John Cocktolstoy said:

---

The tone of your post is incredibly revealing.

Sorry sometimes I post fast...time to go home.

Really Derm...I'm praying for you.

---

I'm praying for all involved including the Eastlands. The main thing I want to see accomplished is that they never run a camp again. My family and I have been blessed with plenty of money.
I am not even interested in vengeance or justice anymore. I just want this not to happen again. And I believe getting the Eastlands out of the camp business is a way to start.
Shalom.

And sorry for my anger. But when a poster on here who obviously knows little about the case accuses my family and others of being in it for vengeance and a "few bucks" because of "fuggimg human nature" it gets this old Irish Aggie riled up.

Just curious did you delete the part about them being "after a few bucks" and being vindictive?

And let's say it is all about money? May I ask why Mystic lobbied against the new camp safety resolutions passed by the Texas senate. Could it be because they didn't want to pay higher insurance rates? Amd why did they so feverishly want to re open this summer?

Seems like the money deal applies to Mystic.

And on the human side of it, how can Mystic, who just suffered 27 deaths, have the audacity to oppose camp safety regulations because of higher insurance premiums? And the parents are the ones out "for a few bucks"? Heck, that might even make a plaintiff attorney blush.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

The best we can do is the best we can do.

Parents could have not dropped off their kids.
Leaders could have evacuated camp or cancelled it on July 2 with the first convective outlook.
These rich ass donors and the state could have dumped 10 million dollars into early warning systems.
Counselors could have been certified in SAR prior to employment.
The camp could have been built in a hermetically sealed dome.

But...none of that is really reasonable. We do the best we can with what we have and sometimes it doesn't work out.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

---

Then we are different. If I had 700 hundred little girls under my care I would be much more cognizant of ANY danger.

And do you actually know the timeline of events? And how much time there was to evacuate everyone safely? Sure there are acts of God but if you have the time and ability to protect lives and you don't, that's on you.

If that is your attitude, I do not want you taking care of my kids or grand kids. Sorry.

I'm offended anyone would suggest the parents of the kids are in it for money.

If anyone is in it for the money, it's the Eastlands. This camp has been a huge money maker for the family for decades.

As to the proposed settlement mentioned earlier, no way the Eastland's give up the camp without it being done forcefully. They own property that churns $10-$20 MM per year and will fight tooth and nail for that.

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

---

Then we are different. If I had 700 hundred little girls under my care I would be much more cognizant of ANY danger.

And do you actually know the timeline of events? And how much time there was to evacuate everyone safely? Sure there are acts of God but if you have the time and ability to protect lives and you don't, that's on you.

If that is your attitude, I do not want you taking care of my kids or grand kids. Sorry.

---

Just curious, but how many kids changes your perspective? Cause mine is 1. And I say these as someone who is currently staring at google earth imagery of the slab of cabin we rented every summer in hunt right by mystic. Spent a many of July nights there a skip away from the river. I don't see the number of kids being the driving factor. In this instance are my parents negligent for renting that cabin every summer? Is the owner of the cabin who rented it to us negligent? Or does the business aspect change it?

Howdy Dammit said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

---

Then we are different. If I had 700 hundred little girls under my care I would be much more cognizant of ANY danger.

And do you actually know the timeline of events? And how much time there was to evacuate everyone safely? Sure there are acts of God but if you have the time and ability to protect lives and you don't, that's on you.

If that is your attitude, I do not want you taking care of my kids or grand kids. Sorry.

---

Just curious, but how many kids changes your perspective? Cause mine is 1. And I say these as someone who is currently staring at google earth imagery of the slab of cabin we rented every summer in hunt right by mystic. Spent a many of July nights there a skip away from the river. I don't see the number of kids being the driving factor. In this instance are my parents negligent for renting that cabin every summer? Or does the business aspect change it?

---

I agree with you on one kid. But if it is my kid I am assuming responsibility for my kid. That is my parental duty.
When you pay people to take care of 700:kids, to me it is rational that there would be an increased sense of preparation, planning, and liability. That is your sworn job. So yes, the business aspect changes things.

Your parents are responsibke for providing for your health care also and they pay a doctor to assume responsibility of that. Totally different situation.

Understand. My whole point on all my post is this 2025 event has happened before. The river valley proves it in my opinion. The rock formations, the soil types in the fields far out of flood plain lines etc. back that up.
There are many old timers that knew the Guadalupe way before flood records were kept that had a thought on how high the river has been over thousands of years.
We learned in 1978 they were right. Thing is it's been higher than it was in 1978 but we just haven't seen it yet.
After 1978 we totally changed where we built things.
Folks upstream should have learned what can happen in 1978….and been prepared for it. You can't just say that the 2025 was a freak 1000 year event.
Folks said the exact same in 1978 too.
My point is….OK, we have had the event, we damn sure know it can happen. Which means it can happen again and no one knows when.
But if you continue to have buildings that children sleep in in the same spot and don't move those buildings, or you build a new camp ground or hotel or whatever…knowingly where you know that river can flood and folks get killed, you, in my opinion only, should be negligent.
If a person, on his own, builds his barn or house in that flood area and gets killed in a flood…that's on him….totally different scenario. But that's just me.

fc2112 said:

---

I'm offended anyone would suggest the parents of the kids are in it for money.

If anyone is in it for the money, it's the Eastlands. This camp has been a huge money maker for the family for decades.

As to the proposed settlement mentioned earlier, no way the Eastland's give up the camp without it being done forcefully. They own property that churns $10-$20 MM per year and will fight tooth and nail for that.

---

Well schmelba posted that. He said it was "fuggimg human nature". Sorry but that seems a lot more objectionable than anything I have posted. And I am the only one who called him out on it. But that doesn't stop the attacks on me. But bring it on.

Gunny456 said:

---

Understand. My whole point on all my post is this 2025 event has happened before. The river valley proves it in my opinion. The rock formations, the soil types in the fields far out of flood plain lines etc. back that up.
There are many old timers that knew the Guadalupe way before flood records were kept that had a thought on how high the river has been over thousands of years.
We learned in 1978 they were right. Thing is it's been higher than it was in 1978 but we just haven't seen it yet.
After 1978 we totally changed where we built things.
Folks upstream should have learned what can happen in 1978….and been prepared for it. You can't just say that the 2025 was a freak 1000 year event.
Folks said the exact same in 1978 too.
My point is….OK, we have had the event, we damn sure know it can happen. Which means it can happen again and no one knows when.
But if you continue to have buildings that children sleep in in the same spot and don't move those buildings, or you build a new camp ground or hotel or whatever…knowingly where you know that river can flood and folks get killed, you, in my opinion only, should be negligent.
If a person, on his own, builds his barn or house in that flood area and gets killed in a flood…that's on him….totally different scenario. But that's just me.

---

Exactly. There is an increased sense of responsibility and liability. That is one of the supposed reasons you pay so much to go there.

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

---

Then we are different. If I had 700 hundred little girls under my care I would be much more cognizant of ANY danger,

---

Well, parents pushed their freakin' 8 year olds out of the truck at this place for almost a century, so regardless of my opinion or yours, it seems to be of little concern.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy Dammit said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

Where did anybody say you should not build anywhere there is a chance of danger??

---

You on the first page. But you edited it.

"So don't build stuff where it can [flood]….and if you do….yes you're negligent."

---

Do you think a person choosing to build in a flood plane or build a beach cabin is the same as if you are responsible for 700 hundred young girls?

---

Yes. It's the same.

We all accept levels of risk in life. We do that with ourselves, and our kids. In this example, parents, leaders, lawmakers, state officials, everyone has a large portion of blame on their shoulders and all of them accepted a level of risk deemed appropriate for 100 years. If there is anything I have ever called an act of God, this is it, and I have a lot of damn questions about that if I ever get the chance to ask and demand them.

Sometimes God/Universe/whatever is a real mother****er and calls that risk loan in.

---

Then we are different. If I had 700 hundred little girls under my care I would be much more cognizant of ANY danger,

---

Well, parents pushed their freakin' 8 year olds out of the truck at this place for almost a century, so regardless of my opinion or yours, it seems to be of little concern.

---

We will see who the court thinks is responsible. And it of huge concern for camp safety moving forward. I am not a nihilist.

Death has a way of making things real.

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

Regardless of the outcome, really, there is absolute 100% chance of serious changes coming moving forward. Your flood plain building concerns will be addressed. Licensing, plans, state regs, oversight, staff requirements....from camps to municipalities to how businesses are protected from liability.....It is all changing.

But we still can't get complacent. These will only address what we think will be problems. It will be an eventuality that some other extreme will occur and it very well could cost lives. But, it will be better, nonetheless.

Here's the thing though. The Guadalupe River has been carving its valley out for thousands and thousands of years. The same as the Rio Grande, Colorado etc.
Floods like this is how it's done that for thousands and thousands of years.
It will continue to do that as long as earth revolves around the sun.
It's not going to stop carving that valley cause man decided to build stuff there.
God created that river and how rivers work.

If I'm a camp director in the Hill Country, I'm cutting down all cedar because the next massive act of God is more likely to be a massive fire now that they are thinking about flooding.

Fdsa said:

---

If I'm a camp director in the Hill Country, I'm cutting down all cedar because the next massive act of God is more likely to be a massive fire now that they are thinking about flooding.

---

Good on you!

I haven't been following this too closely, but it seems like some very basic things weren't done to prevent this loss of life. Things like radios in all the cabins, a plan that was better than shelter in place, etc. I guess my main concern in all of this is had a better plan been in place and there was still a loss of life, then what? And how "good" of a plan do you have to have before someone says "we've done enough"? I feel like the answer is something better than what they had, but probably something less than aircraft level redundancy. But I don't know where that spot is.

You can have the best plan, and then it all goes to hell in a handbasket because of unforeseen events. Or a bunch of little events that on their own wouldn't be a concern, but together they cause a huge problem.

Fdsa said:

---

If I'm a camp director in the Hill Country, I'm cutting down all cedar because the next massive act of God is more likely to be a massive fire now that they are thinking about flooding.

---

You might even create more natural springs because of all the water that isn't getting sucked out of the ground.

Derm -- I'm curious...from your seat in all of this, do you see any way this case settles without going to trial?

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

Regardless of the outcome, really, there is absolute 100% chance of serious changes coming moving forward. Your flood plain building concerns will be addressed. Licensing, plans, state regs, oversight, staff requirements....from camps to municipalities to how businesses are protected from liability.....It is all changing.

But we still can't get complacent. These will only address what we think will be problems. It will be an eventuality that some other extreme will occur and it very well could cost lives. But, it will be better, nonetheless.

---

Agree. Any reason why you believe Mystic lobbied against the legislation that the dead campers parents testified for in front of the Texas Senate? After 27 deaths on their watch?

Did they? I thought that was a number of other camps.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/08/21/camp-mystic-eastland-family-support-safety-legislation-after-hill-country-flood-tragedy/#:~:text=The%2520bill%2520would%2520require%2520camps,will%2520%E2%80%9Cnever%2520be%2520forgotten.%E2%80%9D

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

Regardless of the outcome, really, there is absolute 100% chance of serious changes coming moving forward. Your flood plain building concerns will be addressed. Licensing, plans, state regs, oversight, staff requirements....from camps to municipalities to how businesses are protected from liability.....It is all changing.

But we still can't get complacent. These will only address what we think will be problems. It will be an eventuality that some other extreme will occur and it very well could cost lives. But, it will be better, nonetheless.

---

Agree. Any reason why you believe Mystic lobbied against the legislation that the dead campers parents testified for in front of the Texas Senate? After 27 deaths on their watch?

---

Are you referring to the Camp Safety Bill? SB1 that was linked in your previous post?

Fdsa said:

---

Did they? I thought that was a number of other camps.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/08/21/camp-mystic-eastland-family-support-safety-legislation-after-hill-country-flood-tragedy/#:~:text=The%2520bill%2520would%2520require%2520camps,will%2520%E2%80%9Cnever%2520be%2520forgotten.%E2%80%9D

---

I was wrong. I still don't understand how any of the camps could be opposed to those bills.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

Regardless of the outcome, really, there is absolute 100% chance of serious changes coming moving forward. Your flood plain building concerns will be addressed. Licensing, plans, state regs, oversight, staff requirements....from camps to municipalities to how businesses are protected from liability.....It is all changing.

But we still can't get complacent. These will only address what we think will be problems. It will be an eventuality that some other extreme will occur and it very well could cost lives. But, it will be better, nonetheless.

---

Agree. Any reason why you believe Mystic lobbied against the legislation that the dead campers parents testified for in front of the Texas Senate? After 27 deaths on their watch?

---

Are you referring to the Camp Safety Bill? SB1 that was linked in your previous post?

---

I was wrong about Mystic. It was the other camos who lobbied against the safety bills. I can not understand why.

I believe the ones who lobbied against it did so only on certain provisions, asking for time to make adjustments to new regulations, etc. It was extremely fast legislation... which can be good, but sometimes slower is more refined.

What do you think about Mystic re opening this summer? Truly interested in your perspective.

dermdoc said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

Did they? I thought that was a number of other camps.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/08/21/camp-mystic-eastland-family-support-safety-legislation-after-hill-country-flood-tragedy/#:~:text=The%2520bill%2520would%2520require%2520camps,will%2520%E2%80%9Cnever%2520be%2520forgotten.%E2%80%9D

---

I was wrong. I still don't understand how any of the camps could be opposed to those bills.

---

I'll admit to not paying attention to the whos and whats around who was lobbying for what, but I thought two of the sticking points at least some camps were lobbying against were the requirement to have fiber optic internet and a backup way to receive weather alerts, and the requirement to not have any sleeping structures in the flood plain. I think the question came down to why couldn't they have structures in the flood plain if their plans called for nobody to be sleeping in them if there were flood watches or warnings issued. Not picking a side either way, just saying those were some of the things I thought were objected to by some of the camps.

I was personally surprised by it and would have suggested taking a year off for all Camp Mystic camps... and closing Guadalupe forever. I think it's a lot to run a camp, and emotionally, they might not be ready. But, with how they are structured, I do think it's possible from a 'can they do this' perspective...i.e. none of the folks who were on scene on July 4th are a part of Cypress. It's almost like the difference between the engineering school and the business school...from knowing them, I do think they are capable of running a safe camp in the future.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread. My personal frustration with this event has been the treatment of Dick and Tweety by some of the supporters of Heaven's 27. Supporters, not members. There have been some truly nasty things said now by both sides (e.g. burn in hell)...for me, some of it directed towards the Eastlands felt like dancing on Dick's grave a little bit. As someone who knew him in the community, it's hard not to stand up for him.

Fdsa said:

---

I was personally surprised by it and would have suggested taking a year off for all Camp Mystic camps... and closing Guadalupe forever. I think it's a lot to run a camp, and emotionally, they might not be ready. But, with how they are structured, I do think it's possible from a 'can they do this' perspective...i.e. none of the folks who were on scene on July 4th are a part of Cypress. It's almost like the difference between the engineering school and the business school...from knowing them, I do think they are capable of running a safe camp in the future.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread. My personal frustration with this event has been the treatment of Dick and Tweety by some of the supporters of Heaven's 27. Supporters, not members. There have been some truly nasty things said now by both sides (e.g. burn in hell)...for me, some of it directed towards the Eastlands felt like dancing on Dick's grave a little bit. As someone who knew him in the community, it's hard not to stand up for him.

---

I understand. The "burn in hell" came from the Eastland's lawyer. It goes both ways. And I believe Dick Eastland was a great man who is with the Lord. I also believe he and the camp revealed a complacent incompetence and bad decision making that caused preventable deaths. I also grieve and pray for Tweety. I have much more respect for Dick and Tweety than the rest of the family.
And I feel like that explains what I feel is horrible moves by the Eastlands post flood.

I think some of you should be a little more empathetic to Derm and his family. One of the best Ags on this site. Some opinions maybe could be tempered in this light.

dermdoc said:

---

Fdsa said:

---

I was personally surprised by it and would have suggested taking a year off for all Camp Mystic camps... and closing Guadalupe forever. I think it's a lot to run a camp, and emotionally, they might not be ready. But, with how they are structured, I do think it's possible from a 'can they do this' perspective...i.e. none of the folks who were on scene on July 4th are a part of Cypress. It's almost like the difference between the engineering school and the business school...from knowing them, I do think they are capable of running a safe camp in the future.

I know I've posted a lot in this thread. My personal frustration with this event has been the treatment of Dick and Tweety by some of the supporters of Heaven's 27. Supporters, not members. There have been some truly nasty things said now by both sides (e.g. burn in hell)...for me, some of it directed towards the Eastlands felt like dancing on Dick's grave a little bit. As someone who knew him in the community, it's hard not to stand up for him.

---

I understand. The "burn in hell" came from the Eastland's lawyer. It goes both ways.

---

yes, I purposefully highlighted the defense to plaintiff statement. I will not highlight the reverse on here, but, it has happened.

My daughter attended Mystic her entire childhood and it was the very best experience of her life. Dick Eastland was like a grandfather figure. Yes, this flood was an absolute tragedy. Yes, Mystic could have searched their crystal ball and moved the entire camp (which has sat where it presently sits for 100 years) to a higher and therefore safer location. However, I would have still send my daughter to Mystic where it sits today and am damned glad she was not among the poor souls (including Dick Eastland) who lost their lives. However, the hate is BS and this has turned into something with a life of its own amongst the Texas "gilded class" who are otherwise sane humans.

Shutting down Mystic is a pathetic and stupid way to seek "justice," if that is what the parents are looking for. I am sympathetic, but I also understand the futility of tilting against windmills.

Tarponfly said:

---

My daughter attended Mystic her entire childhood and it was the very best experience of her life. Dick Eastland was like a grandfather figure. Yes, this flood was an absolute tragedy. Yes, Mystic could have searched their crystal ball and moved the entire camp (which has sat where it presently sits for 100 years) to a higher and therefore safer location. However, I would have still send my daughter to Mystic where it sits today and am damned glad she was not among the poor souls (including Dick Eastland) who lost their lives. However, the hate is BS and this has turned into something with a life of its own amongst the Texas "gilded class" who are otherwise sane humans.

Shutting down Mystic is a pathetic and stupid way to seek "justice," if that is what the parents are looking for. I am sympathetic, but I also understand the futility of tilting against windmills.

---

I don't hate anybody. Except maybe sips. I simply don't want this to happen again. I am not confident the surviving Eastlands will take the necessary steps. Thank you for your opinion.

And the hate goes both ways my friend. We have a poster on here basically saying the dead girls' families were after money and vengeance because of "fuggimg human nature". And I was the only one who called him out. Yet I have been fairly harshly criticized for my opinions on here.

i am part of one of rather dead girl's family. And I know others. It is way over the top to accuse the families of those things and frankly untrue. All I want is for the surviving Eastlands to be barred from owning camps like this. I am not after a "few bucks" or vengeance.

And we have the Eastland's defense attorney telling the plaintiff attorneys "They will roast in hell".

The vitriol goes both ways my friend.

And I will ad that I am no lawyer. But a lawyer who feels they are in a good position do not make comments like opposing counsel is "going to burn in hell". Sounds kind of desperate to me.

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Yes. 100% agree with you on that.

Regardless of the outcome, really, there is absolute 100% chance of serious changes coming moving forward. Your flood plain building concerns will be addressed. Licensing, plans, state regs, oversight, staff requirements....from camps to municipalities to how businesses are protected from liability.....It is all changing.

But we still can't get complacent. These will only address what we think will be problems. It will be an eventuality that some other extreme will occur and it very well could cost lives. But, it will be better, nonetheless.

---

Agree. Any reason why you believe Mystic lobbied against the legislation that the dead campers parents testified for in front of the Texas Senate? After 27 deaths on their watch?

---

Are you referring to the Camp Safety Bill? SB1 that was linked in your previous post?

---

I was wrong about Mystic. It was the other camos who lobbied against the safety bills. I can not understand why.

---

To answer that, I had to go dig up the bill and summarize it through AI.

Here is what i think is a high level overview, but there is a lot more to it including exemptions and workarounds, but either way, this is the big stuff I think.

• Floodplain Restrictions: The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is prohibited from licensing any youth camp with sleeping cabins located in a FEMA-designated floodplain. Limited exceptions exist for cabins at least 1,000 feet from a floodway or near dammed, still bodies of water.
• Emergency Action Plans (EAPs): Operators must develop comprehensive plans for scenarios such as floods, severe weather, fires, and lost campers. These plans must be shared with local emergency management and submitted to the state.
• Weather Alert Systems:
  
  • Radios: Every cabin must be equipped with a functional weather alert radio (e.g., NOAA).
  • PA Systems: Camps must have a public address system that operates without an internet connection.
  • Redundant Internet: At least two internet connections are required to ensure alerts are received during severe weather.
• Mandatory Training and Drills:
  
  • Staff: Annual emergency response and evacuation training is required.
  • Campers: Safety orientation and evacuation drills must be conducted within the first 48 hours of each camp session.
• Cabin Safety Features: All cabins located in flood-prone areas must be equipped with ladders for rooftop access to provide a safety option during rising water.
• Transparency: Camps must notify parents or legal guardians if any part of the camp is located in a floodplain.

The rules are already in effect.

"Floodplain Restrictions" is probably where the hang up is and why a camp would lobby against it.

So, these may be operating unlicensed for a while...if they can...I don't know how that works.

Costs can just be passed on to campers, but also there is financial assistance available to do it, and I think they can phase it in or convert to day time only use.

The big deal with the structures is to remove the 'people sleeping in buildings over night' in flood areas. That's the goal, I think.

I clearly don't think any of this is a money grab. I think it is a group of people who all loved a place very deeply and are grasping for different ways to come to terms with an unspeakable tragedy. Mystic has a place in this world, even though 27 little girls died trying to have the same basic experience my daughter enjoyed but lived to tell the tell the tale. I just think the world would be a lot better with more Camp Mystics and less bans on all activities that accompany some level of risk.