The National Weather Service was monitoring real time data from flood gages, rain gages, and radar forecasts. At 3:19AM, they predicted the river would rise about 9ft at Hunt and would be a 5-year type flood. About an hour later, the river crested at Mystic, rising 30ft above the typical river level (500+ year flood event). The generic flash flood warning at 1:14am did not indicate the extreme level of flood severity that was about to occur. Additional analysis here: pxl.to/Mystic-NWS-Flash-Flood-Warning-Analysis
(edited to add hyperlink)

mcsatx said:

---

The National Weather Service was monitoring real time data from flood gages, rain gages, and radar forecasts. At 3:19AM, they predicted the river would rise about 9ft at Hunt and would be a 5-year type flood. About an hour later, the river crested at Mystic, rising 30ft above the typical river level (500+ year flood event). The generic flash flood warning at 1:14am did not indicate the extreme level of flood severity that was about to occur. Additional analysis here: pxl.to/Mystic-NWS-Flash-Flood-Warning-Analysis

---

When the weather service issues a flash flood warning for a river that abuts your property, it's on you from there. We are talking about supposedly responsible adults here, not wards of the state.

Tuition was $7915 for 4 weeks. I just got my refund from the July term.

https://www.kens5.com/article/news/state/texas-news/texas-flood/camp-mystic-texas-family-director-killed-july-4th-floods/273-b70f5490-8284-4a58-86f5-ed2410ad1645

twk said:

---

mcsatx said:

---

The National Weather Service was monitoring real time data from flood gages, rain gages, and radar forecasts. At 3:19AM, they predicted the river would rise about 9ft at Hunt and would be a 5-year type flood. About an hour later, the river crested at Mystic, rising 30ft above the typical river level (500+ year flood event). The generic flash flood warning at 1:14am did not indicate the extreme level of flood severity that was about to occur. Additional analysis here: pxl.to/Mystic-NWS-Flash-Flood-Warning-Analysis

---

When the weather service issues a flash flood warning for a river that abuts your property, it's on you from there. We are talking about supposedly responsible adults here, not wards of the state.

---

This. I have struggled to tie together how the night watches at these camps did not raise the alarm bell more significantly. It was rising fast, but not so fast that a flashlight review of the shoreline over a 10-15 minute period couldn't have detected the issue.

There's a significant failure of procedures here from when the warnings were issued to the kids getting out of the cabins. There should have been even common sense procedures of checking the shoreline and escalating response.

Now Scott from CLJ stated that they did not receive any warnings, so...

A Senator asked the Camp La Junta owner "what would you have done at 1:14AM with a (NWS) warning?"

The owner said IF they received a NWS Flash Flood warning, he would have gone down to the waterfront area and moved any materials/equipment in the floodplain. He would NOT have immediately evacuated the cabins but would have instructed the security guard to stay by the cabins and monitor the rising water.

The Senator asked "what would you do today?"
He said they would definitely evacuate the lower cabins right away.

Man a lot of you guys should just stop posting on this thread. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I live in a 500 year flood plain. In other words, not a flood zone. However, a downstream spillway backed up during Harvey and I flooded from downstream. Slowly rising water, which made it fairly easy to evacuate. My prior home, just 2 miles away and in the 100 year zone, did NOT flood. Two years later, after developers clear cut the land behind the 100 year home and didn't build proper detention, the 100 year home flooded in Imelda, and my current 500 year home did not. The point is that circumstances change, almost whimsically. If you rely on flood elevations, you can get lazy about assessing real-time conditions.

I have a second home on Bolivar. It is in the 100 year. Most neighboring homes are in the actual floodway. New construction in Harris County wouldn't be allowed in either zone, and if you elevate out of the 100 year to build in the 500 year, there has to be "zero-net fill," which means you have to dig a hole at least as big as the mountain you created. At the beach, the obvious flood hazard comes from surge. This is predictable. A tropical storm heads in, and you head out, and hope your home loan from God isn't expiring.

In the case of the Hill Country, flash flooding is the culprit. The scariest parts are the speed at which it occurs, and the fact that it can be dry where you are, but upstream rains can accumulate so quickly. Isaac Cline (the chief meteorologist in Galveston in 1900) recounted seeing a horse-pulled coach washed away in an arroyo, with the flooding occurring on a sunny day. The flood was a result of melting hailstones upstream. Wow.

The point is, flooding can occur for lots of reasons, and sometimes one can be in more danger "out" of the flood plain than "in" it. Therefore, blanket prohibitions about where people can build, and what constitutes "safe," just won't work. Those things can just cause complacency. If you work in an office, you should have a tornado assembly point. When I was a kid, my neighbor had a tornado shelter. Basements need to have a point of egress if people are sleeping in them, etc.

If you sleep in an area prone to flash flooding, you need a quick evacuation route to sheltered high ground, accessible to EVERYONE (elderly, disabled, children). This is the bottom line. It just looks like there wasn't a good plan, but there could have easily been one.

I actually think they would. I don't know the finances of every family involved but am very close to several. The vast majority do not need the money and are very established Texas families. In fact, many of them plan to funnel the money right back into their girl's funds. They will sue to stop the Eastlands from having girls in their possession in the future, many of them will work to make sure Mystic never reopens.

71 jock said:

---

Man a lot of you guys should just stop posting on this thread. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

---

700 x $8000/month is a big number.

i think this is a flawed way of looking at this.

folks send their kids to camps like this as a generational experience--meaning to get the same experience they had and that their parents had

other first timers send their kids to camps like this to harken back to simpler times without phones etc.

but that doesnt mean the camps have to be run like its the 1950s with the same safety structures. the camps needed to have evolved in how they protect and care for their children even if they are still striving to provide the same experience. those two concepts arent antithetical to each other.

71 jock said:

---

Man a lot of you guys should just stop posting on this thread. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

---

If that is the rule, there aren't going to be many threads on F16!

StringerBell said:

---

i think this is a flawed way of looking at this.

folks send their kids to camps like this as a generational experience--meaning to get the same experience they had and that their parents had

other first timers send their kids to camps like this to harken back to simpler times without phones etc.

but that doesnt mean the camps have to be run like its the 1950s with the same safety structures. the camps needed to have evolved in how they protect and care for their children even if they are still striving to provide the same experience. those two concepts arent antithetical to each other.

---

I agree. However, sometimes sorting out what you want to re-create from the 1950's and what you need to leave behind...can be a challenge. I find the Blue Bell song to be one of the most annoying things I've ever heard, but I still like the ice cream

DallasDoc said:

---

I actually think they would. I don't know the finances of every family involved but am very close to several. The vast majority do not need the money and are very established Texas families. In fact, many of them plan to funnel the money right back into their girl's funds. They will sue to stop the Eastlands from having girls in their possession in the future, many of them will work to make sure Mystic never reopens.

---

This is spot on.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

The issue was that the flood was 15 feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation and there was not adequate warning from NWS or local officials to evacuate and seek higher ground.

---

What do you want the weather service to do? Go door to door and wake people up? They issued the appropriate warnings, it's just that the folks at Camp Mystic and elsewhere along the river either ignored them, or weren't aware of them because they were asleep. As to Camp Mystic, the folks who ran the camp are the only ones at fault.

---

I'm glad the families of the girls who were lost are working to make sure this camp never re-opens. I don't think it would anyway at this point, but this is exactly what animated me so much the 'day of' to where I got obnoxious about how outrageous it was the warnings were functionally not handled properly.

I apologize again to those who lost loved ones who were offended at the time in the original f16 thread at this by my comments. And once again, appreciate the testimony and work to make sure it never happens again.

DallasDoc said:

---

I actually think they would. I don't know the finances of every family involved but am very close to several. The vast majority do not need the money and are very established Texas families. In fact, many of them plan to funnel the money right back into their girl's funds. They will sue to stop the Eastlands from having girls in their possession in the future, many of them will work to make sure Mystic never reopens.

---

Similar situation as you and in 100% agreement.

The talk of Mystic coming back in some form or way...I just see 0% chance of that happening.

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

Mystic will not survive this. I feel for the families that lost their children and the Eastland family as well.

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

Not 100% of the parents feel that way.

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

Other than Heart of the Hills, whos director died, lower floors of the building destroyed, and fortunately not in camp session, I think all the other camps will recover.

Alta said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

Not 100% of the parents feel that way.

---

With our legal system and the amount of money at stake, it will only take a few.

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

I understand what you're saying completely, but I don't think it's about vengeance or getting money out of the legal system. I think it's something much deeper than both.

There's almost a sacred dimension at play for some parents.

When nearly 30 children die in horrific circumstances while in the hands of an institution it takes on such a solemn weight that restarting the camp (even with updated safety policies, new ownership structure, etc) would trample on the silent meaning that those lives and tragedy now carry.

For some parents, closure is only going to come knowing that the last songs, games and laughter of Camp Mystic remain in the past. For them, re-opening it would cheapen the loss of their children.

I understand you might disagree with this and think it's a silly or ridiculous way of viewing it. I have no idea how I would feel if I'd lost an 8 year old daughter and how I would process that anguish.

But I think there's a lot more at play than money-chasing or getting vengeance.

Serotonin said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

I understand what you're saying completely, but I don't think it's about vengeance or getting money out of the legal system. I think it's something much deeper than both.

There's almost a sacred dimension at play for some parents.

When nearly 30 children die in horrific circumstances while in the hands of an institution it takes on such a solemn weight that restarting the camp (even with updated safety policies, new ownership structure, etc) would trample on the silent meaning that those lives and tragedy now carry.

For some parents, closure is only going to come knowing that the last songs, games and laughter of Camp Mystic remain in the past. For them, re-opening it would cheapen the loss of their children.

I understand you might disagree with this and think it's a silly or ridiculous way of viewing it. I have no idea how I would feel if I'd lost an 8 year old daughter and how I would process that anguish.

But I think there's a lot more at play than money-chasing or getting vengeance.

---

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I think they are wrong to feel that way. I can't imagine how I would feel if I had lost a kid there, so I am not trying to place my emotions ahead of theirs in importance. I am just saying I don't understand that idea of wanting the camp grounds to be a permanent graveyard that will never hear joyous voices of children having the time of their life ever again. I would want the deaths to mean something more than that...being the cause of improved safety that lets thousands of future little girls have a better and safer camp experience seems like a more fitting epitaph than being the cause of nobody ever getting to go to camp there again.

Quote:

---

being the cause of nobody ever getting to go to camp there again.

---

The camps actions, NOT the parents is the cause.

txags92 said:

---

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I think they are wrong to feel that way. I can't imagine how I would feel if I had lost a kid there, so I am not trying to place my emotions ahead of theirs in importance. I am just saying I don't understand that idea of wanting the camp grounds to be a permanent graveyard that will never hear joyous voices of children having the time of their life ever again. I would want the deaths to mean something more than that...being the cause of improved safety that lets thousands of future little girls have a better and safer camp experience seems like a more fitting epitaph than being the cause of nobody ever getting to go to camp there again.

---

So much this right here. Thank you for putting it much more eloquently than I would be able to. It's a very tough debate. How does one balance their Godly faith while wanting to shut that down and take away from others?

Texarkanaag69 said:

---

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

When in the history of Hill Country flooding can you cite as the equivalent of the July flood? Given your statement I assume that you know that of which you speak.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Flood_Alley

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

being the cause of nobody ever getting to go to camp there again.

---

The camps actions, NOT the parents is the cause.

---

The actions of the camp caused the deaths of the girls, no questions there. What happens next is up to the parents. The camp owners will have little to no say in what happens now.

No, in this case it would be the parents.

txags92 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I understand to some degree the vengeance of the parents wanting the Eastland family to never profit again from running the camp. I don't understand the goal of trying to make sure the camp never operates again. Seems like a much better legacy for the young girls who passed away would be to see all of the local camps coming back safer with improved plans for future flood events, rather than shutting the camps down for good and making sure that no other child ever gets to make lifelong friends and memories at that camp again.

Maybe make transfer of ownership/operation a requirement as part of any settlement or take possession of the property as part of the settlement and set up a non-profit to run the camp in the name of the girls who passed away.

---

I understand what you're saying completely, but I don't think it's about vengeance or getting money out of the legal system. I think it's something much deeper than both.

There's almost a sacred dimension at play for some parents.

When nearly 30 children die in horrific circumstances while in the hands of an institution it takes on such a solemn weight that restarting the camp (even with updated safety policies, new ownership structure, etc) would trample on the silent meaning that those lives and tragedy now carry.

For some parents, closure is only going to come knowing that the last songs, games and laughter of Camp Mystic remain in the past. For them, re-opening it would cheapen the loss of their children.

I understand you might disagree with this and think it's a silly or ridiculous way of viewing it. I have no idea how I would feel if I'd lost an 8 year old daughter and how I would process that anguish.

But I think there's a lot more at play than money-chasing or getting vengeance.

---

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I think they are wrong to feel that way. I can't imagine how I would feel if I had lost a kid there, so I am not trying to place my emotions ahead of theirs in importance. I am just saying I don't understand that idea of wanting the camp grounds to be a permanent graveyard that will never hear joyous voices of children having the time of their life ever again. I would want the deaths to mean something more than that...being the cause of improved safety that lets thousands of future little girls have a better and safer camp experience seems like a more fitting epitaph than being the cause of nobody ever getting to go to camp there again.

---

Yes, I think your idea is a great one within the frame of utilitarian terms. The experience could be leveraged as a means to a better and safer experience, and a portion of camp proceeds could be donated every year to the girl's charities and funds. And they could be remembered and honored within the framework of the ongoing institution.

But I think you are getting to the exact point of disagreement that people will have: Meaning can be created by reforms and charitable giving but it can also be created by allowing an institution to end. It's a way of saying: "Even though this institution could have tremendous utilitarian value in the future, it will not continue out of profound respect for the lost girls and their families."

As I said, I'm not sure where I'd come down but I'm almost certain that many parents will have the latter view.

Just saw in an instagram story from one of the parents that Mystic was lobbying against SB 1 and their statement yesterday was sent to every mystic parent except the parents of the lost girls.

Well that statement is false for me (a Mystic parent).

I'm genuinely curious how many of you have actually ever been to Camp Mystic, met the Eastland's, seen the love and Christian growth these girls experience while there. I've seen a few on this thread. That's it. The rest of you have no idea how this camp has impacted girls and families for generations. Everyone's heart absolutely breaks for what happened to the girls lost, their families, and the Eastland family.

When you actually know how special this place is which 99% of you don't, you can grieve with the families AND want the camp to continue. The best way to honor those girls is to remember them every day but especially every summer at camp. Closing down the camp will do nothing but damage this opportunity. They will never be forgotten, and we continually pray for them. Taking that away from others is not the answer.

It's easy for outsiders to spread misinformation and talk of money and greed, but I'm here to tell you again, you have no idea what you are talking about. We don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you my daughter and her entire cabin she's been with for 6 years, will not hesitate to go back if given that chance. And those of you saying most parents wouldn't send their kids back are just flat out wrong and again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

This x1000. Pretty much every parent I know will send their daughter back if the option is there to do so, my daughter and all her friends will return and multiple parents I know who actually lost a child do not want the camp to end.

nortex97 said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

The issue was that the flood was 15 feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation and there was not adequate warning from NWS or local officials to evacuate and seek higher ground.

---

What do you want the weather service to do? Go door to door and wake people up? They issued the appropriate warnings, it's just that the folks at Camp Mystic and elsewhere along the river either ignored them, or weren't aware of them because they were asleep. As to Camp Mystic, the folks who ran the camp are the only ones at fault.

---

I'm glad the families of the girls who were lost are working to make sure this camp never re-opens. I don't think it would anyway at this point, but this is exactly what animated me so much the 'day of' to where I got obnoxious about how outrageous it was the warnings were functionally not handled properly.

I apologize again to those who lost loved ones who were offended at the time in the original f16 thread at this by my comments. And once again, appreciate the testimony and work to make sure it never happens again.

---

You are exactly right. Mary Grace's parents want to make sure these folks never run a camp again.

Can't speak for others but feel like this could be partially directed at me.

We know the Eastlands very well. They are amazing. My grandmother, mother, sister, most girl cousins went to Camp Mystic. So this is coming from someone who is not a rando internet dude.

I don't think there's any way it's coming back. Just my opinion though.