There was a pregame moment of silence.

I have 4 tickets in section 117 to the game this weekend. I'd love to give them to someone impacted by this flood. I know a lot of people on here know families that are grieving. If you know of anyone that would be interested, or have been impacted yourself, please let me know.

I'd love for them to go to a family that could really use them, but if I can't find someone, then I'd love for them to go to a first responder or volunteer that has helped with the recovery.

Good bull, man!

I've got 4 in 340 as well if anyone could use them.

In spite of what some politicians might say, I've still got all of the families on my daily prayer list. It works.

Pink ribbons and prayers continue.

You are not forgotten.

Still praying.

Pink ribbons and prayers!

Mark Fairchild said:

---

Pink ribbons and prayers!

---

Continuing to pray for Cile every day.

I was thinking about this this morning while walking. What would keep the camps along there to have EPIRBs for every kid that would be in a cabin. If there are 18 kids in a cabin sleeping, then there needs to be 18 life jackets (at a minimum) with EPIRBs so in a catastrophic situation such as what happened this last summer, every kid puts on a life jacket and they have the EPIRB which would make locating them much easier and hopefully, much faster.

I would think this would potentially save lives and at a minimum help give closure to families in the event another tragic event happens.

Pretty sure the thinking before this flood was that water would never get up that high that quickly, so they'd never need life jackets. Obviously they were wrong, but before the flood I believe that was the thinking. I'm sure moving forward there will be many changes.

agswin1988 said:

---

I was thinking about this this morning while walking. What would keep the camps along there to have EPIRBs for every kid that would be in a cabin. If there are 18 kids in a cabin sleeping, then there needs to be 18 life jackets (at a minimum) with EPIRBs so in a catastrophic situation such as what happened this last summer, every kid puts on a life jacket and they have the EPIRB which would make locating them much easier and hopefully, much faster.

I would think this would potentially save lives and at a minimum help give closure to families in the event another tragic event happens.

---

I posted this earlier in the thread. I am in agreement with that. Especially if they plan on rebuilding cabins in the flood plain. La Junta is building their own flood alert system and will have their own redundant emergency communication system. I am working on the rebuild committee. We have been busting our asses to plan the rebuild camp safer and better. All cabins that touched water are being moved.

SB-1 states no cabins/sleeping quarters will be allowed in the floodplain and all camps will be required to have a redundant emergency communication service

raidernarizona said:

---

SB-1 states no cabins/sleeping quarters will be allowed in the floodplain and all camps will be required to have a redundant emergency communication service

---

Does that include campsites for tents or trailers or just permanent structures?

Quote:

---

Passed unanimously by the Texas Legislature in a special session, the Heaven's 27 Camp Safety Act (SB1) amends the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 141 and creates Chapter 762, establishing emergency preparedness standards for youth camps and campgrounds alike.

The bill requires youth camps and campgrounds to maintain real-time weather alert systems, train staff on evacuation routes, and develop emergency preparedness plans. Effective immediately, the law includes non-negotiable mandates for camp owners and directors

---

Appears if you're licensed by the Texas DSHS you'll be required to meet these mandates.

Putting epirbs and life jackets in the cabins is a signal you failed if you ask me. It means that the other measures you put in place to keep kids from sleeping in the floodplain when flooding may occur are inadequate to keep them from being swept away and you are counting on kids floating away again. There are way too many ways to get ahead of that scenario to want to resort to planning for it to happen again. People may have planned inadequately previously due to not believing a flood like this was possible. Now we know and we should plan to keep kids out of the water in a flood instead of how to find them once they are in it.

Most of the cabins at least at lajunta were not in the flood plain but still touched water. The law pushes everything out of the 100 year. Hydrologist we talked to said it was a more than a 20,000 year flood. (His words not mine.) The trees would stack up and build dams. Those then broke and would create a 40ft wall of water. This happened several times. I saw debris nearly 70 ft higher than the river. What happened defies the norm and was a biblical scale event.

La Junta is totally different than most camps that were destroyed. The cabins back up to a mountain. So they can and will build up.

txags92 said:

---

Putting epirbs and life jackets in the cabins is a signal you failed if you ask me. It means that the other measures you put in place to keep kids from sleeping in the floodplain when flooding may occur are inadequate to keep them from being swept away and you are counting on kids floating away again. There are way too many ways to get ahead of that scenario to want to resort to planning for it to happen again. People may have planned inadequately previously due to not believing a flood like this was possible. Now we know and we should plan to keep kids out of the water in a flood instead of how to find them once they are in it.

---

I did not say it was the first and only means of protection by any definition. But you dont go out on a boat and not have life jackets on the boat either in case there is an unexpected problem. And no offense, but I bet that one girl that is still missing, her parents would love to have had an EPIRB to at least be able to put her to rest and bring closure to this horrific event.

agswin1988 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Putting epirbs and life jackets in the cabins is a signal you failed if you ask me. It means that the other measures you put in place to keep kids from sleeping in the floodplain when flooding may occur are inadequate to keep them from being swept away and you are counting on kids floating away again. There are way too many ways to get ahead of that scenario to want to resort to planning for it to happen again. People may have planned inadequately previously due to not believing a flood like this was possible. Now we know and we should plan to keep kids out of the water in a flood instead of how to find them once they are in it.

---

I did not say it was the first and only means of protection by any definition. But you dont go out on a boat and not have life jackets on the boat either in case there is an unexpected problem. And no offense, but I bet that one girl that is still missing, her parents would love to have had an EPIRB to at least be able to put her to rest and bring closure to this horrific event.

---

On a boat there is no other choice but to be prepared for the boat sinking. In this case, the way to keep campers out of the water is to not put them in cabins that can be flooded when flooding is possible. It is like putting life jackets under all the seats of a car in case it is swept away, it would help, but the much easier and more successful strategy would be to not drive the car into high water. It is a case of avoiding the hazard occurring in the first place instead of preparing for how to mitigate it when it does.

No offense taken, but I bet Cile's family would much rather she had not been sleeping in a cabin when it flooded, instead of being issued a life jacket and epirb in case it did.

I see no reason why both can't be done. What if the next flood is a 40,000 year event. Whether you believe in climate change or not it does seem these 100/200 year floods and severe weather events are happening a lot more often now-a-days.

Badace52 said:

---

I see no reason why both can't be done. What if the next flood is a 40,000 year event. Whether you believe in climate change or not it does seem these 100/200 year floods and severe weather events are happening a lot more often now-a-days.

---

When the watch/warning for that flood comes in, you get everybody up out of the river bottom and they all sleep somewhere else that night. I mean you can spend the money if you want to do the extra gear, I just think planning to need them means you have missed a lot of other very easy ways to make sure they are never needed.

txags92 said:

---

Putting epirbs and life jackets in the cabins is a signal you failed if you ask me. It means that the other measures you put in place to keep kids from sleeping in the floodplain when flooding may occur are inadequate to keep them from being swept away and you are counting on kids floating away again. There are way too many ways to get ahead of that scenario to want to resort to planning for it to happen again. People may have planned inadequately previously due to not believing a flood like this was possible. Now we know and we should plan to keep kids out of the water in a flood instead of how to find them once they are in it.

---

My concern is that the bill/law just continues the trend of not planning for an event of this magnitude. They define the floodplain based on the FEMA 100 year floodplain. Moving your cabins outside the 100 year floodplain does not make them safe from a 500 year flood event. Best I can tell, at least a few of the Mystic flooded cabins were outside the 100 year designation.

My other concern is overreacting and assuming every storm or flood event is a 500 year flood event. Lot of criticism of Camp Mystics "shelter in place" plan, which likely would had been fine for a 100 year event. The problem was, once it was clear this was something different, it was too late. Instead, do we evacuate kids from cabins in the middle of the night in the pouring rain to huddle up on higher ground every time there is the potential for a flood event. While it would prevent the events of this year, there is a good chance it would result in a lot of sick kids from being cold/wet/sleep deprived.

Badace52 said:

---

I see no reason why both can't be done. What if the next flood is a 40,000 year event. Whether you believe in climate change or not it does seem these 100/200 year floods and severe weather events are happening a lot more often now-a-days.

---

Ultimately, that is a problem of labeling. 100 year flood is technically a 1% probability of it happening in any given year. It is likely to have multiple events in 100 years. The nomenclature of 100 year flood misleads the public into assuming these events should only happen once in a hundred years. Similarly a 500 year event is a 0.2% probability event.

Interestingly, if you look at the FEMA maps, the area between the 1% probability line and the 0.2% probability line is labeled as "<1 ft of water during a 1% event and within the 0.2% event". That means even in compliance with the new law of not putting cabins in the 100 year floodplain, there is still a chance the cabins would be surrounded by several inches of water. I'm sure the media/public will use that as evidence to claim a camp wasn't compliant.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Putting epirbs and life jackets in the cabins is a signal you failed if you ask me. It means that the other measures you put in place to keep kids from sleeping in the floodplain when flooding may occur are inadequate to keep them from being swept away and you are counting on kids floating away again. There are way too many ways to get ahead of that scenario to want to resort to planning for it to happen again. People may have planned inadequately previously due to not believing a flood like this was possible. Now we know and we should plan to keep kids out of the water in a flood instead of how to find them once they are in it.

---

My concern is that the bill/law just continues the trend of not planning for an event of this magnitude. They define the floodplain based on the FEMA 100 year floodplain. Moving your cabins outside the 100 year floodplain does not make them safe from a 500 year flood event. Best I can tell, at least a few of the Mystic flooded cabins were outside the 100 year designation.

My other concern is overreacting and assuming every storm or flood event is a 500 year flood event. Lot of criticism of Camp Mystics "shelter in place" plan, which likely would had been fine for a 100 year event. The problem was, once it was clear this was something different, it was too late. Instead, do we evacuate kids from cabins in the middle of the night in the pouring rain to huddle up on higher ground every time there is the potential for a flood event. While it would prevent the events of this year, there is a good chance it would result in a lot of sick kids from being cold/wet/sleep deprived.

---

I would hope that the parents sending kids to camps like this in the future would demand significantly more than that the camp meet the "minimum" standards required by the state. And I suspect that insurance providers will demand significantly more than the minimum, to include plans that would keep kids safe even if the flood goes significantly beyond the 100 or 500 year floods. Any camp planning for a 100 year flood as their design event would be severely deficient in their planning IMO.

Prayers and pink ribbons continue for healing of all the families impacted by the Fourth of July Flood. May the Lord cover them with His Peace.

Mark Fairchild said:

---

Prayers and pink ribbons continue for healing of all the families impacted by the Fourth of July Flood. May the Lord cover them with His Peace.

---

Amen

The way I see it, EPIRBs and life jackets wouldn't likely have saved many-if-any lives in this flood, BUT it's likely that if they'd had them in the cabins, everyone would've survived. (I know these statements may seem a bit inconsistent, but bear with me...)

-The reason why I don't think they would've been useful for directly saving lives is that not only was there a lot of dangerous debris in the flood, but there's apparently a low-head dam just downstream from Camp Mystic that could've sunk the life jackets (unless the water was too high over the dam for it to create a "boil zone" region of low buoyancy). I've speculated that this could be one explanation why out of all the Twins survivors, based on the stories I've read here and elsewhere, it sounds like only two were found downstream from the dam.

-The reason why I think everyone would've survived if they'd had the life jackets in the cabins, though, is that that would've meant the camp leadership was mindful of the possibility of water getting that high, in which case all the cabins would've been evacuated with time to spare. It sounds to me like the leadership's main concern prior to this flood (I'm inferring from the wording of the shelter-in-place plan, which IIRC emphasized not "wandering away from your cabin" in an emergency) was the possibility that they get a more typical flash flood that doesn't threaten any buildings, and some counselor not familiar with the area panics, evacuates with the kids, and gets lost in the woods or just ends up in a place where the camp leadership can't find them.

On a different note, I saw something earlier today that reminded me to renew one of my specific prayers for the families and friends of the children who are no longer with them: One of the history-related social media pages I follow commemorated the anniversary of the death of Martin and Katie Luther's daughter Magdalena, who died of an illness at the age of 13. It mentioned how on the night before Magdalena's death, her mother had a dream in which two handsome young men came to take her away to her wedding. As I recall how Janie Hunt's father described the nightmares that had afflicted him and presumably the other parents, I pray that God might give them pleasant dreams of heaven and not nightmares of earthly tragedy. I doubly pray this for Cile's parents; as long as her body is not found, may God at least let them find some closure and even comfort in knowing the location of her spirit! (I think it fortunate that I live two time zones behind them, so that if I pray this prayer before bed, it will be when they've already gone to sleep and are most in need of it.)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/camp-mystic-makes-controversial-decision-about-future-texas-camp-where-27-died-flooding


Not sure how this will go over

What a tough quote by Cile's mom.

Not an amazing PR move.

It is their only option. If they do not reopen, they will go bankrupt and have to sell.

I understand that people are sensitive because of the loss of life and rightfully so. If they follow the new regulations and open within those regulations why wouldn't they? Are you going to punish Dick? He is no longer living. They have no choice but to open. It will be a lighter summer numbers wise, but if they do not open now, they will be closed forever.

Alumni at Mystic do not want camp to be killed forever. They want it to reopen safer and better than before. There is a way to honor those lost and carry on their legacy with the camp in a safe manor.

I may be in the minority in this, and that is ok. If Tweedy can muster up the will to rebuild safely and honor those that were lost, then she should. I am just glad, I am not the one that has to make that decision.

JeremiahJohnson said:

---

It is their only option. If they do not reopen, they will go bankrupt and have to sell.

I understand that people are sensitive because of the loss of life and rightfully so. If they follow the new regulations and open within those regulations why wouldn't they? Are you going to punish Dick? He is no longer living. They have no choice but to open. It will be a lighter summer numbers wise, but if they do not open now, they will be closed forever.

Alumni at Mystic do not want camp to be killed forever. They want it to reopen safer and better than before. There is a way to honor those lost and carry on their legacy with the camp in a safe manor.

I may be in the minority in this, and that is ok. If Tweedy can muster up the will to rebuild safely and honor those that were lost, then she should. I am just glad, I am not the one that has to make that decision.

---

It also says they are reopening at the other location and the location where the flooding occurred will still be closed.

They can SAY they are going to open. Whether they actually are able to or not - well, that'll be another matter.

In the end, I think settling the lawsuits will doom the camp.

They are reopening Camp Mystic Cypress; this is not the same location that suffered the devastating loss of life. It is nearby.

JeremiahJohnson said:

---

It is their only option. If they do not reopen, they will go bankrupt and have to sell.

I understand that people are sensitive because of the loss of life and rightfully so. If they follow the new regulations and open within those regulations why wouldn't they? Are you going to punish Dick? He is no longer living. They have no choice but to open. It will be a lighter summer numbers wise, but if they do not open now, they will be closed forever.

Alumni at Mystic do not want camp to be killed forever. They want it to reopen safer and better than before. There is a way to honor those lost and carry on their legacy with the camp in a safe manor.

I may be in the minority in this, and that is ok. If Tweedy can muster up the will to rebuild safely and honor those that were lost, then she should. I am just glad, I am not the one that has to make that decision.

---

I know you mean well but Mystic and the Eastlands are scum. This is all about them making money. They did not contact my family about the memorial. Just "select" families. So is one girl's death more important than another's?

And they have had a lot of chances to prove they are not scum. When people tell you who they are, believe them.