txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

Didn't we already do this a few pages back? My response then was how far do you take that plan. Is it for a 50 yr flood, a 100 yr flood, a 200 yr flood? A plan goes out the window when it is exceeded by Mother Nature. What happens if some unimaginable event sends water over the hill? What then? Is it still someone's fault then? Or at that point, is it so preposterous that it's an Act of God?

And since you added "And do you think Mystic did all they could to protect their campers?"

I think they did what they felt was reasonable before the event and met the normal standard of care in the industry. We can agree after the fact, that it wasn't enough for this event.

---

I think this is the big sticking point for many in this thread and all over the state. IMO it should be clear that they DIDNT DO WHAT WAS REASONABLE before the event. Being in charge of over 700 girls and housing them next to a river is already a dangerous situation whether the weather is bad, or not. Not having effective communication, counselor training, etc is a recipe for disaster. And I am not just talking about from floods.

---

And they had experienced bad floods before. Granted not this bad. But my goodness, if you are by a river and experienced flooding and know the area is prone to that, how can you be so unprepared? It is mind boggling to me.

---

It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation...too many times, people equate being "above the 100-yr floodplain" as the same thing as "safe from flooding". It is an erroneous assumption that has gotten thousands of people killed over the years all over the country. The fact that we decide the need for and cost of flood insurance based on that arbitrary number gives it a weight in people's personal risk decision-making that is un-deserved IMO. All of the plans and preparations along that stretch of the river should have been based on the 1932 flood elevation, not the 100-yr flood plain elevation. When people erroneously think they are safe, they neglect the things they would otherwise need (like communications) that would be necessary to overcome mistakes they made based on their erroneous assumptions.

---

This is 100% true and it's further complicated by the fact that the maps are just not any good to begin with. If I read your prior post currectly - the current map is using 9.5 inches in 24 hours to determine the 100-year and even the updates you expect to be coming in the next year or two only update that number to, 11 or 12 or whatever you said. It rained that much in a matter of hours that night. Why are we updated flood maps using such poor data? It's a major factor in all this.

dermdoc said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

They followed the FEMA regulations. You act like that was wrong. It's not, and it's done all across the state of Texas and the country.

---

They got FEMA to change the regulations. Look, I know a lot more about this than a lot of folks, I get it. But my goodness.

---

And my source was wrong on this apparently. I will own it and admit it.

FM 949 said:

---

We can start with you were wrong on the changing of regulations versus a legal process.

Look, I get it. You want your pound of flesh. I can't imagine going through what you and your family are going through, but this is a discussion forum and you can't expect others to sit idly by when you post things as "facts" when it's wrong or not proven.

---

And you were correct on the FEMA thing. My source was wrong.

I also want to add that I applaud FM 949 for keeping a cool head even though we disagree on whose actions or lack of actions led to this tragedy. And he never resorted to personal attacks.

Thanks, derm. This is a very tough topic to have a debate on.

sellthefarm said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

Didn't we already do this a few pages back? My response then was how far do you take that plan. Is it for a 50 yr flood, a 100 yr flood, a 200 yr flood? A plan goes out the window when it is exceeded by Mother Nature. What happens if some unimaginable event sends water over the hill? What then? Is it still someone's fault then? Or at that point, is it so preposterous that it's an Act of God?

And since you added "And do you think Mystic did all they could to protect their campers?"

I think they did what they felt was reasonable before the event and met the normal standard of care in the industry. We can agree after the fact, that it wasn't enough for this event.

---

I think this is the big sticking point for many in this thread and all over the state. IMO it should be clear that they DIDNT DO WHAT WAS REASONABLE before the event. Being in charge of over 700 girls and housing them next to a river is already a dangerous situation whether the weather is bad, or not. Not having effective communication, counselor training, etc is a recipe for disaster. And I am not just talking about from floods.

---

And they had experienced bad floods before. Granted not this bad. But my goodness, if you are by a river and experienced flooding and know the area is prone to that, how can you be so unprepared? It is mind boggling to me.

---

It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation...too many times, people equate being "above the 100-yr floodplain" as the same thing as "safe from flooding". It is an erroneous assumption that has gotten thousands of people killed over the years all over the country. The fact that we decide the need for and cost of flood insurance based on that arbitrary number gives it a weight in people's personal risk decision-making that is un-deserved IMO. All of the plans and preparations along that stretch of the river should have been based on the 1932 flood elevation, not the 100-yr flood plain elevation. When people erroneously think they are safe, they neglect the things they would otherwise need (like communications) that would be necessary to overcome mistakes they made based on their erroneous assumptions.

---

This is 100% true and it's further complicated by the fact that the maps are just not any good to begin with. If I read your prior post currectly - the current map is using 9.5 inches in 24 hours to determine the 100-year and even the updates you expect to be coming in the next year or two only update that number to, 11 or 12 or whatever you said. It rained that much in a matter of hours that night. Why are we updated flood maps using such poor data? It's a major factor in all this.

---

The prior post in the chain about the updated evaluations was not mine, but I can answer some of the questions. In climatology, typically the last 30 years is used as the period of record and the 1% probability of max rainfall is calculated based off of the rainfall events that occurred during that 30 year period. Periodically, NOAA will update the climatology by dropping the oldest years and adding the newest years to the block of data. When that happens, new maps after that date will incorporate the new data if the modeling has not already been completed.

However, the problem with a lot of the modeling is that it usually is focused on the 24-hour 1% probability storm, when in a lot of cases, a large chunk of the 24-hr rainfall for a given probability will fall within a much shorter timeframe. For instance, at the Hunt gauge nearest to Mystic, the 24 hour 1% probability storm is 11.6 inches in the current NOAA Atlas, but the 6 hour 1% probability storm is 8.31 inches. If you model runoff from 11.6 inches spread over 24 hours (0.483 inches per hour), you are going to get significantly different flood elevations than if you model 8.31 inches over 6 hours (1.385 inches per hour).

I think there is an effort underway (or it may already have occurred) to widen the modeling to look at a wider range of rainfall duration/frequency data on the 1% probability to use the one that creates the highest flood elevation, not just blindly using the 24-hr data. But keep in mind that there are thousands of watersheds to be modeled and a relatively small team of people reviewing the work of the contractors. The process to go from model completion to new map adoption is long, partially because it is government, but also because there is a lot riding on these flood maps, economically and otherwise, so they are often challenged by stakeholders during the review process and can get tied up in courts along the way. And after adoption, there are still revisions ongoing constantly for situations like Mystic had, where areas were shown within a given flood elevation, but on the ground survey info indicated otherwise.

It is a messy and imperfect process, and while it is at least somewhat useful for actuarial use by insurance companies and such, it really is not very useful for assessing true level of risk to prepare for emergency planning, specifically because of events like this flood that far surpassed the 1% probability rainfall amounts.

"Youth Camps" are licensed in TX by the TX Dept of State Health Services per the Texas Youth Camp Safety and Health Act.

Much of the law concerns child sex abuse and personnel background checks.

However

Quote:

---

Sec. 141.009. STANDARDS. The executive commissioner by rule shall establish health and safety standards for youth camps. The standards may relate to:

(1) adequate and proper supervision at all times of camp activities;

(2) qualifications for directors, supervisors, and staff and sufficient numbers of those persons;

(3) proper safeguards for sanitation and public health;

(4) adequate medical services for personal health and first aid;

(5) proper procedures for food preparation, handling, and mass feeding;

(6) healthful and sufficient water supply;

(7) proper waste disposal;

(8) proper water safety procedures for swimming pools, lakes, and waterways;

(9) safe boating equipment;

(10) proper maintenance and safe use of motor vehicles;

(11) safe buildings and physical facilities;

(12) proper fire precautions;

(13) safe and proper recreational and other equipment;

(14) proper regard for density and use of the premises; and

(15) records of criminal convictions of camp personnel.

---

Key words to me here "shall" and "may relate to"

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.141.htm

Further examination under
TITLE 25 HEALTH SERVICES
PART 1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES
CHAPTER 265 GENERAL SANITATION
SUBCHAPTER B TEXAS YOUTH CAMPS SAFETY AND HEALTH

Quote:

---

(k) Emergency plans required. A written plan of procedures to be implemented in case of a
disaster, serious accident, epidemic, or fatality shall be formulated and posted in the camp's
administrative on-site office or location and in each permanent and semi-permanent occupied
building. The plan shall include procedures for emergency shelter and for evacuation of each
occupied building and the facility. Campers shall be instructed as to their actions in the event
of fire, disaster, or the need to evacuate. These procedures shall be reviewed by the staff with
specific assignments made to each staff member and counselor. All camp staff and volunteers
shall be made aware of this plan during the staff-training program or volunteer briefing.
Documentation of this training shall be kept at the camp's administrative on-site office or
location.

---

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/youthcamp/pdf/TAC_25-1-265%20JM%2010242024.pdf

This page has links to all "Laws and Rules - Youth Camp Program"

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/youth-camp-program/laws-rules-youth-camp-program

Seems violating the regulations are only punishable by a fine.

Was the emergency plan posted in each cabin?

FM 949 said:

---

Thanks, derm. This is a very tough topic to have a debate on.

---

I think the Mystic people need to realize that the families of the departed are not the reason Mystic will close if it does. And that they have nothing against the concept of the Camp itself. And a lot of them are 2-3 generation Mystic camper families.

And the families need to realize the Mystic people do not want to diminish their deaths and want the camp and its concept to go on.

To me, the only way this can happen is if the Mystic people recognize that the Eastlands screwed up. Great people but they screwed up. I screw up daily. But in my opinion, the Mystic defenders need to admit the Eastlands screwed up for any of this to happen. There is a hunger for justice which has not been satisfied.

And the insider and outsider crap goes away. Lose your ego and move forward.

laavispa said:

---

Quote:

---

At most, somewhere between 1hr 40mins to 2hr 20mins to safely evacuate Twins/Bubble if the evacuation begins immediately at the 1:14am NWS flash flood warning. Or a little over an hour if the evacuation begins after the river rises a few feet.

---

I was about to ask that question. Using the FEMA model the optimum time to take action on site would be about 0230. NOAA freely admits they have a tendance to over report- the 2019 implementation may help see NOAA

Unfortunately, hard data only exists downstream at the Hunt site. Seems to me that additional flood gauges upstream might have helped. But to do that in unincorporated areas would require a robust early warning system at the county level and willingness by the stakeholders to spend the time and money to install.

Thanks for the work and effort you put into this topic.

---

One thing to consider is that remote monitoring in rural locations is about to undergo a big change in the coming years. Between improved solar capabilities and starlink availability, it will no longer be as insurmountable or costly to stick a gauge out in the middle of nowhere and still get real time repoerting.

Awesome work. I would have paid to read that.

AgFan1974 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agracer said:

---

Thanks for posting this. Great information and kills the "they had no plan" narrative that seems to have taken hold and that Mystic did not do any due diligence on their cabins and possible flooding. They obviously did.

The problem, as I noted earlier, is there plan did not have any back up if things went wrong and a poor communication system (the PA system).

---

Seriously what is the plan? Other than stay in the cabins (which cost lives) and evacuating the lower cabins? There was no communication except word of mouth, the counselors were told nothing in the event of a flood except to stay put. So do y'all seriously consider that an actual plan of any sort? Did you read what Evangeline posted? Every camp I went to the counselors were privy to plans like what to do in case of a fire, etc.

And to go along with the data presented above, this is interesting. This is a time line of the flood. Every dot is 15 minutes. To me, it seems there was plenty of time to get everybody safe unless there was complete lack of communication and coordination.

---

And that timeline is incomplete because the flood went another 8 feet higher to about 1' above the record flood (1932). The reality is that the NWS warning around 4am was not put out in time to help guide a change in response at Mystic, given that Mystic is 6 miles upstream from this gauge. But I am horrified when I think about 16 year old counselors with the burden of providing safety for a bunch of pre-teen girls on their shoulders trying to decide whether to follow their last instructions from Dick "Stay in the cabin" or to leave and try to get to higher ground as the waters continued to rise. It is absolutely unconscionable to have left them in that situation with no means to communicate their situation and ask for further guidance.

Regardless of what little plan they had said, nobody at that age should ever be put in the position of having to make that kind of life or death decision unsupported.

---

Assuming your information is accurate, I am horrified that 16 yo counselors are responsible for pre-teen campers in the absence of a flood. That is an easy fix.

---

Counselors at Mystic, unless things have changed since I've been there, have always been college students. A 16 year old would still be a camper. The girls that just graduated are Aids, and while they have some responsibilities and duties, are still considered campers (as explained to the college-aged male staff - you can take counselors on dates during your off-hours; aids are strictly off-limits as their parents are paying for them to be there. But the counselors have all completed at least their freshman year of college.

Not making any sort of argument for or against any side, just clarifying how the camp operates. Or at least how it operated during my time there.

Slicer97 said:

---

AgFan1974 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agracer said:

---

Thanks for posting this. Great information and kills the "they had no plan" narrative that seems to have taken hold and that Mystic did not do any due diligence on their cabins and possible flooding. They obviously did.

The problem, as I noted earlier, is there plan did not have any back up if things went wrong and a poor communication system (the PA system).

---

Seriously what is the plan? Other than stay in the cabins (which cost lives) and evacuating the lower cabins? There was no communication except word of mouth, the counselors were told nothing in the event of a flood except to stay put. So do y'all seriously consider that an actual plan of any sort? Did you read what Evangeline posted? Every camp I went to the counselors were privy to plans like what to do in case of a fire, etc.

And to go along with the data presented above, this is interesting. This is a time line of the flood. Every dot is 15 minutes. To me, it seems there was plenty of time to get everybody safe unless there was complete lack of communication and coordination.

---

And that timeline is incomplete because the flood went another 8 feet higher to about 1' above the record flood (1932). The reality is that the NWS warning around 4am was not put out in time to help guide a change in response at Mystic, given that Mystic is 6 miles upstream from this gauge. But I am horrified when I think about 16 year old counselors with the burden of providing safety for a bunch of pre-teen girls on their shoulders trying to decide whether to follow their last instructions from Dick "Stay in the cabin" or to leave and try to get to higher ground as the waters continued to rise. It is absolutely unconscionable to have left them in that situation with no means to communicate their situation and ask for further guidance.

Regardless of what little plan they had said, nobody at that age should ever be put in the position of having to make that kind of life or death decision unsupported.

---

Assuming your information is accurate, I am horrified that 16 yo counselors are responsible for pre-teen campers in the absence of a flood. That is an easy fix.

---

Counselors at Mystic, unless things have changed since I've been there, have always been college students. A 16 year old would still be a camper. The girls that just graduated are Aids, and while they have some responsibilities and duties, are still considered campers (as explained to the college-aged male staff - you can take counselors on dates during your off-hours; aids are strictly off-limits as their parents are paying for them to be there. But the counselors have all completed at least their freshman year of college.

Not making any sort of argument for or against any side, just clarifying how the camp operates. Or at least how it operated during my time there.

---

Thanks to you and Evangeline for the clarification. I must have misread the ages somewhere else. Not sure it really changes my feelings that much, but glad for the accuracy.

Slicer97 said:

---

AgFan1974 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

agracer said:

---

Thanks for posting this. Great information and kills the "they had no plan" narrative that seems to have taken hold and that Mystic did not do any due diligence on their cabins and possible flooding. They obviously did.

The problem, as I noted earlier, is there plan did not have any back up if things went wrong and a poor communication system (the PA system).

---

Seriously what is the plan? Other than stay in the cabins (which cost lives) and evacuating the lower cabins? There was no communication except word of mouth, the counselors were told nothing in the event of a flood except to stay put. So do y'all seriously consider that an actual plan of any sort? Did you read what Evangeline posted? Every camp I went to the counselors were privy to plans like what to do in case of a fire, etc.

And to go along with the data presented above, this is interesting. This is a time line of the flood. Every dot is 15 minutes. To me, it seems there was plenty of time to get everybody safe unless there was complete lack of communication and coordination.

https://f5s-img.s3.amazonaws.com/000/42/b0/42b0f0b2de8067c343f070ab76650c6406c93ef8_19716_u34090.jpg

---

And that timeline is incomplete because the flood went another 8 feet higher to about 1' above the record flood (1932). The reality is that the NWS warning around 4am was not put out in time to help guide a change in response at Mystic, given that Mystic is 6 miles upstream from this gauge. But I am horrified when I think about 16 year old counselors with the burden of providing safety for a bunch of pre-teen girls on their shoulders trying to decide whether to follow their last instructions from Dick "Stay in the cabin" or to leave and try to get to higher ground as the waters continued to rise. It is absolutely unconscionable to have left them in that situation with no means to communicate their situation and ask for further guidance.

Regardless of what little plan they had said, nobody at that age should ever be put in the position of having to make that kind of life or death decision unsupported.

---

Assuming your information is accurate, I am horrified that 16 yo counselors are responsible for pre-teen campers in the absence of a flood. That is an easy fix.

---

Counselors at Mystic, unless things have changed since I've been there, have always been college students. A 16 year old would still be a camper. The girls that just graduated are Aids, and while they have some responsibilities and duties, are still considered campers (as explained to the college-aged male staff - you can take counselors on dates during your off-hours; aids are strictly off-limits as their parents are paying for them to be there. But the counselors have all completed at least their freshman year of college.

Not making any sort of argument for or against any side, just clarifying how the camp operates. Or at least how it operated during my time there.

---

Little clarification that aides are the oldest campers, going into their senior year of high school. But Chloe and Katherine were counselor-ettes (counselors in training) only previous campers can hold this role. These girls have graduated high school.

Ettes are not usually alone in cabins; usually they are paired up with older counselors who have completed some years of college. I don't know if a third counselor dropped out at the last minute, was let go, or they were unable to recruit enough older counselors for the term.

Thanks for the info Evangeline. Sounds like the counselors were woefully unprepared for any kind of emergency situation. And I am sure you feel grief just like us. We are praying for you and all the counselors and the surviving campers.
Unfortunately, y'all were let down by the Mystic leadership just like the campers were. And I am going to keep this thread alive as I believe more and more facts are going to come out.
My 4 and 6 y/o grandkids are up this weekend for the Aggie game and all I want to do is love on them and hug them.Still hard to believe Mary Grace will not be here. She loved Aggie games.



And I am sober. Do not need to "put the vino down" or "take a break" if that is all I "could glean" as suggested by a poster.

That's right. I had forgotten all about the -ettes.

txags92 said:

---

laavispa said:

---

Quote:

---

At most, somewhere between 1hr 40mins to 2hr 20mins to safely evacuate Twins/Bubble if the evacuation begins immediately at the 1:14am NWS flash flood warning. Or a little over an hour if the evacuation begins after the river rises a few feet.

---

I was about to ask that question. Using the FEMA model the optimum time to take action on site would be about 0230. NOAA freely admits they have a tendance to over report- the 2019 implementation may help see NOAA

Unfortunately, hard data only exists downstream at the Hunt site. Seems to me that additional flood gauges upstream might have helped. But to do that in unincorporated areas would require a robust early warning system at the county level and willingness by the stakeholders to spend the time and money to install.

Thanks for the work and effort you put into this topic.

---

One thing to consider is that remote monitoring in rural locations is about to undergo a big change in the coming years. Between improved solar capabilities and starlink availability, it will no longer be as insurmountable or costly to stick a gauge out in the middle of nowhere and still get real time repoerting.

---

We live in the sticks west of CS and Starlink is a game changer.

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.

---

And I am going to re read this thread before Aggie games to get me in a ticked off mood to BTHO everybody for MG!

He did get 12 blue stars though. Bless his heart.

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

txags92 said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

---

You think? What responsible adults made those decisions?

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

---

You think? What responsible adults made those decisions?

---

The parents of the children made the first decision.

To do what?

Ignore this guy. Nothing he spouts out here is worth anything regardless of topic

Rattler12 said:

---

The parents of the children made the first decision.

---

Congrats on winning dumbest post of the day. I mean, I guess...

Rattler12 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

---

You think? What responsible adults made those decisions?

---

The parents of the children made the first decision.

---

You truly have zero heart

txags92 said:

---

sellthefarm said:

---

txags92 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

FM 949 said:

---

Didn't we already do this a few pages back? My response then was how far do you take that plan. Is it for a 50 yr flood, a 100 yr flood, a 200 yr flood? A plan goes out the window when it is exceeded by Mother Nature. What happens if some unimaginable event sends water over the hill? What then? Is it still someone's fault then? Or at that point, is it so preposterous that it's an Act of God?

And since you added "And do you think Mystic did all they could to protect their campers?"

I think they did what they felt was reasonable before the event and met the normal standard of care in the industry. We can agree after the fact, that it wasn't enough for this event.

---

I think this is the big sticking point for many in this thread and all over the state. IMO it should be clear that they DIDNT DO WHAT WAS REASONABLE before the event. Being in charge of over 700 girls and housing them next to a river is already a dangerous situation whether the weather is bad, or not. Not having effective communication, counselor training, etc is a recipe for disaster. And I am not just talking about from floods.

---

And they had experienced bad floods before. Granted not this bad. But my goodness, if you are by a river and experienced flooding and know the area is prone to that, how can you be so unprepared? It is mind boggling to me.

---

It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation...too many times, people equate being "above the 100-yr floodplain" as the same thing as "safe from flooding". It is an erroneous assumption that has gotten thousands of people killed over the years all over the country. The fact that we decide the need for and cost of flood insurance based on that arbitrary number gives it a weight in people's personal risk decision-making that is un-deserved IMO. All of the plans and preparations along that stretch of the river should have been based on the 1932 flood elevation, not the 100-yr flood plain elevation. When people erroneously think they are safe, they neglect the things they would otherwise need (like communications) that would be necessary to overcome mistakes they made based on their erroneous assumptions.

---

This is 100% true and it's further complicated by the fact that the maps are just not any good to begin with. If I read your prior post currectly - the current map is using 9.5 inches in 24 hours to determine the 100-year and even the updates you expect to be coming in the next year or two only update that number to, 11 or 12 or whatever you said. It rained that much in a matter of hours that night. Why are we updated flood maps using such poor data? It's a major factor in all this.

---

The prior post in the chain about the updated evaluations was not mine, but I can answer some of the questions. In climatology, typically the last 30 years is used as the period of record and the 1% probability of max rainfall is calculated based off of the rainfall events that occurred during that 30 year period. Periodically, NOAA will update the climatology by dropping the oldest years and adding the newest years to the block of data. When that happens, new maps after that date will incorporate the new data if the modeling has not already been completed.

However, the problem with a lot of the modeling is that it usually is focused on the 24-hour 1% probability storm, when in a lot of cases, a large chunk of the 24-hr rainfall for a given probability will fall within a much shorter timeframe. For instance, at the Hunt gauge nearest to Mystic, the 24 hour 1% probability storm is 11.6 inches in the current NOAA Atlas, but the 6 hour 1% probability storm is 8.31 inches. If you model runoff from 11.6 inches spread over 24 hours (0.483 inches per hour), you are going to get significantly different flood elevations than if you model 8.31 inches over 6 hours (1.385 inches per hour).

I think there is an effort underway (or it may already have occurred) to widen the modeling to look at a wider range of rainfall duration/frequency data on the 1% probability to use the one that creates the highest flood elevation, not just blindly using the 24-hr data. But keep in mind that there are thousands of watersheds to be modeled and a relatively small team of people reviewing the work of the contractors. The process to go from model completion to new map adoption is long, partially because it is government, but also because there is a lot riding on these flood maps, economically and otherwise, so they are often challenged by stakeholders during the review process and can get tied up in courts along the way. And after adoption, there are still revisions ongoing constantly for situations like Mystic had, where areas were shown within a given flood elevation, but on the ground survey info indicated otherwise.

It is a messy and imperfect process, and while it is at least somewhat useful for actuarial use by insurance companies and such, it really is not very useful for assessing true level of risk to prepare for emergency planning, specifically because of events like this flood that far surpassed the 1% probability rainfall amounts.

---

Just fyi, the 24 hour rainfall total is not assumed to fall at an average rate over the 24 hours. In Kerr county, it has a type 2 distribution assumption. Which still has most of the rain falling over a short period of time. Here is a sample of that type of storm.

Rattler12 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

---

You think? What responsible adults made those decisions?

---

The parents of the children made the first decision.

---

In the highly unlikely event, these cases go to trial, the plaintiff lawyers would love nothing more than for some mystic attorney to make this kind of assertion.

You'd have record setting jury awards

dermdoc said:

---

To do what?

---

To not place their children in a potentially dangerous situation in the first place. They made the decision to place their children's safety in the hands of others by putting them in a camp that was based at the confluence of two creeks merging into a river. Rivers flood. Rivers in hilly country have a higher percentage of run off in a shorter period of time. The danger is inherent in such a situation no matter how frequently or infrequently it happens. Always has been, is and always will be. My post wasn't meant to offend but the truth can be brutal and offensive to some. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of children lies with the parents to not shift that responsibility to others in potentially dangerous environments. I'm not cold. I'm not cruel. I'm just being realistic.

Now do "driving on the freeway"

They made the decision to place their children's safety in the hands of others by putting them on roads where drunks and unlicensed illegals in 18 wheelers travel at speeds over 70 mph. Wrecks happen. The danger is inherent in such a situation no matter how frequently or infrequently it happens. Always has been, is and always will be.


Your post wasn't cruel. It was short sighted and frankly dumb.

Rattler, I prayed this morning for the Lord to soften your heart. Have a great day!

BMX Bandit said:

---

Now do "driving on the freeway"

They made the decision to place their children's safety in the hands of others by putting them on roads where drunks and unlicensed illegals in 18 wheelers travel at speeds over 70 mph. Wrecks happen. The danger is inherent in such a situation no matter how frequently or infrequently it happens. Always has been, is and always will be.


Your post wasn't cruel. It was short sighted and frankly dumb.

---

Being on highways and in traffic is a necessity in today's world. Camping in an area in close proximity to a possible flood situation is not.

Quote:

---

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.

---

A few data points from the 1932 flood:

The 1932 flood was from a 2-day rainfall event totaling 15-30 inches.

A newspaper from 1932 indicated the flood was a foot deep in the Mess Hall. If that report is correct, that would put the high water mark at about 1842.5' at Mystic (based on the floor elevation survey from the LOMA records). That is about 9 feet lower than the 2025 high water mark which suggests that the 1932 flood was not as severe along the South Fork as it was in Hunt. This aligns with testimony from the Camp La Junta owner who said this flood surpassed their previous high water mark by a large amount.

There isn't a linear relationship with flood height and overall magnitude of a flood. The USGS rating curve shows the 2025 flood way beyond the 1932 flood even though there was less than 1 foot of height difference.

The Mystic cabin floor elevations do appear to have been constructed using the 1932 high water mark as a baseline. Twins is about 2 feet higher and Bubble is about 3 feet higher.

pirmag said:

---

My daughter was planning to go to the hill country that weekend. They looked at the weather forecast and changed their plans.

---

This man's daughter understood the possibilities and made a decision accordingly.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Now do "driving on the freeway"

They made the decision to place their children's safety in the hands of others by putting them on roads where drunks and unlicensed illegals in 18 wheelers travel at speeds over 70 mph. Wrecks happen. The danger is inherent in such a situation no matter how frequently or infrequently it happens. Always has been, is and always will be.


Your post wasn't cruel. It was short sighted and frankly dumb.

---

Nailed it. There are numerous other similar situations.

Rattler12 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/kerr-county-camps-legislation-21022307.php

---

Having structures in the floodplain is not the problem; letting kids sleep in them when flooding is likely is the problem.

---

You think? What responsible adults made those decisions?

---

The parents of the children made the first decision.

---

Just curious, what is the purpose of your post? And you got a blue star so congrats I guess.

This thread is very revealing as to how tone deaf people are to stuff like this as to how their posts affect the grieving.

And I get it, some of y'all don't care. Even though you know parents of the girls read this thread. I don't get what you accomplish with posts like this.