush them to safety over muddy ground, with (in a best case scenario) literal minutes to spare.

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

Examples of current River Flood warning systems

River flood warning system

This flood warning system is used to measure changes in the water level of rivers and water bodies to predict flood damage. This flood alarm system features protective measures, including lightning protection and anti-jamming capabilities. Various technologies, such as derating, electromagnetic compatibility, and outlier elimination, are adopted. Enhance the resistance of the monitoring station to the field environment, making it more adaptable to various harsh field conditions.

The Grand Canyon River Alert system, a collaborative effort between the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), Coconino County Emergency Management (CCEM), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the National Park Service (NPS), has been launched to significantly enhance safety measures for boaters and hikers navigating the Grand Canyon. This system sends critical messages on hazards like extreme weather and flash floods directly to your Garmin, SPOT, or other satellite messaging device.

The system is designed to provide timely alerts on a range of critical incidents, including boating hazards, missing persons, dam-related events, extreme weather conditions, and flash floods. These alerts are crucial for the timely communication of risk to individuals in Grand Canyon.

The City of Loveland reviews multiple maps every day to monitor the City's flood gauges and the amount of rain.

The Colorado Hazard Mapping Program (CHAMP) prepared updated hazard information for the streams most affected by the September 2013 flooding, including the Big Thompson watershed. Phase I & II includes field reconnaissance and survey, creating terrain models from updated topographic data-sets, evaluating hydrology (flows), and modeling to produce flood hazard area limits reflecting the changed conditions. The City will use the updated hazard information to assess risk and identify mitigation opportunities within the community. The updated information is also intended to eventually be used to update Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which are used to determine flood insurance requirements.

Teslag said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Very well. They will not rebuild then in the same area then. So, what are we talking about?

---

My point is simple. We are trying to sit around and devise a very expensive, cumbersome, and elaborate warning system so we can wake campers up in the middle of the night, so we can then rush them to safety over muddy ground, with (in a best case scenario) literal minutes to spare.

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

I agree, at least with the summer camp situation. I stood up a summer camp. There's lots of rules, policy and physical items that you need to pass the cert test to become a licensed summer camp. I don't think it's unduly burdensome for camps to not have physical quarters in the flood zone. Id wager camp mystic et al had evacuation plans, but didn't execute them quick enough.

I dont agree with the population writ large.

I'd agree with all of that. There's simply too much value in business and mass tourism to ban building in flood zones. Floodways I get since it can have adverse effects on down stream safety. But for summer camps, camp grounds, vacation homes on rivers? That's were a lot of the onus falls on the owner and those partaking in the activity.

The biggest safety measure going forward is simply awareness. Awareness of what these floods can do, how fast they can do it, and it can come with little warning. I camped in an RV once on a campground in Kerrville. We had a "water site" and it was about 200 yards from the river when we got there. Even I had a hard time imagining flood waters ever sweeping through our site, but I knew for a fact they would. If you're somewhere like that, and there's heavy rains predicted. Leave. Don't exercise a "plan". Just cancel or leave. It simply isn't worth trying to stay or still enjoy your trip.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a freak storm and people most likely still would've died, but sirens may have reduced the number of deaths..

---

People need to stop saying this. It was not a freak storm. It was a predicted storm with defined flood parameters and largely behaved exactly as modeled. We knew it would flood. We knew where it would go. And it did just that.

---

That's simply not true. I've read posts by the mets and they don't agree with you, at least in terms of up to an hour or so before the storm.

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a freak storm and people most likely still would've died, but sirens may have reduced the number of deaths..

---

People need to stop saying this. It was not a freak storm. It was a predicted storm with defined flood parameters and largely behaved exactly as modeled. We knew it would flood. We knew where it would go. And it did just that.

---

That's simply not true. I've read posts by the mets and they don't agree with you, at least in terms of up to an hour or so before the storm.

---

Meteorology is quackery. Engineering is not. The storm totals amounted to a predicted return event. It was not "freak" in any way.

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a freak storm and people most likely still would've died, but sirens may have reduced the number of deaths..

---

People need to stop saying this. It was not a freak storm. It was a predicted storm with defined flood parameters and largely behaved exactly as modeled. We knew it would flood. We knew where it would go. And it did just that.

---

That's simply not true. I've read posts by the mets and they don't agree with you, at least in terms of up to an hour or so before the storm.

---

Meteorology is quackery. Engineering is not. The storm totals amounted to a predicted return event. It was not "freak" in any way.

---

You're changing your argument. You stated that "It was a predicted storm . . . and largely behaved completely as modeled." That is a false statement.

And if this was not a "freak" event, how do you define a "freak" event?

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

I hate giving daddy gov anything, but if they're going to have to send in resources every time it floods, then I think it is appropriate they get some level of oversight. I would be in favor of any early alert siren system set up along the Guad, or other applicable areas, that is annoyingly loud so everyone in a massive radius can hear it. It is clear every second counts in a flash flood.

And you are on drugs. Meteorology may not have the precision of engineering, but it is the opposite of "quackery". Your very argument is self-defeating. The flood zones you take so much confidence in are created, in large part, on meteorology.

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a freak storm and people most likely still would've died, but sirens may have reduced the number of deaths..

---

People need to stop saying this. It was not a freak storm. It was a predicted storm with defined flood parameters and largely behaved exactly as modeled. We knew it would flood. We knew where it would go. And it did just that.

---

That's simply not true. I've read posts by the mets and they don't agree with you, at least in terms of up to an hour or so before the storm.

---

Meteorology is quackery. Engineering is not. The storm totals amounted to a predicted return event. It was not "freak" in any way.

---

You're changing your argument. You stated that "It was a predicted storm . . . and largely behaved completely as modeled." That is a false statement.

And if this was not a "freak" event, how do you define a "freak" event?

---

Again, you are trying to claim two distinct things as one. The storm and the result of storm. The result of the predicted storm did in fact behave as it was modeled. It went exactly where it was said to go, right over those cabins from two confluences.

I believe a lot of posters are conflating what Teslas is stating. There is a difference between weather predictions, and the engineering flood models that predict flooding behavior based on incident rainfall amounts. It appears that the flood models correctly predicted the flooding behavior with the actual rainfall that occurred in the area.

What was very difficult to predict was the correct rainfall pattern. That is why it is hard it is hard to predict outcomes based solely on meteorological predictions.

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

---

So why didn't the camp flood during every rainstorm?

You're using big words in a way that has no meaning.

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

---

So why didn't the camp flood during every rainstorm?

You're using big words in a way that has no meaning.

---

Because Q=CIA. Without the adequate "I" you don't have enough "Q".

SwigAg11 said:

---

I believe a lot of posters are conflating what Teslas is stating. There is a difference between weather predictions, and the engineering flood models that predict flooding behavior based on incident rainfall amounts. It appears that the flood models correctly predicted the flooding behavior with the actual rainfall that occurred in the area.

What was very difficult to predict was the correct rainfall pattern. That is why it is hard it is hard to predict outcomes based solely on meteorological predictions.

---

If you're righ, Tesla is doing a horrible job articulating what he's trying to say.

Link to those flood models?

How often do those rainfall events occur?

Given enough rain, everything is in a flood zone of some kind. Just ask Noah.

My point is that Tesla's point is meaningless.

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

---

So why didn't the camp flood during every rainstorm?

You're using big words in a way that has no meaning.

---

Because Q=CIA. Without the adequate "I" you don't have enough "Q".

---

OK, you are on drugs.

SwigAg11 said:

---

I believe a lot of posters are conflating what Teslas is stating. There is a difference between weather predictions, and the engineering flood models that predict flooding behavior based on incident rainfall amounts. It appears that the flood models correctly predicted the flooding behavior with the actual rainfall that occurred in the area.

What was very difficult to predict was the correct rainfall pattern. That is why it is hard it is hard to predict outcomes based solely on meteorological predictions.

---

This is correct. We (hydrologists, flood analysts, engineers, CFM's. etc) can accurately model water behavior from rain. Very accurately. We base this historical rainfall intensities for various storm durations. While I can't tell you how much it will rain, and can damn sure tell you what will happen when it does.

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

---

So why didn't the camp flood during every rainstorm?

You're using big words in a way that has no meaning.

---

Because Q=CIA. Without the adequate "I" you don't have enough "Q".

---

OK, you are on drugs.

---

Or you simply are way out of your lane.

Q = volume of flow
I = rainfall intensity
C = dimensionless runoff coefficient
A = area in acres

Quite simply put, without enough rainfall intensity it won't always flood.

Teslag said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I believe a lot of posters are conflating what Teslas is stating. There is a difference between weather predictions, and the engineering flood models that predict flooding behavior based on incident rainfall amounts. It appears that the flood models correctly predicted the flooding behavior with the actual rainfall that occurred in the area.

What was very difficult to predict was the correct rainfall pattern. That is why it is hard it is hard to predict outcomes based solely on meteorological predictions.

---

This is correct. We (hydrologists, flood analysts, engineers, CFM's. etc) can accurately model water behavior from rain. Very accurately. We base this historical rainfall intensities for various storm durations. While I can't tell you how much it will rain, and can damn sure tell you what will happen when it does.

---

Two points.

First, you're wrong. Flood zones are notoriously unreliable and have been changed.

Second, your predictions depend on how much it rains. Your prediction isn't based on "what will happen when it does", but "what will happen when it rains X amount".

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

And the obvious solution is to just not have them sleep in large numbers in structures that are in the limits of the flood waters of a predicted storm that is mathematically certain to happen.

---

None of the flood zones make flooding "mathematically certain". The zones are simply statistical probabilities. Even with flipping a coin, it coming up "heads" is not a mathematical certainty.

And what flood zone should sleeping in large numbers be prohibited? 50, 100, 500, 1000 year zones?

---

They weren't in a flood zone. They were in a floodway with an established BFE. That's as certain as it gets. And while the event is a probability, the limits of the flood during that event are not. They are based on known formulas to predict water behavior in a channelized condition.

---

So why didn't the camp flood during every rainstorm?

You're using big words in a way that has no meaning.

---

Because Q=CIA. Without the adequate "I" you don't have enough "Q".

---

OK, you are on drugs.

---

Or you simply are way out of your lane.

Q = volume of flow
I = rainfall intensity
C = dimensionless runoff coefficient
A = area in acres

Quite simply put, without enough rainfall intensity it won't always flood.

---

And you are so deep in the forest, you've lost sight of the trees.

Your entire argument is ignoring the I in that formula in this situation. Your "solution" is that everyone should move out of flood zones, but you haven't specified which flood zone.

Quote:

---

Flood zones are notoriously unreliable and have been changed.

---

Flood zones, yes. Floodways not so much. There are various flood zones, some more accurate than others. This one was established with a base flood elevation (BFE). Basically means the entire channel was modeled with HEC-RAS and elevations and limits established. And yes they do constantly change, but not because they are in error but because upstream conditions can constantly change with development and land alteration.

He has already stated that he believes that floodWAYS are a no go zone for structures.

Quote:

---

Your "solution" is that everyone should move out of flood zones, but you haven't specified which flood zone.

---

I didn't make this argument at all. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Flood zones are notoriously unreliable and have been changed.

---

Flood zones, yes. Floodways not so much. There are various flood zones, some more accurate than others. This one was established with a base flood elevation (BFE). Basically means the entire channel was modeled with HEC-RAS and elevations and limits established. And yes they do constantly change, but not because they are in error but because upstream conditions can constantly change with development and land alteration.

---

Ahh, the classic trust me because I'm an expert even though my statements and explanations make no sense, and even though I contradict myself constantly. I like to use buzzword that no one understands in order to make myself more intimidating and so no one can challenge my opinions.

Quote:

---

Your entire argument is ignoring the I in that formula in this situation.

---

This is wrong too. We generally model for multiple events (ie Q2, Q5, Q25, and Q100). The I is never "ignored" i assure you.

Why is over 25% of this thread one user arguing with everyone?

BlackGold said:

---

Why is over 25% of this thread one user arguing with everyone?

---

This is F16!

SwigAg11 said:

---

He has already stated that he believes that floodWAYS are a no go zone for structures.

---

Yes, but that is a bureaucratic classification. And what is his solution?

Also, classifying it as a floodway begs the question - how often does this floodway actually flood and what is the correct response to structures that have been existing within it for >100 years.

Y'all are citing bureaucratic classifications as if they answer the fundamental questions.

KingofHazor said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Flood zones are notoriously unreliable and have been changed.

---

Flood zones, yes. Floodways not so much. There are various flood zones, some more accurate than others. This one was established with a base flood elevation (BFE). Basically means the entire channel was modeled with HEC-RAS and elevations and limits established. And yes they do constantly change, but not because they are in error but because upstream conditions can constantly change with development and land alteration.

---

Ahh, the classic trust me because I'm an expert even though my statements and explanations make no sense, and even though I contradict myself constantly. I like to use buzzword that no one understands in order to make myself more intimidating and so no one can challenge my opinions.

---

I'm a CFM, recently worked for USACE in hydraulics and flood studies, and have 20 years of experience in civil engineering.

You can and should challenge my opinions, because even in drainage matters I error, can be wrong, and have been shown to be wrong. That's how it works. That's why our reports are often submitted for multiple reviews prior to publishing.

But I assure I don't use "buzzwords" and have actually tried to explain it as generically as I can.

BlackGold said:

---

Why is over 25% of this thread one user arguing with everyone?

---

Its what he do. Just don't ask him about va benefits