good luck with trying to reason with him. he's the one saying the epic flash flood was just a 50 year storm because of a 4 day rainfall total.

FM 949 said:

---

good luck with trying to reason with him. he's the one saying the epic flash flood was just a 50 year storm because of a 4 day rainfall total.

---

That's not what I said. I said that's what it would be based on his 4 day range posted in that area. We found additional rainfall totals that put it closer to 200.

i know. I read the thread. I'm still stunned you came to that conclusion until you were corrected.

FM 949 said:

---

i know. I read the thread. I'm still stunned you came to that conclusion until you were corrected.

---

I wasn't corrected. His original claim was that it was 500 to 1000 because he didn't know their timeline for "flood duration". I pointed out the range in his data was four days. He then found a range that put it in 200.

Teslag said:

---

Looks like from swc93's other data it's around 200 year thereabouts

---

Why are you so hellbent on understating the severity of this event? You can also use the flood guages and FIS stream data to see what FEMA think about the severity. I went through it all a couple of days ago and it's easily 500 year for the South Fork. I'll try to pull it all together when I have time.

sellthefarm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Looks like from swc93's other data it's around 200 year thereabouts

---

Why are you so hellbent on understating the severity of this event? You can also use the flood guages and FIS stream data to see what FEMA think about the severity. I went through it all a couple of days ago and it's easily 500 year for the South Fork. I'll try to pull it all together when I have time.

---

I'm hellbent on pinpointing it and not guessing. If it's 500 it's 500. But I want that based on real information and not guesswork.

Teslag said:

---

sellthefarm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Possibly, hard to say without the supporting exhibits which cabins were included in the LOMR determination. One thing to point out is that I think I saw that those in Bubble Inn were being evacuated on foot to the rec center, which is to the north (not shown in my image as it's new. Currently sits on area of those tennis courts). So they would have been traversing the floodway to get to safety.

---

This is not "hard to say". Its very easy to say based on all information available that the cabins that lost girls were 100% well above the 100 year BFEs and also likely above the 500 year BFEs.

---

This is incorrect. Both the Twins and Bubble Inn were within the boundary' of the Zone AE floodplain

Twins = yellow
Bubble Inn = red

---

I didn't say they are not within the boundaries as shown on the map, I said they are above the BFEs. And they are above the BFEs by a lot. C'mon man.

I couldn't find the FFE's for twins and bubble inn. If you have them that would help a lot.

Teslag said:

---

I looked at it closer and it appears their "flash flooding period" is total rainfall from July 3rd to July 7th. So the 12.7 inches of rain at Ingram would be over a 4 day period. That would put it around a 50 year storm event.

---

FWIW - I am aware of someone who has a ranch in the area that had 18 inches in 24 hours. So hard to get a full picture of actual rain in area.

yeah trying to post TNRIS topo...

NG at the Bubbles (I think) is 1844 and Twins (I think) is about 1843.

And from pics I've seen they are all several feet out of the ground.

https://imgur.com/a/NN8q8zQ

[img]<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/NN8q8zQ" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/NN8q8zQ"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/img]

Just can't get an image to post...lol

It's fine, I get what you're trying to post. What's that contour elevation? LiDAR I'm guessing?

Those elevations would put them easily above BFE. Just depends on how accurate the topo source is, but I can't imagine it's off by that much. But I'd also not expect a flood boundary to be off that much either. Definitely some conflicting data in there.

Flood boundaries are routinely off by a hundred feet - not uncommon at all. You always go by the elevations, not the boundaries. That's why I've been so quick to dismiss this idea of showing the map and saying they are in the floodway.

In my experience this topo source is very accurate. It was flown post Harvey I believe, not 100% on that, but I never have any issue with this source.

I didn't write the flood plan, but I can imagine what the process might have been. The same data you use for insurance would also be used to establish which cabins need to evac'd and which don't. The used the data they had, which everyone probably agreed was good data. Turns out mother nature proved everyone wrong.

Signing off for the day but intend to revisit this convo because it's important to me and the broader engineering community.

New analysis on the flood plain:
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5460970/fema-texas-flooding-floodplain-camp-mystic

Time loop of the radar followed by rain accumulation with time stamps.

Terrible news as the death toll from the #Kerrville #TXwx flooding July 4th continues to rise to at least 80. Here's the radar loop along with the estimated precipitation. A nearly stationary t-storm on the early morning of July 4th produced rain rates over 2 inches per hour! pic.twitter.com/jgBItXJam3

— Dan Skoff (@weatherdan) July 7, 2025

I appreciate your rigorous scientific attitude Teslag

sellthefarm said:

---

yeah trying to post TNRIS topo...

NG at the Bubbles (I think) is 1844 and Twins (I think) is about 1843.

And from pics I've seen they are all several feet out of the ground.

https://imgur.com/a/NN8q8zQ

[img]<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="a/NN8q8zQ" data-context="false" ><a href="//imgur.com/a/NN8q8zQ"></a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/img]

Just can't get an image to post...lol

---

This is the actual link to the image, but I believe pngs don't embed. I guess it does

tamc93 said:

---

https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KTXHUNT85/table/2025-07-4/2025-07-4/daily

Roughly 9.7 inches in 4 hours (guage must have stopped working later on):

---

That's pretty chilling. Guessing the power/internet being down shut a bunch of these down.


This one a little further upstream shows 9.74 inches between 1230 and 445 before shutting off as well.

https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KTXHUNT85/table/2025-07-4/2025-07-4/daily

88planoAg said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Frankly, the problem for those sweet 9 year olds was not the lack of an iphone by their bed, or even notifications in general. The camp leadership was a aware of the danger and had begun evacuating some of the cabins to higher ground a couple of hours before peak intensity, if the initial reporting is correct. The problem was that the severity of the situation and water levels exceeded the expectations of the leaders in charge and the emergency evacuation plan that was in place. It appears they thought their campers were on high enough ground for the situation, until it was too late. I know emotions are high, but sadly, no number of calls from parents in the middle of the night passing along weather alerts would have changed things.

---

They were prepared.

They had a disaster plan.

They executed the plan.

The water kept rising and overcame that plan.

---

IF all this is accurate, these camps need to be relocated. There's no way to prevent reoccurrence because any plan probably can and will be overcome by unforeseen factors. We can only plan for what we know or, in the best case, imagine. Plus, we're limited in planning by resources. There was no way, for example, to get sufficient busses in there to evac all camps well ahead of the rising water. That might have been the only effective way for everyone to get out unharmed. The middle of the night is no time to try and move to higher ground. There will always be insufficient lighting under the best of conditions/most resources and the power to that lighting may be severed.

Any plan going forward that does not include a complete evacuation will be incomplete with respect to future, similar events. Further, if you have to start passing out life jackets and strobe lights for the children at your camp to be safe if a catastrophic event were to happen, you've already lost the game; relocation is an absolute must.

Yeah, regardless of where blame lies or doesn't lie here or where these cabins were relative to official floodplains, I don't see how you can rebuild any cabins that this water reached

91AggieLawyer said:

---

IF all this is accurate, these camps need to be relocated. There's no way to prevent reoccurrence because any plan probably can and will be overcome by unforeseen factors. We can only plan for what we know or, in the best case, imagine. Plus, we're limited in planning by resources. There was no way, for example, to get sufficient busses in there to evac all camps well ahead of the rising water. That might have been the only effective way for everyone to get out unharmed. The middle of the night is no time to try and move to higher ground. There will always be insufficient lighting under the best of conditions/most resources and the power to that lighting may be severed.

Any plan going forward that does not include a complete evacuation will be incomplete with respect to future, similar events. Further, if you have to start passing out life jackets and strobe lights for the children at your camp to be safe if a catastrophic event were to happen, you've already lost the game; relocation is an absolute must.

---

Ok, so how much of Houston must be permanently relocated because there's no way to prevent a reoccurrence of Hurricane Harvey?

When you start enforcing a standard of 0% risk (impossible), then there's no activity or place in this life that lives up to the standard. Life is a matter of calculated risks.

Rather than relocating, making a switchback evacuation trail directly behind the rear of the southernmost cabins and an evacuation plan that incorporates that seems like a possibility.

TexasRebel said:

---

It's an event that hadn't happened in 100+ years.

Society as a whole cannot cower away from everything that has a slight risk. Life in bubble-wrap, stuffed in a box of foam peanuts isn't life at all. It's also not completely safe either.

---

I don't disagree, but playing Russian Roulette with Mother Nature is a losing proposition

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

justnobody79 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

It's an event that hadn't happened in 100+ years.

Society as a whole cannot cower away from everything that has a slight risk. Life in bubble-wrap, stuffed in a box of foam peanuts isn't life at all. It's also not completely safe either.

---

I don't disagree, but playing Russian Roulette with Mother Nature is a losing proposition

---

You do it every day.

---

yeah but being in the river basin of the Guadalupe during a flood watch is slightly more risky than my 7 mile commute to work

It wasn't a flood until it was.

Hence: flash flood.

TexasRebel said:

---

It wasn't a flood until it was.

Hence: flash flood.

---

Flash floods in this area are common. This isn't some freak occurrence that won't happen again. It will.

justnobody79 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

justnobody79 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

It's an event that hadn't happened in 100+ years.

Society as a whole cannot cower away from everything that has a slight risk. Life in bubble-wrap, stuffed in a box of foam peanuts isn't life at all. It's also not completely safe either.

---

I don't disagree, but playing Russian Roulette with Mother Nature is a losing proposition

---

You do it every day.

---

yeah but being in the river basin of the Guadalupe during a flood watch is slightly more risky than my 7 mile commute to work

---

A 7 mile commute is slightly more risky than working from home. Lifetime odds of dying in a car crash is 1 in 95.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

justnobody79 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

justnobody79 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

It's an event that hadn't happened in 100+ years.

Society as a whole cannot cower away from everything that has a slight risk. Life in bubble-wrap, stuffed in a box of foam peanuts isn't life at all. It's also not completely safe either.

---

I don't disagree, but playing Russian Roulette with Mother Nature is a losing proposition

---

You do it every day.

---

yeah but being in the river basin of the Guadalupe during a flood watch is slightly more risky than my 7 mile commute to work

---

A 7 mile commute is slightly more risky than working from home. Lifetime odds of dying in a car crash is 1 in 95.

---

We all realize everything involves risk. There's a tradeoff to be made in every choice. Perhaps, risking the lives of children isn't a great idea when you can simply move a few cabins to higher ground, especially when they will largely have to be repaired anyway.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

IF all this is accurate, these camps need to be relocated. There's no way to prevent reoccurrence because any plan probably can and will be overcome by unforeseen factors. We can only plan for what we know or, in the best case, imagine. Plus, we're limited in planning by resources. There was no way, for example, to get sufficient busses in there to evac all camps well ahead of the rising water. That might have been the only effective way for everyone to get out unharmed. The middle of the night is no time to try and move to higher ground. There will always be insufficient lighting under the best of conditions/most resources and the power to that lighting may be severed.

Any plan going forward that does not include a complete evacuation will be incomplete with respect to future, similar events. Further, if you have to start passing out life jackets and strobe lights for the children at your camp to be safe if a catastrophic event were to happen, you've already lost the game; relocation is an absolute must.

---

Ok, so how much of Houston must be permanently relocated because there's no way to prevent a reoccurrence of Hurricane Harvey?

When you start enforcing a standard of 0% risk (impossible), then there's no activity or place in this life that lives up to the standard. Life is a matter of calculated risks.

Rather than relocating, making a switchback evacuation trail directly behind the rear of the southernmost cabins and an evacuation plan that incorporates that seems like a possibility.

---

Or build the cabins higher up in the hills and bus the kids down to the river during the day. We're 400 or so yards from the Guadalupe and our house is at 1055 ft above sea level. The river bottom is at 965. It would take a 90 ft crest to get to us. This one was 29. Common sense says you don't house kids and have them sleeping in a flood plain

Rattler12 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

IF all this is accurate, these camps need to be relocated. There's no way to prevent reoccurrence because any plan probably can and will be overcome by unforeseen factors. We can only plan for what we know or, in the best case, imagine. Plus, we're limited in planning by resources. There was no way, for example, to get sufficient busses in there to evac all camps well ahead of the rising water. That might have been the only effective way for everyone to get out unharmed. The middle of the night is no time to try and move to higher ground. There will always be insufficient lighting under the best of conditions/most resources and the power to that lighting may be severed.

Any plan going forward that does not include a complete evacuation will be incomplete with respect to future, similar events. Further, if you have to start passing out life jackets and strobe lights for the children at your camp to be safe if a catastrophic event were to happen, you've already lost the game; relocation is an absolute must.

---

Ok, so how much of Houston must be permanently relocated because there's no way to prevent a reoccurrence of Hurricane Harvey?

When you start enforcing a standard of 0% risk (impossible), then there's no activity or place in this life that lives up to the standard. Life is a matter of calculated risks.

Rather than relocating, making a switchback evacuation trail directly behind the rear of the southernmost cabins and an evacuation plan that incorporates that seems like a possibility.

---

Or build the cabins higher up in the hills and bus the kids down to the river during the day. We're 400 or so yards from the Guadalupe and our house is at 1055 ft above sea level. The river bottom is at 965. It would take a 90 ft crest to get to us. This one was 29. Common sense says you don't house kids and have them sleeping in a flood plain

---

I don't think there is much point in "what we should have done". We are all angry, frustrated, and sad. It's down. Mistakes were made. Prices were paid and all we can do is move forward and do better. We are looking for excuses and people to blame for the tragedy. The fact of the matter is that the cabins should have never been there but remained there because of the failure of humans to understand past that which they personally experience. It's just a shortcoming of being a human. The plan the camp had was fine. What wasn't fine was the timing and delay in executing the plan. There is no excuse whatsoever to justify the deaths we saw. There just isn't. Ample warning was given hours prior, even days prior. We are humans and we make dumb decisions all the time and then we blame others for them. This was a result of a poor set of decisions. I doubt this camp will exist ever again in its current form by the time the lawyers get involved with it but unfortunately, these are the types of things humans need to make hard decisions and improve processes for next time. There isn't a person in the planet that will ever convince me that this was "too big to have been prepared for" or "there wasn't enough time". In the coming weeks and months we are going to get a much clearer understanding of of how much wanting was ignored. Unless parents are willfully apathetic, I bet there were hundreds of calls coming in to any number they could come into about weather and flooding. We contact our kids at camp every time a NWS convective outlook is posted 24 hours out, so you can bet your tail important people were getting notice.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

People, including children, sleep in flood plains all the time. Your hindsight is talking.

---

Don't be obtuse. There's a wide gap between a single family residence in a subdivision too close to a tributary on a gentle sloping 100yr floodplain in a Dallas suburb and a cabin full of girls in a remote camp next to a flashflood prone area with little to no warning before danger.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Some people may consider posting less.

---

don't disagree with a lot of what you said but....living in Brazos is a WHOLE LOT different than living in Kerr...I received 2 flashflood warnings yesterday from the NWS....I didn't get a single drop of rain...those county wide, sometimes multiple counties wide warnings are pretty worthless when you get them repeatidly every month...a once in a century wall of water taught us to not rebuild cabins there period, end of story

Alta said:

---

One of our greatest faults as humans is that we have to blame somebody for everything. Sometimes tragedies occur and they always will. No matter how hard we try to prevent them and how much we care. Everything we do has a degree of risk.

---

There's a difference between looking at failure points to reduce future risk and trying to find someone to blame.