Bayou City said:
Friends the the Eastlands huh? Don't make it so obvious.
Quote:
Either allow others' opinions or just call this an echo chamber. Your comment does nothing for the discussion. People familiar with the river and flood events in that area should be able to add color commentary here versus the armchair second guessing many are providing.
Tyrannosaurus Ross said:
I posted earlier in this thread asking if the flats area of the camp had flooded previously and was immediately told yes, multiple times. Ok, but which facilities had flooded there, all of them? I watched the investigators' report to the committee and this was not made clear.
My sense is that nobody had ever seen the entire flats area of the camp and all of the facilities there flood before and this is the reason for the slow response in moving everybody out. I just don't think they thought it was going to be as bad as the flooding turned out to be. By the time they recognized the enormity of the situation it was too late.
To be clear I am not asking this in defense of the Eastlands.
Quote:
My sense is that nobody had ever seen the entire flats area of the camp and all of the facilities there flood before and this is the reason for the slow response in moving everybody out. I just don't think they thought it was going to be as bad as the flooding turned out to be. By the time they recognized the enormity of the situation it was too late.
To be clear I am not asking this in defense of the Eastlands.
dermdoc said:BrazosDog02 said:
Yeah….there is plenty to judge these people for but proper asset protection for a high risk business that makes its money in a short window and trying to open this year after nearly a year aren't items to fuss over. Life goes on, bills keep coming, and they aren't running a charity. If half the business is viable and the can do that without interfering with the current investigation, then I see absolutely no reason to wait. Send it. Kind of a moot point since they didn't get a license.
We should stick to focusing on destroying evidence.
With all due respect, they sold themselves as a Christian camp. And charged a fortune. Them wanting to open up is incredibly revealing, it was always about money. That is all. Which is fine but cut the false bs. And we have destroying evidence on top of everything else.
Senator Blutarski said:
"Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
well, it appears he is trying to prove that it was NOT statistically predictable.AustinCountyAg said:Senator Blutarski said:
"Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
what point are you trying to make?
Quote:
Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
I am talking about the national weather office researchers who have all said the particular conditions along the Guadalupe plus the many similar events that occurred going back over 100 years made this outcome a rare but likely event. The testimony is interesting but personal anecdotes will never take the place of robust analysis based on data.
Comparing 1932 to 2025
The Hunt Texas Guadalupe River Gauge
1932 - 36.6 feet of water
2025 - 37.5 feet of water
Crest of flood in Kerrville
1932 - 39.0 feet
2025 - 34.3 feet.
We should not debate whether the extra 1 foot of water at the Hunt gauge in 2025 vs 1932 has some big meaning. The question we should ask is whether in either of those events or the many other similar but less severe events that occurred in 1978, 1985, 1987, 1996, 2000 and on and on going back to the 1800s
would their be risk of injury or loss of life to people in flood prone areas that could be subject to rapid flooding like the stuff that occurred last summer.
If you then argue that the risk is small enough that you can keep housing those little kids in a flood prone area, we should ask if their should have been an appropriate risk management plan in place to keep those kids safe in the low probability event that flooding does come your way.
The final question is even if this plan is in place, did you manage the operations of the camp in a manner that allows you to execute on that plan.
From the testimony, the answers so far are:
1) No, you should not have kept those buildings so close to the river not based on Monday morning QBing but because of the history of life threatening floods throughout the area.
2) Mystic had no plan at all in place in case flooding did happen
3) The camp was managed in a way that would not have allowed for a response anyway.
And does all that add up to negligence despite the best of intentions on the part of the Eastland family?
This is what the courts will decide.
Quote:
The poster said this was statistically predictable, and I disagree with that statement.
I have said already I would like to hear from a meteorologist or hydrologist about the rate of rainfall and compare it to some other events of that magnitude.
does that gauge measure both forks of the river? Or just the south? Did it stop working once it reached 37.5 feet?Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
I am talking about the national weather office researchers who have all said the particular conditions along the Guadalupe plus the many similar events that occurred going back over 100 years made this outcome a rare but likely event. The testimony is interesting but personal anecdotes will never take the place of robust analysis based on data.
Comparing 1932 to 2025
The Hunt Texas Guadalupe River Gauge
1932 - 36.6 feet of water
2025 - 37.5 feet of water
Crest of flood in Kerrville
1932 - 39.0 feet
2025 - 34.3 feet.
We should not debate whether the extra 1 foot of water at the Hunt gauge in 2025 vs 1932 has some big meaning. The question we should ask is whether in either of those events or the many other similar but less severe events that occurred in 1978, 1985, 1987, 1996, 2000 and on and on going back to the 1800s
would their be risk of injury or loss of life to people in flood prone areas that could be subject to rapid flooding like the stuff that occurred last summer.
If you then argue that the risk is small enough that you can keep housing those little kids in a flood prone area, we should ask if their should have been an appropriate risk management plan in place to keep those kids safe in the low probability event that flooding does come your way.
The final question is even if this plan is in place, did you manage the operations of the camp in a manner that allows you to execute on that plan.
From the testimony, the answers so far are:
1) No, you should not have kept those buildings so close to the river not based on Monday morning QBing but because of the history of life threatening floods throughout the area.
2) Mystic had no plan at all in place in case flooding did happen
3) The camp was managed in a way that would not have allowed for a response anyway.
And does all that add up to negligence despite the best of intentions on the part of the Eastland family?
This is what the courts will decide.
Fdsa said:AustinCountyAg said:Senator Blutarski said:
"Pretty much everyone agrees that the Guadalupe Flood that occurred was statistically predictable based on the history of flooding in the very close by area to Mystic. Everyone knows campers have died at other nearby camps due to events just like this one."
Are you talking about 1987 when kids drowned trying to evacuate, or some other event?
Did you listen to the testimony of the two neighbors downstream? The one next door said he knew from his parents where the 1930's flood hit, and this was significantly higher (I don't remember his exact words). The other neighbor, with gray hair across from Camp Rio Vista, felt safe going to sleep at 2:30 after monitoring the weather, was woken up, stepped out of bed into water, went to put his shoes on, and was quickly trapped inside of his bathroom because the water rose so fast. (edit = shoes not shows)
what point are you trying to make?
well, it appears he is trying to prove that it was NOT statistically predictable.
Senator Blutarski said:
The poster said this was statistically predictable, and I disagree with that statement.
I have said already I would like to hear from a meteorologist or hydrologist about the rate of rainfall and compare it to some other events of that magnitude. The comments from the two neighbors show how caught off guard they were. Chief Kidd made comments about unpredictable it was. Heart of the Hills was wiped off the map. Camp LaJunta had cabins float away with people inside of them (thankfully they made it out). So, either it was not statistically predictable, or the entire river valley was wrong, not just Mystic.
Please note - I am not commenting on Mystic's plan or their actions that night. Just that I think this rainfall might have been an anomaly, not predictable by Mystic or the NWS.
dermdoc said:
Did La Junta and the other camps have more detailed plans than Mystic?
BrazosDog02 said:Senator Blutarski said:
The poster said this was statistically predictable, and I disagree with that statement.
I have said already I would like to hear from a meteorologist or hydrologist about the rate of rainfall and compare it to some other events of that magnitude. The comments from the two neighbors show how caught off guard they were. Chief Kidd made comments about unpredictable it was. Heart of the Hills was wiped off the map. Camp LaJunta had cabins float away with people inside of them (thankfully they made it out). So, either it was not statistically predictable, or the entire river valley was wrong, not just Mystic.
Please note - I am not commenting on Mystic's plan or their actions that night. Just that I think this rainfall might have been an anomaly, not predictable by Mystic or the NWS.
This guy said it national broadcast on the news. And on Facebook. Check the post date. He made note of this more and more as we got closer up to July 3 where he made it quite clear this was "different".
dermdoc said:
Did La Junta and the other camps have more detailed plans than Mystic?
Fdsa said:
I agree with you…12" in three hours is what made this different. I'm doing some research on that, and from what I'm seeing, it's between a 500 year and 1000 year event. This is different than just a flood level getting to a certain level - it's how fast it got there that made all the difference.
I agree…this speaks to La Junta: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/17/us/video/camp-la-junta-texas-floods-pamela-brown-digvidtxags92 said:dermdoc said:
Did La Junta and the other camps have more detailed plans than Mystic?
My understanding was that other camps did have more detailed written plans, that counselors and adults were informed of the plan ahead of campers arriving, and that they did conduct training and/or drills to make sure everybody knew what to do. I don't have any specifics about La Junta's plan, but I can say with certainty that having campers floating down the river in a cabin was not part of it. And the fact that they did not have any fatalities in that incident is IMO a matter of luck that the cabin didn't break up moreso than superiority of their plan.
txags92 said:dermdoc said:
Did La Junta and the other camps have more detailed plans than Mystic?
My understanding was that other camps did have more detailed written plans, that counselors and adults were informed of the plan ahead of campers arriving, and that they did conduct training and/or drills to make sure everybody knew what to do. I don't have any specifics about La Junta's plan, but I can say with certainty that having campers floating down the river in a cabin was not part of it. And the fact that they did not have any fatalities in that incident is IMO a matter of luck that the cabin didn't break up moreso than superiority of their plan.
bingo…that gauge reads both forks. This event was primarily south fork. That gauge broke after it reached the record level. And the height is not the main deal…it's how fast they got there at Mystic.sellthefarm said:
The gauge comparisons in Hunt are irrelevant unless you tie them to the flood depth at Mystic. It seems entirely possible, if not likely, based on testimonies from Mystic people and neighbors, that the flood depth at Mystic had never reached the level of July 4 (ore maybe never even gotten close).
So even if the gauge reading at Hunt was somewhat equivalent - that doesn't mean anything for Mystic IMO. It could actually prove the opposite. Suppose the 1930s flood resulted in limited damage at Mystic. Wouldn't that prove this wasn't a predictable flood event. That's the information I've yet to find. That's the missing link for me on proving negligence.
Fdsa said:sellthefarm said:
The gauge comparisons in Hunt are irrelevant unless you tie them to the flood depth at Mystic. It seems entirely possible, if not likely, based on testimonies from Mystic people and neighbors, that the flood depth at Mystic had never reached the level of July 4 (ore maybe never even gotten close).
So even if the gauge reading at Hunt was somewhat equivalent - that doesn't mean anything for Mystic IMO. It could actually prove the opposite. Suppose the 1930s flood resulted in limited damage at Mystic. Wouldn't that prove this wasn't a predictable flood event. That's the information I've yet to find. That's the missing link for me on proving negligence.
bingo…that gauge reads both forks. This event was primarily south fork. That gauge broke after it reached the record level. And the height is not the main deal…it's how fast they got there at Mystic.
