Burdizzo said:

---

I think that is what happens when you have politicians getting involved. They build support by putting an ugly face on what they are trying to fix. Shameful. I think the Eastlands may be guilty of misplaced priorities and bad judgment, but if he was as nefarious as some of these people want to project Dick Eastland would not have lost his life trying to save children.

---

I don't see anyone making the nefarious claim.

No matter how much anyone wants the camp to re-open, or how "influential" their family is - it will not. Camp Mystic will never re-open.

Not because internet warriors on TexAgs.com don't want it to - but because the insurance claims and lawsuits will drive it out of business and make any possible re-opening impossible. The camp is facing a 9 figure liability (at least) that can only be settled by selling the land.

That's not hatred or lack of "understanding" what the camp meant to so many women. It's the law and math.

i think there's a difference between willfull negligence which is nefarious and complacent negligence which is more gradual and can often be done with the best of intentions.

fc2112 said:

---

No matter how much anyone wants the camp to re-open, or how "influential" their family is - it will not. Camp Mystic will never re-open.

Not because internet warriors on TexAgs.com don't want it to - but because the insurance claims and lawsuits will drive it out of business and make any possible re-opening impossible. The camp is facing a 9 figure liability (at least) that can only be settled by selling the land.

That's not hatred or lack of "understanding" what the camp meant to so many women. It's the law and math.

---

If the goal of the families is to make sure this never happens again, they can accomplish that a number of ways. One would be to negotiate the sale of the property to a trust that would use funds from the 8-9 figure insurance settlement to operate the camp going forward as a model of safety and risk prevention while honoring the legacy of the lives that were lost. Or they could win a 9-figure award that will garner the lucky lawyer representing them a new vacation property on the Guadalupe and a new Gulfstream or two, while making sure the camp is gone for good. I know which one I think would be the better outcome...

And FWIW, I don't consider people who are upset with losing a child to be "hateful" for being upset about how the camp handled their business. They are totally right to feel whatever emotions they want to feel about that loss. I was talking about the drive-by comments being posted from politicians outright stating that somebody at the camp valued lawn equipment more than children's lives.

txags92 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

No matter how much anyone wants the camp to re-open, or how "influential" their family is - it will not. Camp Mystic will never re-open.

Not because internet warriors on TexAgs.com don't want it to - but because the insurance claims and lawsuits will drive it out of business and make any possible re-opening impossible. The camp is facing a 9 figure liability (at least) that can only be settled by selling the land.

That's not hatred or lack of "understanding" what the camp meant to so many women. It's the law and math.

---

If the goal of the families is to make sure this never happens again, they can accomplish that a number of ways. One would be to negotiate the sale of the property to a trust that would use funds from the 8-9 figure insurance settlement to operate the camp going forward as a model of safety and risk prevention while honoring the legacy of the lives that were lost. Or they could win a 9-figure award that will garner the lucky lawyer representing them a new vacation property on the Guadalupe and a new Gulfstream or two, while making sure the camp is gone for good. I know which one I think would be the better outcome...

And FWIW, I don't consider people who are upset with losing a child to be "hateful" for being upset about how the camp handled their business. They are totally right to feel whatever emotions they want to feel about that loss. I was talking about the drive-by comments being posted from politicians outright stating that somebody at the camp valued lawn equipment more than children's lives.

---

To be accurate, from my knowledge it was the parents of the deceased children who made the claim about the camp valuing equipment over campers. Not the pols.

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

No matter how much anyone wants the camp to re-open, or how "influential" their family is - it will not. Camp Mystic will never re-open.

Not because internet warriors on TexAgs.com don't want it to - but because the insurance claims and lawsuits will drive it out of business and make any possible re-opening impossible. The camp is facing a 9 figure liability (at least) that can only be settled by selling the land.

That's not hatred or lack of "understanding" what the camp meant to so many women. It's the law and math.

---

If the goal of the families is to make sure this never happens again, they can accomplish that a number of ways. One would be to negotiate the sale of the property to a trust that would use funds from the 8-9 figure insurance settlement to operate the camp going forward as a model of safety and risk prevention while honoring the legacy of the lives that were lost. Or they could win a 9-figure award that will garner the lucky lawyer representing them a new vacation property on the Guadalupe and a new Gulfstream or two, while making sure the camp is gone for good. I know which one I think would be the better outcome...

And FWIW, I don't consider people who are upset with losing a child to be "hateful" for being upset about how the camp handled their business. They are totally right to feel whatever emotions they want to feel about that loss. I was talking about the drive-by comments being posted from politicians outright stating that somebody at the camp valued lawn equipment more than children's lives.

---

To be accurate, from my knowledge it was the parents of the deceased children who made the claim about the camp valuing equipment over campers. Not the pols.

---

Without knowing more about the timing of the equipment being moved, that disappoints me that they would feel that way, but they absolutely don't need my approval to feel however they want.

The Campaign For Camp Safety Instagram account has been non-stop.

Is the assumption that there will be some sort of longer/deeper investigation by the State/Texas Rangers in the days to come?

For context, I was a camper near Mystic as a child, and I have intimate knowledge of a house on a hill across from Camp LaJunta (so same fork as Mystic). The house in reference is on top of a 30+ ft. hill looking down on the river. The house was built up one story off the ground, so the first floor of the living area was a good 12' (maybe more) off the ground.

On July 4th, the water not only overcame the hill, reached the house, rose above the storage floor below the house, but was halfway up the living area (so the equivalent of the 2nd story).

In the past 35 years, during the greatest floods, the water has come up about halfway up the hill. It has never even come up to the house.

The homeowners of this house did not have flood insurance because it never even occurred to them that a flood so significantly greater than anything they had ever seen could occur. This flood, the amount of water, the speed and the FORCE of that water, was beyond anything I could have imagined. And, I venture to guess, beyond the imagination of anyone in the community, those with intimate knowledge and history of the area and the floods.

It looks like the Mystic flood plan addressed the "typical" flooding in the area. The tragedy on July 4th was so completely atypical. So, perhaps they did not have a plan in place for this type of event. Did any of the camps?

Is it possible that the little bit of time it took for the wall of water to get from Mystic to La Junta was the difference in saved lives? Or that the difference in pressure and speed and volume was different enough between the North Fork (Mo Ranch) and the South Fork (Mystic)?

While I have so many questions, I am heartbroken over the losses from that day. I have friends who have lost daughters, nieces and granddaughters from Camp Mystic. My daughters lost friends. We are grieving and praying for the parents, siblings and immediate families who lost daughters.

I do not feel like the word "complacent" is a fair description of Dick Eastland and Camp Mystic leadership and their response. Complacency implies smugness. I have not read or heard any accounts of anything but humility and grief from the camp's leadership.

Txalli said:

---

For context, I was a camper near Mystic as a child, and I have intimate knowledge of a house on a hill across from Camp LaJunta (so same fork as Mystic). The house in reference is on top of a 30+ ft. hill looking down on the river. The house was built up one story off the ground, so the first floor of the living area was a good 12' (maybe more) off the ground.

On July 4th, the water not only overcame the hill, reached the house, rose above the storage floor below the house, but was halfway up the living area (so the equivalent of the 2nd story).

In the past 35 years, during the greatest floods, the water has come up about halfway up the hill. It has never even come up to the house.

The homeowners of this house did not have flood insurance because it never even occurred to them that a flood so significantly greater than anything they had ever seen could occur. This flood, the amount of water, the speed and the FORCE of that water, was beyond anything I could have imagined. And, I venture to guess, beyond the imagination of anyone in the community, those with intimate knowledge and history of the area and the floods.

It looks like the Mystic flood plan addressed the "typical" flooding in the area. This was so completely atypical. So, perhaps they did not have a plan in place for this type of event. Did any of the camps?

Is it possible that the little bit of time it took for the wall of water to get from Mystic to La Junta was the difference in saved lives? Or that the difference in pressure and speed and volume was different enough between the North Fork (Mo Ranch) and the South Fork (Mystic)?

While I have so many questions, I am heartbroken over the losses from that day. I have friends who have lost daughters, nieces and granddaughters from Camp Mystic. My daughters lost friends. We are grieving and praying for the parents, siblings and immediate families who lost daughters.

However, I do not feel like the word "complacent" is a fair description of Dick Eastland and Camp Mystic leadership and their response. Complacency implies smugness. I have not read any accounts of anything but humility and grief from the camp's leadership.

---

You're right about the north vs south fork, because the south fork got a lot more rain than the north fork. La Junta was different from Mystic because there weren't three sources of water flooding the camp, the most affected cabins were caught by a tree down stream and had rafters the campers could climb to and isn't basically in the middle of a canyon.

Thank you for pointing that out.


Just my personal take on this. I don't think this sentiment is to convey that they valued the equipment more than the kids, only that if they had the sense to move the equipment why weren't they keeping a closer eye on conditions. Again, not intentionally nefarious, but just bad decision making. Easy for me to say because I was not there

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Do you, or the state rep, have any idea where the mowing equipment was? Maybe it was down by the river and they wanted to get it above the flood plain? I don't have any idea where it was. But he, and you, are doing nothing more than ginning up emotions when you have no idea what you're talking about. People that assume the worst in people (ie they tried to save the equipment before attempting to save the girls) are disgusting. And, before you say "I didn't say exactly that" acknowledge that that is exactly what you were implying.

dermdoc said:

---

---

This was a post you made that skirts that line in my opinion.

"In my opinion after hearing the facts, there was not just probable negligence but willful negligence and disregard of sobering warnings due to hubris and reputation. Which led to kid glove treatment by local government entities.

i leaned a lot about the actual facts this week."

My problem with some of the stuff happening on this thread is the same as what was happening on the original thread during the time they were still searching for survivors. There is too much being passed along that is pure hearsay, with no way for anybody else to put it in context. So as Derm pointed out, it was apparently one of the families that lost a child that made the claim that they moved equipment before they evacuated cabins. I have no doubt that they believe that to be true if they testified about it to the legislature. But first of all, how do they know that? Was that told to them by another parent who also had no way to know that actually happened? A staff member or counselor who was actually there said it? Second of all, when did they do that? Was it before they went to bed for the night? Was it at 1:20am when the first flood warning came in, but there was no reason to expect the worst flood since 1932 to hit? Was it at 3am right before the wall of water started to reach Mystic? The source and the timing matter when trying to assess the mentality that led to making that choice.

If the staff made the decision at 1:30am to do that thinking this was just like any other flood since 1932 and was no threat to the cabins, there is nothing negligent, nefarious, or complacent about doing it. If they chose to do that after 3am with the river rising fast and rain still pouring down, it has a different implication.

I don't have any relationship with the Eastlands or any connection to Mystic. I just really hate it when unsubstantiated hearsay like this is used to imply things about somebody's character who can't defend themself against it because they are dead. Dick may have been all of the things he is being accused of on this thread and elsewhere, but I wish we could stop with all of the "If you knew what I heard from so and so you would feel differently" kind of talk. All we can legitimately discuss are the things we know and have some basis for believing. So if you heard something from somebody else and you are unwilling to say what it was or who you heard it from, it is of no use to anybody here to even bring it up. We have to either believe a vague hint of what is at best second hand hearsay from a source we don't know, or we ignore it because it is unsubstantiated.

There are people like Derm who are undoubtedly in a position to be hearing/seeing things that the rest of us are not, but without knowing what it is they are seeing/hearing and who it is coming from, there is very little we can do with the emotions and thoughts conveyed based on that info that is unavailable to us.

71 jock said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

---

This was a post you made that skirts that line in my opinion.

"In my opinion after hearing the facts, there was not just probable negligence but willful negligence and disregard of sobering warnings due to hubris and reputation. Which led to kid glove treatment by local government entities.

i leaned a lot about the actual facts this week."

---

Fair enough. I was pretty angry at that point in time. We will see what discovery shows. And this is useless on here so I am gone.

Txalli said:

---

For context, I was a camper near Mystic as a child, and I have intimate knowledge of a house on a hill across from Camp LaJunta (so same fork as Mystic). The house in reference is on top of a 30+ ft. hill looking down on the river. The house was built up one story off the ground, so the first floor of the living area was a good 12' (maybe more) off the ground.

On July 4th, the water not only overcame the hill, reached the house, rose above the storage floor below the house, but was halfway up the living area (so the equivalent of the 2nd story).

In the past 35 years, during the greatest floods, the water has come up about halfway up the hill. It has never even come up to the house.

The homeowners of this house did not have flood insurance because it never even occurred to them that a flood so significantly greater than anything they had ever seen could occur. This flood, the amount of water, the speed and the FORCE of that water, was beyond anything I could have imagined. And, I venture to guess, beyond the imagination of anyone in the community, those with intimate knowledge and history of the area and the floods.

It looks like the Mystic flood plan addressed the "typical" flooding in the area. The tragedy on July 4th was so completely atypical. So, perhaps they did not have a plan in place for this type of event. Did any of the camps?

Is it possible that the little bit of time it took for the wall of water to get from Mystic to La Junta was the difference in saved lives? Or that the difference in pressure and speed and volume was different enough between the North Fork (Mo Ranch) and the South Fork (Mystic)?

While I have so many questions, I am heartbroken over the losses from that day. I have friends who have lost daughters, nieces and granddaughters from Camp Mystic. My daughters lost friends. We are grieving and praying for the parents, siblings and immediate families who lost daughters.

I do not feel like the word "complacent" is a fair description of Dick Eastland and Camp Mystic leadership and their response. Complacency implies smugness. I have not read or heard any accounts of anything but humility and grief from the camp's leadership.

---

Former CLJ camper and I know those homes well. No one in their right mind would ever think those homes are within reach of the river there (which is a glorified stream at some points by CLJ), and would laugh at you if you had previously said they were.

CLJ acted swiftly but there was definitely luck involved - if that cabin doesn't connect with the tree off the maintenance road, it has clear sailing back to the main maelstrom over by the Hunt Store and the worst most likely happens to all occupants.

They were behind the eight ball as well if the water had already blown out the Mess Hall by the time Scott/Katie woke up.

But they did have a plan and they did swiftly act. Where CM seems to be failing to hold up here is that they did not appear to have much of a plan at all. It's one thing to have a plan that doesn't account for the black swan event and it's another to not have a plan.

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

FM 949 said:

---

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

---

This is not much of a plan.

I would have expected:
- what to do if the cabin becomes unsafe (they explicitly say to never leave)
- a designated assembly point or safe shelter outside the cabins
- transportations plans, if any
- exfil plans out of the camp if the normal exit points are inundated
- a plan for a power failure
- guidance for specific counselor responsibilities
- chain of command
- check-in intervals for updates

But yes, that's just my opinion.

I don't know for sure that they had more, but that is just a blurb from a handout to parents. I highly doubt that comprised the whole of their plan and would be surprised if they could pass a state inspection without more than that.

Azeew said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Do you, or the state rep, have any idea where the mowing equipment was? Maybe it was down by the river and they wanted to get it above the flood plain? I don't have any idea where it was. But he, and you, are doing nothing more than ginning up emotions when you have no idea what you're talking about. People that assume the worst in people (ie they tried to save the equipment before attempting to save the girls) are disgusting. And, before you say "I didn't say exactly that" acknowledge that that is exactly what you were implying.

---

I have no idea, which is why I asked what the state rep was talking about.

The insurance will limit out. They won't be the only ones paying. And I wouldn't be surprised if that limit is low 7 figures. Might even be as little as $300k as that is all the state requires for day cares.

Phat32 said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

---

This is not much of a plan.

I would have expected:
- what to do if the cabin becomes unsafe (they explicitly say to never leave)
- a designated assembly point or safe shelter outside the cabins
- transportations plans, if any
- exfil plans out of the camp if the normal exit points are inundated
- a plan for a power failure
- guidance for specific counselor responsibilities
- chain of command
- check-in intervals for updates

But yes, that's just my opinion.

---

While I have my doubts it will reopen, you can bet if it does, and any and all camps who remain open will have many, many more lines of explanation regarding floods than what you posted from their materials.

Phat32 said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

---

This is not much of a plan.

I would have expected:
- what to do if the cabin becomes unsafe (they explicitly say to never leave)
- a designated assembly point or safe shelter outside the cabins
- transportations plans, if any
- exfil plans out of the camp if the normal exit points are inundated
- a plan for a power failure
- guidance for specific counselor responsibilities
- chain of command
- check-in intervals for updates

But yes, that's just my opinion.

---

I agree, not much of a plan if you can even call that a "plan" at all. I come from the chemical industry where we take safety and peoples lives very very serious. We have very intense safety and evacuation plans. I know these were summer camps but being next to a flood prone river should require better plans than a few line blurb. IMO, any youth camp operating near flood prone areas or rivers with all those young children should have a more in dept thought out evacuation plan. Im am surprised that's all they had in place.

but we all need not forget this was absolutely not your average flood event… possibly / maybe 500 year flood by definition

fullback44 said:

---

Phat32 said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

---

This is not much of a plan.

I would have expected:
- what to do if the cabin becomes unsafe (they explicitly say to never leave)
- a designated assembly point or safe shelter outside the cabins
- transportations plans, if any
- exfil plans out of the camp if the normal exit points are inundated
- a plan for a power failure
- guidance for specific counselor responsibilities
- chain of command
- check-in intervals for updates

But yes, that's just my opinion.

---

I agree, not much of a plan if you can even call that a "plan" at all. I come from the chemical industry where we take safety and peoples lives very very serious. We have very intense safety and evacuation plans. I know these were summer camps but being next to a flood prone river should require better plans than a few line blurb. IMO, any youth camp operating near flood prone areas or rivers with all those young children should have a more in dept thought out evacuation plan. Im am surprised that's all they had in place.

but we all need not forget this was absolutely not your average flood event… possibly / maybe 500 year flood by definition

---

Don't jump to conclusions. Somebody posted that as part of a blurb in a handout for parents. Now it is being asserted that it was all they had for a plan. I doubt that to be the case, but nobody to my knowledge has posted the actual plan, if anybody outside the camp had access to it at all.

one safe place said:

---

Phat32 said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

" they did not appear to have much of a plan at all"

why do you say this?

Did they have a plan for 10 yr event? 50 yr event? 100 yr event?

In my mind your statement should be "they did not appear to have much of a plan for an event of this magnitude".

---

This is not much of a plan.

I would have expected:
- what to do if the cabin becomes unsafe (they explicitly say to never leave)
- a designated assembly point or safe shelter outside the cabins
- transportations plans, if any
- exfil plans out of the camp if the normal exit points are inundated
- a plan for a power failure
- guidance for specific counselor responsibilities
- chain of command
- check-in intervals for updates

But yes, that's just my opinion.

---

While I have my doubts it will reopen, you can bet if it does, and any and all camps who remain open will have many, many more lines of explanation regarding floods than what you posted from their materials.

---

As a dad who sends kids to Pine Cove every summer and has the good fortune of knowing some of the excellent members of their board....these new measures should not be a hard-hitting to implement.

I worked as a counselor while at A&M at the HS Pine Cove Tyler camp. Things have changed over time with these camps and they probably need to adapt. Frankly, after watching the past 2 months happen and having a precious girl from our school/neighborhood lose her life in this, I think all TX camps would be well-served by having an outside/independent board of directors that provide oversight over all management decisions. No different than a well-run corporation.

When I was a counselor in 2005, we had a random truck drive through camp in week 3 late at night which caused us to put up a "night watch." The night watch was simply me and my fellow male counselors driving around on a golf cart until 4:00 AM. While that was cool when I was 21, I'm glad Pine Cove now has private security with a gun. They also have much more stringent plans in place in the event of emergencies.

Simply put.....it can all be done at the same time. A number of TX summer camps already have plans in place that are robust. If you didn't thus far....frankly.....you're behind the times in the world we live in. So get started.

In my view, Mystic was a once-in-a-lifetime event. The waters were unprecedented. That said, it doesn't excuse the years of prior posture and (not malicious) complacency.

My wife knows a number of the Eastland kids personally and cannot fathom that any of this was intentional, willing, or anything else

Maybe this was just a horrible tragedy, mistakes were made, and we will never know this side of Heaven what the meaning of all of it was. At this point, that is where I am.

Oh ok.. thought this was their plan, you could be correct, let's hope they had a more in debt detailed plan

But in the end this wasn't a normal flood event .. plans may not / probably wouldn't help too much w this type of situation

If they had a more detailed plan, they didn't do much else of it. All of the witness accounts I've heard have lined up with that blurb.

As another poster said above - these plans aren't rocket science and probably cost nothing to implement. But there was definitely significant complacency around the danger of flooding.

I'm shocked people actually think that is their plan. It's a blurb to parents that is in materials with a bunch of other items. In 100% certain that isn't their actual plan as I discussed more in depth plans with Dick prior to sending my daughter there.

The only reason I'm replying to this nonsense is because you may have had discussions with Dick and/or Edward, but this is from the counselor's manual. This was the plan and nothing else. There were no walkie-talkies. Yall do some research and read the op-eds.

And as for filing a plan with DSHS under the current way things are done…. DSHS doesn't have the ability to vet any kind of emergency planning, they are mainly sanitation. There literally could have been a piece of paper in a file that said "Emergency Plan" and nothing else (don't believe me? watch the entire hearing). That will be changed going forward if the new bills get signed into law. DSHS will have overlap with TDEM to asses said plans.

clarkebkr07 said:

---

The only reason I'm replying to this nonsense is because you may have had discussions with Dick and/or Edward, but this is from the counselor's manual. This was the plan and nothing else. There were no walkie-talkies. Yall do some research and read the op-eds.

---

Exactly. The facts of the night make it clear that not only was that the "plan" provided to staff, they weren't even prepared to execute the blurb on the page. It was Dick, his son, and the security guy communicating by in person word of mouth to cabins because they had no means of other communication. The result was a slow, ineffective execution of what was written on that page and some cabins being given either bad or no instruction, with each teenage counselor left to make their own call on what to do as the water rose.

In looking at the Kerr County Hazard Mitigation Plan I noted the following:

1) Risk Assessment Throughout the plan, each hazard addressed will be considered in light of its history, likelihood of future events, extent, jurisdictional vulnerability, location and impact. Likelihood of Future Events is measured based on a hazard's expected frequency of occurrence in terms of previous frequency. Each hazard's likelihood of future events will be considered using the following standardized parameters:
Highly likely event probable in the next year
Likely event probable in the next three years
Occasional event possible in the next five years
Unlikely event possible in the next 10 years
Given this plan's five-year duration, hazards likely to occur during that period will be given priority when selecting and prioritizing mitigation actions.

Reading further into the document:
2) Likelihood of Future Events In the case of the FEMA 100-year floodplain there is a 1% annual chance, while in the 500-year floodplain there is a 0.02% annual chance. Thus, the likelihood of a 100-year flood event is occasional and the likelihood of a 500-year flood event is unlikely. However, based on the frequency of previous flood events, every jurisdiction can expect to experience some type of flooding that may or may not meet the definition of a 100-year or 500-year event on a more regular basis. The local planning team determined it is likely that Kerr County and the participating jurisdictions will experience a flood event in the next year, meaning an event is probable in the next three years. 3) Extent Flood magnitude is generally measured by depth of flood waters in feet or inches. Throughout Kerr County and the participating jurisdictions, recent flood events have resulted in up to 10" of flood water.

Future worst-case flood events in Kerr County and the participating jurisdictions may meet or exceed previous worst-case 10" flood depths.

Seems like 100+ year flooding was not going to be priority of any of the jurisdictions participating in the plan.

StringerBell said:

---

i think there's a difference between willfull negligence which is nefarious and complacent negligence which is more gradual and can often be done with the best of intentions.

---

Having worked there and knowing Dick personally, I would say it's the latter. I don't like to speak ill of the dead, but Dick was not the sharpest tool in the shed. He always had good intentions and was a good man, but I also observed a lot of dumb decisions while I was there as well.

From everything I've read on this since the 4th and my memories of those that ran the camp, I think they were operating with a "Oh, that'll never happen..." frame of mind, rather than intentionally taking risks for the sake of making/saving money.

Again, I don't think some of y'all understand the magnitude of the flood event.

No, I understand it perfectly well.