Completely agree. But I want safe Camp Mystics. I believe these were fairly easy preventable deaths. I know you and others disagree. Will see what the trial shows.

Does anyone know the last time FEMA assessed and/or modified the floodplain on the Guadalupe River?

I spend half my time in the Hill Country. FEMA updated the Lake Travis foodplain in 2018. They raised it 7 ft at that time. It was a big deal.

austinag1997 said:

---

Does anyone know the last time FEMA assessed and/or modified the floodplain on the Guadalupe River?

I spend half my time in the Hill Country. FEMA updated the Lake Travis foodplain in 2018. They raised it 7 ft at that time. It was a big deal.

---

To be honest, flood plains mean nothing. Before fort reform I was sued for the only time in my career and won. Because of that experience, I was an expert on both sides so I could learn about the system. And it was not for the money which was minimal. When I reviewed the case, I made my own decision who I thought was in the right even if I had been hired by the other side.

All negligence cases come down to "standard of care" whether medical, Camp Mystics, etc. The jury has to decide whether the doctor (or camp owner in this case) acted in a reasonable manner as per the standard of care for other camp directors. Doesn't matter if it a Hundred, five hundred, or thousand year event. Doesn't matter what the flood planes are. Does not matter what a "good guy" the person was. Negligence is judged based on how the responsible person acted in the situation. Did Dick and the other Mystic leaders meet the standard of care?

As you know, I do not believe they did. A lot of y'all do. We shall see,

dermdoc said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

Does anyone know the last time FEMA assessed and/or modified the floodplain on the Guadalupe River?

I spend half my time in the Hill Country. FEMA updated the Lake Travis foodplain in 2018. They raised it 7 ft at that time. It was a big deal.

---

To be honest, flood plains mean nothing. Before fort reform I was sued for the only time in my career and won. Because of that experience, I was an expert on both sides so I could learn about the system. And it was not for the money which was minimal. When I reviewed the case, I made my own decision who I thought was in the right even if I had been hired by the other side.

All negligence cases come down to "standard of care" whether medical, Camp Mystics, etc. The jury has to decide whether the doctor (or camp owner in this case) acted in a reasonable manner as per the standard of care for other camp directors. Doesn't matter if it a Hundred, five hundred, or thousand year event. Doesn't matter what the flood planes are. Does not matter what a "good guy" the person was. Negligence is judged based on how the responsible person acted in the situation. Did Dick and the other Mystic leaders meet the standard of care?

As you know, I do not believe they did. A lot of y'all do. We shall see,

---

I have been sued a couple of times and about to be sued again. I have and will be the defendant each time. Not fun. I know your position in this case.

austinag1997 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

Does anyone know the last time FEMA assessed and/or modified the floodplain on the Guadalupe River?

I spend half my time in the Hill Country. FEMA updated the Lake Travis foodplain in 2018. They raised it 7 ft at that time. It was a big deal.

---

To be honest, flood plains mean nothing. Before fort reform I was sued for the only time in my career and won. Because of that experience, I was an expert on both sides so I could learn about the system. And it was not for the money which was minimal. When I reviewed the case, I made my own decision who I thought was in the right even if I had been hired by the other side.

All negligence cases come down to "standard of care" whether medical, Camp Mystics, etc. The jury has to decide whether the doctor (or camp owner in this case) acted in a reasonable manner as per the standard of care for other camp directors. Doesn't matter if it a Hundred, five hundred, or thousand year event. Doesn't matter what the flood planes are. Does not matter what a "good guy" the person was. Negligence is judged based on how the responsible person acted in the situation. Did Dick and the other Mystic leaders meet the standard of care?

As you know, I do not believe they did. A lot of y'all do. We shall see,

---

I have been sued a couple of times and about to be sued again. I have and will be the defendant each time. Not fun. I know your position in this case.

---

Agree. Been there done that. Many sleepless nights. I very rarely side with the plaintiff side but I try to look at things objectively. Some docs do some bad stuff. Trust in the Lord and also the belief that usually juries get it right. Will pray for you

And will add, knowing what I know I would side with the plaintiffs in this case even if not personally involved. The evidence is pretty overwhelming in my opinion. I could be wrong. And that is no indictment of Dick Eastland or anyone's integrity..

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

Exactly!

txags92 said:

---

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

---

Amen. This is all about government and insurance control.

txags92 said:

---

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

---

It's tough to apply metrics to hazards that the general population "gets". Often, there are Too many variables to truly represent the danger. Couple that with the need for easy understanding…good luck with that. People on average aren't that smart and generally horrible at risk assessment.

As scientists, we've struggled with this since the beginning of time. "How do I create a simple representation of complex data so that the average person with an iq of 105 can understand it, use it as a guide but not take it totally literally"?

It's hard and generally we do the smart stuff and then broadcast it like during Harvey…."OK…if you live in an area with giant red dots and you see a skull and cross bones on the map, you must leave now."

And the they die anyway. ***Shrug***.

Whatcha gonna do.

txags92 said:

---

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

---

As someone who has been in civil engineering and hydrology for almost 25 years now the last thing I'm going to want to do is apply a seal to something with that kind of liability in determination of hazard and safety from flood events. I'll be happy to do it in insurance and regulatory approvals. Sue me, that's why I have insurance and charge the fees I do. But you start coming at me with criminal consequences because of a line I drew on a map then I'm out.

Teslag said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

---

As someone who has been in civil engineering and hydrology for almost 25 years now the last thing I'm going to want to do is apply a seal to something with that kind of liability in determination of hazard and safety from flood events. I'll be happy to do it in insurance and regulatory approvals. Sue me, that's why I have insurance and charge the fees I do. But you start coming at me with criminal consequences because of a line I drew on a map then I'm out.

---

I totally agree with you. I wasn't envisioning something like a certification of risk/no risk. I was more thinking of a ratings scale like we have for hurricanes instead of this "100 year"/"500 year" nonsense that is so misunderstood and misapplied by most non-engineer/non-scientist types. We need to somehow get across the message that being above line 2 doesn't mean no risk, it just means less risk than line 1 and so forth.

You missed a really important part.


I drew a line on a map…. That I'm told how to draw by the govt.

And it doesn't help that the level of study for a given floodplain boundary varies greatly, sometimes over short distances. And the timeline to get maps updated is long. If your map is dated 2015, the hydraulic study might be based on 2008 topo and land use. And a map dated 1995 might have 1970s hydrology.

It's hard to apply for people in the industry, let alone people that are making decisions buying a house, going on vacation, etc.

I am a Civil Engineer by training so I get it. I was trying to get a house built to the old floodplain to lower my finished floor elevation. Ultimately, it was a risk and I abandoned the project.

However, I wouldn't consider suing anyone over it. It was simply balancing property cost between those above Mansfield dam with the high dollar property value below the dam.

schmellba99 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

This comparison is not the same. Hurricanes don't follow the same exact path every single time.
If every single hurricane that ever formed in the gulf followed one given path to hit the exact same spot along the coast ……and you had years of data that proved that….. then yes you are negligent for building something in that consistently given path.
A river does just that. The Guadalupe River valley was formed over thousands of years of the path of the Guadalupe eroding and forming it. The flood of 2025 happened sometime in the rivers history before. That was a given. It will happen again. That is a given as well.
It could happen again tomorrow, or this coming 4th of July again, or 80 years from now. Regardless we know it can happen.

---

Here's the deal though.

Every river floods. All of them. Some more frequent than others, but every single one in the history of the world has flooded and every single one will flood again. Up until this flood, which was an absolute freak of a weather event, for the entire life of Mystic and every other camp along the river, this had not happened.

But at some point you have to recognize that there are inherent dangers wherever you go. If you live in flood zones, it is inherent that at some point there will likely be a flood. If you live on the gulf coast or the east coast up to about DC, you are almost guaranteed to endure a tropical storm or hurricane at least once in your life. If you live in tornado alley, you are almost guaranteed to be affected by a tornado at some point in time. Up north it freezes every single year. It gets hot in the desert. Mountains have avalances and snow ins. Fire is always an inherent danger, even in the middle of the desert. Everywhere has a drought at some point. Everywhere has a flood at some point.

Danger is an absolute fact of life. We accept it daily. It isn't until something tragic happens that all of a sudden we get the "well they should have known!" armchair quarterbacking. Mystic had been around for [literally] 100 years. Up until last year there wasn't a need for contingency plans and having 47 people on staff who's entire job was to evacuate campers during a 500 year storm. It just had never really happened.

None of that takes away from the absolute tragedy of the situation - there is literally nothing that can be done with money or punishment or anything that will undo what nature did. What is happening now is little more than a pure vindictive need to blame somebody, anybody, and make a buck or two in the process. If the goal is to change early warning systems (which that county didn't have), then the focus should be on fixing that issue and not finding somebody to blame because they put their family first or didn't realize the gravity of the situation as the river rose 30+ feet in a matter of minutes like it did.

Now if you can show unequivocably that the owners of Mystic got warnings that told them the river was going to rise 30 feet in 20 minutes and prove they shrugged their shoulders and said "meh, whatever", then you have a different argument. But I have a hard time that particular sequence of events happened. There were plenty of others that died on the river that night other than the poor kids at Mystic as well. They all took a risk by camping on a literal riverbed in an area that, under the exact right freak set of circumstances, could produce deadly flash floods.

If the mentality is "can't ever build where it may flood, have fire, drought, etc." then we cannot build anything anywhere on this planet and you might as well wipe every single house in the hill country off the map. Which may not be a bad thing, but it is absolutely impractical.

---

Sorry but your post pisses me off. Trying to get a buck? Vindictive? You ever lost a 8 y/o girl due to incompetence Wow.
27 girls died. Due to incompetence. The Eastlands will not give up Myatic. Myatic needs to continue under competent ownership. The only way to do that is to sue because the Eastlands will it give it up or even sell it.
I want 100 more Camp Mystics that are safe for 8 y/o girls and anybody else. Run by competent people with safety plans, walkie tallkie communications,, etc.
Having over 700 girls under your sworn care is completely different than an adult choosing to buy a beach house or build in a flood plain.
27 preventable deaths and you want to go after the parents of the dead kids? Wow

---

You are letting your emotions take over and read things that aren't there.

The fact of the matter is that you hear that these lawsuits are "for the greater good" or some other nonsense. That is unequivocably false. The lawsuits, understandably, are a method of lashing out because we want somebody somewhere to be responsible for what happened. I'm not blaming the parents, I'm saying that is human fuggin nature.

If the intent is actually to change things for the greater good, then those parents and their lawyers need to be in Ausin lobbying to have the county do better at early warning systems. They should be lobbying the state that there needs to be implementation of flash flood systems in the hill country like there is with the national weather service that sends out their alarms on your phones, Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts, etc. But they aren't. They are looking for something that they think will make them heal better or faster or whatever. That's what people, and lawyers, ultimately do. Calling a spade a spade isn't wrong.

I feel for those parents, I honestly do. But there are no amount of lawsuits that are going to fill the hole in the hearts of those parents. And again - Mystic had been around for a century. Literally 100 years. If they were as incompentent as you say, they had been incompetent for roughly a century. Which may well be the case and they got lucky for 99 years in a row.

Thinking the owners should just give up the camp isn't based in reality. You wouldn't give up what is yours either, that's not how people operate. Especially when what you are being asked to give up is likely representative of everything you have worked for.

Like I said - if there is hard data and proof that they were absolutely negligent, you have a completely different argument from me. But the logical person in me has a very hard time sitting back after the fact and stating that they should have known that this 500 year once in a lifetime flood was going to happen that very night and they still chose to do nothing about it.

And my response was also directed at the "you should never build anywhere there is a chance of danger". That is just not practical in any real world scenario because we are surrounded by some level of danger day in and day out. Most of us face a much higher chance of bad things happening daily to and from work than anywhere else, and we don't think twice about jumping in the truck and driving down the road with thousands of idiots on their phones.

---

Your post is illogical. I have been practicing medicine for over forty years. Been sued once and I won. I could be incompetent today and not meet the standard of care and rightfully be sued.

And that is not an attack on my character or my integrity. Just like saying Dick Eastland and Camp Mystic were incompetent on that one occasion. And I would not accuse my patient, like you did my family, of being out after a "few bucks".
This is my only social media. I am not on twitter or whatever blasting the Eastlands. I forgive you for your deleted statements but frankly I would have apologized as I have done on these forums before when I "fugged" (your word) up.
We are Aggies on an Aggie forum. This is not twitter.
Nobody on here has posted that any lawsuit is for the greater good. And frankly your post comes across as arrogant and condescending.

Teslag said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Part of me wonders if the concept of what the flood plain represents is the most deadly misunderstanding ever created by government. It is an actuarial creation to decide who gets subsidized insurance, but has been misunderstood by so many to represent the line between being safe or not safe from flooding. We really need a new way to express the risk of flooding that is not tied to flood insurance eligibility.

---

As someone who has been in civil engineering and hydrology for almost 25 years now the last thing I'm going to want to do is apply a seal to something with that kind of liability in determination of hazard and safety from flood events. I'll be happy to do it in insurance and regulatory approvals. Sue me, that's why I have insurance and charge the fees I do. But you start coming at me with criminal consequences because of a line I drew on a map then I'm out.

---

Nah….

You just do all the hard work. Draw it up and sign it. Then it goes to an engineer, some other people, and they'll all change it , approve it and put stamps on it. Then it goes to a government agency and 28 different committees who all make modifications and negate all previous approvals and stamps and it is ultimately issued by a governmental department.

By the time John Q Public gets it and does something stupid, there is no one to hold accountable.

Now it's not Public vs Teslag it's Public vs United States and he loses anyway.

It's all about scrubbing and establishing plausible deniability.

Tada!!

And I'd rather have a map drawn by you or my colleagues than the government.

And frankly, if I was an Eastland or Mystic supporter, I would keep quiet out of respect for the families of the dead girls. Especially on a Ag forum with Ags that have suffered a loss. Guess we are different. Until you are in my shoes, please do not lecture me about my emotions or my motives. You did get a lot of blue stars though. Congrats

Gunny456 said:

---

Sure can understand how you feel.

---

TxAG-010 said:

---

There are no winners in this situation, legal battle, or frankly this thread....

---

I think both quotes above deserve being posted again.

Illustrious Potentate said:

---

I think both quotes above deserve being posted again.

---

Agree. I just think saying the dead girls families are out for money or vengeance is way out of line on an Ag forum. I would have apologized but then I am an old Ag and different I guess.

Read schmelba's posts and picture yourself as someone who lost a little girl. He not only claimed we were after money he also told me how I should respond. And don't be emotional. Does he completely lack self awareness and does not understand how arrogant and condescending that sounds? Who is he to tell me or the victims how to respond? And this is Musrer of all days. Ags should be better.

dermdoc said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

austinag1997 said:

---

Does anyone know the last time FEMA assessed and/or modified the floodplain on the Guadalupe River?

I spend half my time in the Hill Country. FEMA updated the Lake Travis foodplain in 2018. They raised it 7 ft at that time. It was a big deal.

---

To be honest, flood plains mean nothing. Before fort reform I was sued for the only time in my career and won. Because of that experience, I was an expert on both sides so I could learn about the system. And it was not for the money which was minimal. When I reviewed the case, I made my own decision who I thought was in the right even if I had been hired by the other side.

All negligence cases come down to "standard of care" whether medical, Camp Mystics, etc. The jury has to decide whether the doctor (or camp owner in this case) acted in a reasonable manner as per the standard of care for other camp directors. Doesn't matter if it a Hundred, five hundred, or thousand year event. Doesn't matter what the flood planes are. Does not matter what a "good guy" the person was. Negligence is judged based on how the responsible person acted in the situation. Did Dick and the other Mystic leaders meet the standard of care?

As you know, I do not believe they did. A lot of y'all do. We shall see,

---

I have been sued a couple of times and about to be sued again. I have and will be the defendant each time. Not fun. I know your position in this case.

---

Agree. Been there done that. Many sleepless nights. I very rarely side with the plaintiff side but I try to look at things objectively. Some docs do some bad stuff. Trust in the Lord and also the belief that usually juries get it right. Will pray for you

And will add, knowing what I know I would side with the plaintiffs in this case even if not personally involved. The evidence is pretty overwhelming in my opinion. I could be wrong. And that is no indictment of Dick Eastland or anyone's integrity..

---

Prayers answered to a large degree. I will sleep better tonight. Still an issue. Just got help.

schmellba99 said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

To me, the best outcome would be for the families and the Eastlands to make a deal to settle. In exchange for release of any further claims, the Eastlands give up title to Mystic and the property and the insurance company pays out the full policy value into a fund to be used to repair and operate Mystic. The families form a council, hire professional camp management, and reopen with better plans and safer facilities located away from the flood plain. That is best case for everybody except the ones looking for a big pay day.

---

I like that. The Eastlands are not going to budge in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with Mystic and I love the concept. Needs to be run by competent people.

---

I don't know anything about the Eastlands or what was or wasn't done to save lives, so I can't really speak to that.

What I do believe is that you never truly know the level of competence of the people responsible for your children in a crisis.

We've seen that play out in Uvalde, where multiple levels of authority failed those kids. And then, just the other day, you see a principal step in, attack a gunman, and potentially save countless lives. One of those attacks had numerous individuals trained in crises management and completely failed, while the other had a single brave man with likely zero training or planning.

Plans look good on paper, but it's impossible to judge competency. This isn't to say having plans is worthless, but my professional career is very tightly tied to risk management, and I'll just say the hardest part of it is implementation when it matters. The easy part is getting clients to get me a plan to review.

---

This.

The only thing that is going to come out of this lawsuit is that the Eastlands will lose the camp, odds are a developer will be the beneficiary of the lawsuit, and a bunch of other camps are likely going to be priced out of business due to insurance rates and the threats of lawsuits the next time something horrible and tragic like this happens. Lawyers will get rich(er). The state will come in and throw some money at the counties and tell them they have to have a flood warning system, which will be a good oucome. But that will be the only good outcome in the grand scheme of things.

---

along with the attorneys, I bet there are hordes of developers watching this whole thing like vultures. The Eastlands will lose and have to sell the whole thing and some private equity developer will swoop in and form "Mystic Estates", a gated community with 3-5 acre estate lots starting at 500K

Illustrious Potentate said:

---

TxAG-010 said:

---

There are no winners in this situation, legal battle, or frankly this thread....

---

---

Actually in my opinion it would be better for the campers if the Eastlands never ran another camp. I would not go back to a doc who was incompetent. Even once.

TexasAg95 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

To me, the best outcome would be for the families and the Eastlands to make a deal to settle. In exchange for release of any further claims, the Eastlands give up title to Mystic and the property and the insurance company pays out the full policy value into a fund to be used to repair and operate Mystic. The families form a council, hire professional camp management, and reopen with better plans and safer facilities located away from the flood plain. That is best case for everybody except the ones looking for a big pay day.

---

I like that. The Eastlands are not going to budge in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with Mystic and I love the concept. Needs to be run by competent people.

---

I don't know anything about the Eastlands or what was or wasn't done to save lives, so I can't really speak to that.

What I do believe is that you never truly know the level of competence of the people responsible for your children in a crisis.

We've seen that play out in Uvalde, where multiple levels of authority failed those kids. And then, just the other day, you see a principal step in, attack a gunman, and potentially save countless lives. One of those attacks had numerous individuals trained in crises management and completely failed, while the other had a single brave man with likely zero training or planning.

Plans look good on paper, but it's impossible to judge competency. This isn't to say having plans is worthless, but my professional career is very tightly tied to risk management, and I'll just say the hardest part of it is implementation when it matters. The easy part is getting clients to get me a plan to review.

---

This.

The only thing that is going to come out of this lawsuit is that the Eastlands will lose the camp, odds are a developer will be the beneficiary of the lawsuit, and a bunch of other camps are likely going to be priced out of business due to insurance rates and the threats of lawsuits the next time something horrible and tragic like this happens. Lawyers will get rich(er). The state will come in and throw some money at the counties and tell them they have to have a flood warning system, which will be a good oucome. But that will be the only good outcome in the grand scheme of things.

---

along with the attorneys, I bet there are hordes of developers watching this whole thing like vultures. The Eastlands will lose and have to sell the whole thing and some private equity developer will swoop in and form "Mystic Estates", a gated community with 3-5 acre estate lots starting at 500K

---

It will be folded into the surrounding Bass family land if they sell. They won't let anyone outbid them.

TexasAg95 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

To me, the best outcome would be for the families and the Eastlands to make a deal to settle. In exchange for release of any further claims, the Eastlands give up title to Mystic and the property and the insurance company pays out the full policy value into a fund to be used to repair and operate Mystic. The families form a council, hire professional camp management, and reopen with better plans and safer facilities located away from the flood plain. That is best case for everybody except the ones looking for a big pay day.

---

I like that. The Eastlands are not going to budge in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with Mystic and I love the concept. Needs to be run by competent people.

---

I don't know anything about the Eastlands or what was or wasn't done to save lives, so I can't really speak to that.

What I do believe is that you never truly know the level of competence of the people responsible for your children in a crisis.

We've seen that play out in Uvalde, where multiple levels of authority failed those kids. And then, just the other day, you see a principal step in, attack a gunman, and potentially save countless lives. One of those attacks had numerous individuals trained in crises management and completely failed, while the other had a single brave man with likely zero training or planning.

Plans look good on paper, but it's impossible to judge competency. This isn't to say having plans is worthless, but my professional career is very tightly tied to risk management, and I'll just say the hardest part of it is implementation when it matters. The easy part is getting clients to get me a plan to review.

---

This.

The only thing that is going to come out of this lawsuit is that the Eastlands will lose the camp, odds are a developer will be the beneficiary of the lawsuit, and a bunch of other camps are likely going to be priced out of business due to insurance rates and the threats of lawsuits the next time something horrible and tragic like this happens. Lawyers will get rich(er). The state will come in and throw some money at the counties and tell them they have to have a flood warning system, which will be a good oucome. But that will be the only good outcome in the grand scheme of things.

---

along with the attorneys, I bet there are hordes of developers watching this whole thing like vultures. The Eastlands will lose and have to sell the whole thing and some private equity developer will swoop in and form "Mystic Estates", a gated community with 3-5 acre estate lots starting at 500K

---

In my opinion that would be better than having the Eastlands running any camp.

And I will talk to Mary Grace's parents. I would love to join them and meet face to face with you and not behind a computer screen. Then you can tell us what our motives are (as you have already done) and tell us we should not be "emotion driven". And you can also tell us face to face how it is just "tugging human nature".
Gig 'em.

Doc, is your main concern with the Eastlands that they didn't have proper protocols in place to keep the campers safe?

I see people on this thread getting caught up on the camp being built in a flood plain.

chase128 said:

---

Doc, is your main concern with the Eastlands that they didn't have proper protocols in place to keep the campers safe?

I see people on this thread getting caught up on the camp being built in a flood plain.

---

Not really. I think they were just totally incompetent that evening. Not having a plan, walkie talkies, using the loud speaker, etc. are just signs of the incompetence. If I did that in my practice, even once, and cost a life I would rightfully be sued.
And we have posters on here who appear to be worried about what happens to the land than 27 deaths. I don't get it.

71 jock said:

---

TexasAg95 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

To me, the best outcome would be for the families and the Eastlands to make a deal to settle. In exchange for release of any further claims, the Eastlands give up title to Mystic and the property and the insurance company pays out the full policy value into a fund to be used to repair and operate Mystic. The families form a council, hire professional camp management, and reopen with better plans and safer facilities located away from the flood plain. That is best case for everybody except the ones looking for a big pay day.

---

I like that. The Eastlands are not going to budge in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with Mystic and I love the concept. Needs to be run by competent people.

---

I don't know anything about the Eastlands or what was or wasn't done to save lives, so I can't really speak to that.

What I do believe is that you never truly know the level of competence of the people responsible for your children in a crisis.

We've seen that play out in Uvalde, where multiple levels of authority failed those kids. And then, just the other day, you see a principal step in, attack a gunman, and potentially save countless lives. One of those attacks had numerous individuals trained in crises management and completely failed, while the other had a single brave man with likely zero training or planning.

Plans look good on paper, but it's impossible to judge competency. This isn't to say having plans is worthless, but my professional career is very tightly tied to risk management, and I'll just say the hardest part of it is implementation when it matters. The easy part is getting clients to get me a plan to review.

---

This.

The only thing that is going to come out of this lawsuit is that the Eastlands will lose the camp, odds are a developer will be the beneficiary of the lawsuit, and a bunch of other camps are likely going to be priced out of business due to insurance rates and the threats of lawsuits the next time something horrible and tragic like this happens. Lawyers will get rich(er). The state will come in and throw some money at the counties and tell them they have to have a flood warning system, which will be a good oucome. But that will be the only good outcome in the grand scheme of things.

---

along with the attorneys, I bet there are hordes of developers watching this whole thing like vultures. The Eastlands will lose and have to sell the whole thing and some private equity developer will swoop in and form "Mystic Estates", a gated community with 3-5 acre estate lots starting at 500K

---

It will be folded into the surrounding Bass family land if they sell. They won't let anyone outbid them.

---

Do you really think worries about what happens to the land is appropriate now? Is that more important than 27 deaths? My goodness.

Guy starts a thread on a public message board and then gets mad that people have different opinions.

Some things are better kept private and not be open for public consumption especially situations that are very personal in nature.

TexasAg95 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

To me, the best outcome would be for the families and the Eastlands to make a deal to settle. In exchange for release of any further claims, the Eastlands give up title to Mystic and the property and the insurance company pays out the full policy value into a fund to be used to repair and operate Mystic. The families form a council, hire professional camp management, and reopen with better plans and safer facilities located away from the flood plain. That is best case for everybody except the ones looking for a big pay day.

---

I like that. The Eastlands are not going to budge in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with Mystic and I love the concept. Needs to be run by competent people.

---

I don't know anything about the Eastlands or what was or wasn't done to save lives, so I can't really speak to that.

What I do believe is that you never truly know the level of competence of the people responsible for your children in a crisis.

We've seen that play out in Uvalde, where multiple levels of authority failed those kids. And then, just the other day, you see a principal step in, attack a gunman, and potentially save countless lives. One of those attacks had numerous individuals trained in crises management and completely failed, while the other had a single brave man with likely zero training or planning.

Plans look good on paper, but it's impossible to judge competency. This isn't to say having plans is worthless, but my professional career is very tightly tied to risk management, and I'll just say the hardest part of it is implementation when it matters. The easy part is getting clients to get me a plan to review.

---

This.

The only thing that is going to come out of this lawsuit is that the Eastlands will lose the camp, odds are a developer will be the beneficiary of the lawsuit, and a bunch of other camps are likely going to be priced out of business due to insurance rates and the threats of lawsuits the next time something horrible and tragic like this happens. Lawyers will get rich(er). The state will come in and throw some money at the counties and tell them they have to have a flood warning system, which will be a good oucome. But that will be the only good outcome in the grand scheme of things.

---

along with the attorneys, I bet there are hordes of developers watching this whole thing like vultures. The Eastlands will lose and have to sell the whole thing and some private equity developer will swoop in and form "Mystic Estates", a gated community with 3-5 acre estate lots starting at 500K

---

Can we find Cole's body before worrying about what happens to the land? How selfish and inappropriate.

dermdoc said:

---

chase128 said:

---

Doc, is your main concern with the Eastlands that they didn't have proper protocols in place to keep the campers safe?

I see people on this thread getting caught up on the camp being built in a flood plain.

---

Not really. I think they were just totally incompetent that evening. Not having a plan, walkie talkies, using the loud speaker, etc. are just signs of the incompetence. If I did that in my practice, even once, and cost a life I would rightfully be sued.
And we have posters on here who appear to be worried about what happens to the land than 27 deaths. I don't get it.

---

Thanks for clarifying.

My opinion doesn't count for much since I'm so far removed but your response seems totally reasonable. I feel like if I was in your place I'd be beyond upset with their incompetence and the danger they put people in

Peter Piper said:

---

Guy starts a thread on a public message board and then gets mad that people have different opinions.

Some things are better kept private and not be open for public consumption especially situations that are very personal in nature.

---

So different opinions are fine. When somebody accuses me and my family about doing this for the money it crosses a line. Maybe we are different.
Do you think it is inappropriate for me to react that way?

Quote:

---

Do you really think worries about what happens to the land is appropriate now? Is that more important than 27 deaths? My goodness.

---

I don't get this either. Mystic was playground for largely high income and connected families. If it has to relocate or sell, this is not the equivalent of robber barons seizing national parkland.

chase128 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

chase128 said:

---

Doc, is your main concern with the Eastlands that they didn't have proper protocols in place to keep the campers safe?

I see people on this thread getting caught up on the camp being built in a flood plain.

---

Not really. I think they were just totally incompetent that evening. Not having a plan, walkie talkies, using the loud speaker, etc. are just signs of the incompetence. If I did that in my practice, even once, and cost a life I would rightfully be sued.
And we have posters on here who appear to be worried about what happens to the land than 27 deaths. I don't get it.

---

Thanks for clarifying.

My opinion doesn't count for much since I'm so far removed but your response seems totally reasonable. I feel like if I was in your place I'd be beyond upset with their incompetence and the danger they put people in

---

Thanks. And just my opinion but it is unfathomable to me that people are worried about what happens to the land or lawyer fees. If I had 27 girls die under my watch those would be my last concern and frankly seem selfish if they have any self awareness.
But they are entitled to their opinion also. And I can respond.