Even elementary schools have walkie-talkies for communicating with teachers on the playground, staff across campus, etc.

And when they did "run to get Dick, etc" they were told to stay put.

Yeah, that night it was more those 3 running/driving to them. But clearly overwhelmed

EclipseAg said:

---

Even elementary schools have walkie-talkies for communicating with teachers on the playground, staff across campus, etc.

---

Every single teacher and many of the support staff at my girls' public school has their own dedicated walkie-talkie that goes with them somewhere on their person when they leave the classroom.

I think its easy to second guess things and say wtf as we sit here after the event. Prior to the event, I am not sure if a reason had presented itself. The more I ponder it, the more I think it falls on the same side of the floodplain/cabins discussion. It wasn't a problem until it was a problem.

We can ask why didn't they have radios, or intercoms, or alarms today, but in the 99 years prior nothing had necessitated the use of them. This isn't a chemical plant or even a suburban elementary school, and they don't have the same kind of expected problems. No one expected one of the problems faced would be a flood event significantly over a 100 year level where the camp would have to evacuate to the top of the hill. I have a problem indicting someone because of their actions during something that was at a level never seen before on the river.

But it did happen and lessons learned post event show that every camp in the region should have the ability to communicate to every building onsite, an audible alarm that can be heard across the camp, and each person in a leadership position must be reachable 24/7 during camp by some communication device. Each day 1 will have to include drills to simulate an evacuation plan to some point. The dork ass engineer in me says they each camp needs a an automated river gauge tied into a real time network to help on a more regional basis than just each individual camp. And those will be washed away repeatedly by other smaller events, but i think we can all agree today, that cost is worth it.

FM 949 said:

---

I think its easy to second guess things and say wtf as we sit here after the event. Prior to the event, I am not sure if a reason had presented itself. The more I ponder it, the more I think it falls on the same side of the floodplain/cabins discussion. It wasn't a problem until it was a problem.

We can ask why didn't they have radios, or intercoms, or alarms today, but in the 99 years prior nothing had necessitated the use of them. This isn't a chemical plant or even a suburban elementary school, and they don't have the same kind of expected problems. No one expected one of the problems faced would be a flood event significantly over a 100 year level where the camp would have to evacuate to the top of the hill. I have a problem indicting someone because of their actions during something that was at a level never seen before on the river.

---

July 4th 2025 crest was less than 1' above the 1932 crest. plans should have been made for the 1932 crest at a minimum, not the 100 yr flood.

That gauge is 6 miles downstream and past the point in Hunt where the two forks of the river combine.

FM 949 said:

---

That gauge is 6 miles downstream and past the point in Hunt where the two forks of the river combine.

---

So that is how complacency happens. Instead of looking at the available data and deciding what is a reasonable worst case to plan for, you come up with excuses for why that particular crest might not apply to the site.

No, thats incorrect. You posted as if it that was onsite. I pointed out that it was 6 miles downstream and downstream of the major confluence of the two rivers.

I also never said it shouldnt be used. I just pointed out where it was.

FM 949 said:

---

No, thats incorrect. You posted as if it that was onsite. I pointed out that it was 6 miles downstream and downstream of the major confluence of the two rivers.

I also never said it shouldnt be used. I just pointed out where it was.

---

Newsflash, water flows downhill. Six miles is not a long distance along a river channel and any rainfall event capable of producing a 36+' crest at the Hunt gauge is capable of producing a 36+' crest at Camp Mystic 6 miles away. There is no gauge on the south fork, so using the nearest downstream gauge would make sense.

Water flows down an energy gradient, but thanks for the newsflash.

txags92 said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

No, thats incorrect. You posted as if it that was onsite. I pointed out that it was 6 miles downstream and downstream of the major confluence of the two rivers.

I also never said it shouldnt be used. I just pointed out where it was.

---

Newsflash, water flows downhill. Six miles is not a long distance along a river channel and any rainfall event capable of producing a 36+' crest at the Hunt gauge is capable of producing a 36+' crest at Camp Mystic 6 miles away. There is no gauge on the south fork, so using the nearest downstream gauge would make sense.

---

That's not how riverine hydraulics work.

FM 949 said:

---

Water flows down an energy gradient, but thanks for the newsflash.

---

So knowing that historically, just six miles away downstream, there was a crest of 36+', do you think it was reasonable to make emergency evacuation plans based on a flood level ~10' below that level, in the absence of any historical gauge data from the south fork?

I am going to leave your constant use of "just 6 miles downstream" alone.

To directly answer your question, I think there should have been some semblance of a plan to evacuate the cabins no matter whether it was a flood, a fire, sasquatch attack, North Korean rockets, etc.

Now, we can debate how intense that plan needed to be, who had decision making ability in that plan, and the effectiveness of it in the middle of the night and in a storm all you want. As we sit here today, we can say that plan in action failed tragically and obviously didn't work for the event. I am sure Dick Eastland would tell that to you if he could.

It's crazy to me that we don't have a guage on the South Fork to help inform some of this conversation. That's another colossal point of failure, among many others...Why hasn't this River been studied more closer? Why are the FEMA maps so terrible in a known dangerous River basin? So much failure across the board led to this tragedy.

FM 949 said:

---

I am going to leave your constant use of "just 6 miles downstream" alone.

To directly answer your question, I think there should have been some semblance of a plan to evacuate the cabins no matter whether it was a flood, a fire, sasquatch attack, North Korean rockets, etc.

Now, we can debate how intense that plan needed to be, who had decision making ability in that plan, and the effectiveness of it in the middle of the night and in a storm all you want. As we sit here today, we can say that plan in action failed tragically and obviously didn't work for the event. I am sure Dick Eastland would tell that to you if he could.

---

We can agree on all of that. My only issue was with the contention that there had never been a flood like that before. Regardless of your opinion on the location of the gauge, the flood of record prior to 7/4/25 at the nearest gauge to the camp was less than 1' below the 7/4/25 flood crest at that same gauge. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, that suggests that a flood like that HAD happened before in that area.

My honest opinion is that doing things like building infrastructure based on absolute worst case scenarios is absurdly expensive and usually not worth the cost. Trying to rebuild every ditch and bayou system in Houston to be able to handle Harvey level rainfall without flooding any homes is a fool's errand, not just because of the extreme rarity of such rainfall events, but also because it costs more to do than it would cost to just buy out all the houses that were flooded. But when planning for how to keep kids safe at a camp in the middle of nowhere, the known worst case should be the starting point, not some arbitrary number picked by insurance companies and federal regulations to define federal cost sharing for risk mitigation.

txags92 said:

---

It is no different from people during coaching searches saying "Wow! I just heard a name from my source that is really exciting. Trust me, you are going to love it!" Without knowing who the person is, what their source is, or what name they heard, are you going to be excited? Or are you going to be annoyed at them for playing the "I know more than you and I am not going to tell you, but you should trust me anyway" game?

---

Are you truly unable to discern the difference in motivation for a professional selling you something vs a member of your community trying to share sensitive information in the wake of a disaster?

Do you really think Dermdoc was trying to get you "excited" in that moment?

What you lack in empathy you make up for in pedantry. I recommend flipping those.

It's an interesting point, but what you are saying is that these camps should be built and held to a higher standard than the regular schools they attend during the school year.

My honest opinion is that doing things like building infrastructure based on absolute worst case scenarios is absurdly expensive and usually not worth the cost. Trying to rebuild every ditch and bayou system in Houston to be able to handle Harvey level rainfall without flooding any homes is a fool's errand, not just because of the extreme rarity of such rainfall events, but also because it costs more to do than it would cost to just buy out all the houses that were flooded. But when planning for how to keep kids safe at a camp in the middle of nowhere, the known worst case should be the starting point, not some arbitrary number picked by insurance companies and federal regulations to define federal cost sharing for risk mitigation.

That is the point. Yes, they were not ready or adequate preparation was not taken….the big BUT, no one predicted or could foresee the magnitude of this storms' 50' of water….even just a short time prior.

maggieaggiesquirrel said:

---

txags92 said:

---

It is no different from people during coaching searches saying "Wow! I just heard a name from my source that is really exciting. Trust me, you are going to love it!" Without knowing who the person is, what their source is, or what name they heard, are you going to be excited? Or are you going to be annoyed at them for playing the "I know more than you and I am not going to tell you, but you should trust me anyway" game?

---

Are you truly unable to discern the difference in motivation for a professional selling you something vs a member of your community trying to share sensitive information in the wake of a disaster?

Do you really think Dermdoc was trying to get you "excited" in that moment?

What you lack in empathy you make up for in pedantry. I recommend flipping those.

---

As somebody new to Texags, you probably don't understand the reference. I wasn't assuming he was trying to excite anyone, I was using an example he is certainly familiar with to explain why people were reacting to his posts the way we did. It wasn't because we didn't believe him or didn't have any empathy, it was because he was giving posts with extremely vague statements assuring us he knew more than we did and that we would be shocked when we found out. Those same kinds of "I know more than you and I am going to let you know that, but I am not going to share what I know" types of posts get ridiculed on other Texags boards when people make them about other topics.

If he were "sharing sensitive information", it would be one thing, but what he was doing was telling us he had sensitive information, but not sharing it. Others with the direct info came in like Clarke and Evangeline to clear up some of the misconceptions some of us had and what they shared did shock several of us. I understand Derm probably didn't feel like some of the info was his to share, but it was an odd position to get into heated back and forth with people over things he thought they were wrong about, but not willing to share what or how he knew that. I have the utmost respect for Derm even though I have never met him in person and only know him through others. Though we may disagree on parts of the topics here, none of that diminishes how I feel towards he, Clarke, or any of the other family members out there that lost loved ones.

FM 949 said:

---

It's an interesting point, but what you are saying is that these camps should be built and held to a higher standard than the regular schools they attend during the school year.

---

No. I think they should PLAN for a worst case. That is why I think having cabins in the flood plain is fine. As long as nobody is allowed to sleep in them when there is any risk of a flood occurring. We should build for a reasonable level of risk, but have a plan for how to deal with the worst case.

Schools have way more adults per child and have way more rules about what kinds of things they need to be ready for. All I want from these camps is for the plans they do develop to be based on a realistic worst case (like the flood of record), not an arbitrary event like the 100-yr flood. Building infrastructure like roads and watersheds to a standard like the 20- or 50-yr flood is a cost balancing exercise. Evacuation/emergency planning should be based on known potential worst case risks.

KerrAg76 said:

---

That is the point. Yes, they were not ready or adequate preparation was not taken….the big BUT, no one predicted or could foresee the magnitude of this storms' 50' of water….even just a short time prior.

---

As pointed out above, this storm's crest was less than 1' above the 1932 storm, so yes, they could foresee it if they wanted to. But I totally agree with you that nobody was expecting that kind of a storm from this particular flood event, and by the time the NWS started issuing warnings to that effect, it was too late for the folks at Camp Mystic and other nearby campsites.

I think given all of the recent episodes, even going back to the 1987 floods, they had come to expect certain things from flood events and their actions and (limited) plan were reasonable in light of those expectations. The lack of a plan beyond that and inability to communicate a change of plan was the real problem at Mystic. As was said above, if they had just had a way to tell the girls to get out of the cabins and up the hill, they could have all been saved.

It wouldn't have been too late with each counselor trained on an evac plan to higher ground and an actual means of communication. The one counselor who made a judgment call saved a cabin.

Everything being discussed on here is why the Eastlands are toast. There is no defense.

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child? Maybe I am different but I would have treaded a lot more lightly if I had not lost a loved one than the defenders of Mystic on this thread,

But y'all be y'all.

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child?

---

My dear friend, doubt people here are in any way dissing that loss of life for anyone. Certainly not for you, nor your family loss.

You know how many family losses I have gone through. I am dyingWrecked my life for two years. I will never get that time back. Time for living, laughter, other spaces in your life. You have those spaces to feel different and better.

I always hated when I lost my only sister, my first husband, my only brother in such a short time that God would not test me in that manner unless he knew I could handle it. So if I was weaker that wouldn't have happened? Is that the lesson here? Very cold comfort.

You still have good times ahead with your family, despite this. Don't waste those. Neither of us are spring chickens at this point.

Honor the passing of deeply loved passed ones. Honor them again by being the family that they loved.

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child? Maybe I am different but I would have treaded a lot more lightly if I had not lost a loved one than the defenders of Mystic on this thread,

But y'all be y'all.

---

I think it's time you take a break from this thread or the vino if that's what you are gleaning from all of this.

aggiehawg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child?

---

My dear friend, doubt people here are in any way dissing that loss of life for anyone. Certainly not for you, nor your family loss.

You know how many family losses I have gone through. I am dyingWrecked my life for two years. I will never get that time back. Time for living, laughter, other spaces in your life. You have those spaces to feel different and better.

I always hated when I lost my only sister, my first husband, my only brother in such a short time that God would not test me in that manner unless he knew I could handle it. So if I was weaker that wouldn't have happened? Is that the lesson here? Very cold comfort.

You still have good times ahead with your family, despite this. Don't waste those. Neither of us are spring chickens at this point.

Honor the passing of deeply loved passed ones. Honor them again by being the family that they loved.

---

I hear you and agree. It just seems like some are putting other things in front of the deaths of these poor girls. And in my opinion, are pretty calloused about it.

Maybe it is me. But my goodness, I would never post some of the things posted by the Mystic defenders,

71 jock said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child? Maybe I am different but I would have treaded a lot more lightly if I had not lost a loved one than the defenders of Mystic on this thread,

But y'all be y'all.

---

I think it's time you take a break from this thread or the vino if that's what you are gleaning from all of this.

---

No vino. Some of the posters on here are pretty insensitive in my opinion. Sorry.

dermdoc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child?

---

My dear friend, doubt people here are in any way dissing that loss of life for anyone. Certainly not for you, nor your family loss.

You know how many family losses I have gone through. I am dyingWrecked my life for two years. I will never get that time back. Time for living, laughter, other spaces in your life. You have those spaces to feel different and better.

I always hated when I lost my only sister, my first husband, my only brother in such a short time that God would not test me in that manner unless he knew I could handle it. So if I was weaker that wouldn't have happened? Is that the lesson here? Very cold comfort.

You still have good times ahead with your family, despite this. Don't waste those. Neither of us are spring chickens at this point.

Honor the passing of deeply loved passed ones. Honor them again by being the family that they loved.

---

I hear you and agree. It just seems like some are putting other things in front of the deaths of these poor girls. And in my opinion, are pretty calloused about it.

Maybe it is me. But my goodness, I would never post some of the things posted by the Mystic defenders,

---

I think what Derm is getting at - correct me if I'm wrong - is that some posters seem to be defending the camp blindly; no matter what examples, reason, issue, whatever, is brought up to support that errors were made, they excuse it away or attempt to justify it in some way.

Just my interpretation.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child?

---

My dear friend, doubt people here are in any way dissing that loss of life for anyone. Certainly not for you, nor your family loss.

You know how many family losses I have gone through. I am dyingWrecked my life for two years. I will never get that time back. Time for living, laughter, other spaces in your life. You have those spaces to feel different and better.

I always hated when I lost my only sister, my first husband, my only brother in such a short time that God would not test me in that manner unless he knew I could handle it. So if I was weaker that wouldn't have happened? Is that the lesson here? Very cold comfort.

You still have good times ahead with your family, despite this. Don't waste those. Neither of us are spring chickens at this point.

Honor the passing of deeply loved passed ones. Honor them again by being the family that they loved.

---

I hear you and agree. It just seems like some are putting other things in front of the deaths of these poor girls. And in my opinion, are pretty calloused about it.

Maybe it is me. But my goodness, I would never post some of the things posted by the Mystic defenders,

---

I think what Derm is getting at - correct me if I'm wrong - is that some posters seem to be defending the camp blindly; no matter what examples, reason, issue, whatever, is brought up to support that errors were made, they excuse it away or attempt to justify it in some way.

Just my interpretation.

---

You are correct. It is like the camp and the Eastlands are more important than the deaths of 8 y/o girls.

dermdoc said:

---

Just curious if anyone defending Mystic and the Eastlands lost a child? Maybe I am different but I would have treaded a lot more lightly if I had not lost a loved one than the defenders of Mystic on this thread,

But y'all be y'all.

---

And I am not the me who needs to take a break from this thread in my opinion. But the ones who should have eerily gone silent.

What exactly is the point of this thread then? Derm, no offense but you waded into a topic called First Lawsuit Filed: July 4 Floods. What exactly did you think would be discussed in this topic?

FM 949 said:

---

What exactly is the point of this thread then? Derm, no offense but you waded into a topic called First Lawsuit Filed: July 4 Floods. What exactly did you think would be discussed in this topic?

---

Facts? And I will be the first to tell you I do not think like an engineer.

I did not start the thread. Do you think you may be a little over defensive of Camp Mystic?