rtpAggie said:

---

I watched that and thought of you.

Should be required viewing for everyone.

---

So proud of my nephew. And he spoke at Mary Grace's funeral and was great. No way I could have done that. Strong in his faith.

Sounds like an amazing man!

Anyone able to clarify something contradictory I have seen about SB 1? I heard in the hearing and read in the reporting afterwards that ladders and escape hatches would be required for cabins in flood plains, but also that cabins would not be allowed in floodplains. Is this a case where the former is for existing cabins and the latter for new cabins?

JunctionBoy1138 said:

---

Anyone able to clarify something contradictory I have seen about SB 1? I heard in the hearing and read in the reporting afterwards that ladders and escape hatches would be required for cabins in flood plains, but also that cabins would not be allowed in floodplains. Is this a case where the former is for existing cabins and the latter for new cabins?

---

I really wish they would just forbid sleeping in cabins in the floodplain during any flood watch or warning. Going to things like ladders and escape hatches just seems like we are conceding that we are ok with the idea of kids being put in that situation again. Let them go sleep in a gym or parish hall or something else on high ground. It is camp. The kids will love a giant sleep in on the floor of a gym for a night.

dermdoc said:

---

rtpAggie said:

---

I watched that and thought of you.

Should be required viewing for everyone.

---

So proud of my nephew. And he spoke at Mary Grace's funeral and was great. No way I could have done that. Strong in his faith.

---

He really did a phenomenal job.

I could not have kept my composure the way he did.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

rtpAggie said:

---

The senate clearly pointed out how mystic owners were at fault for seeking the fema waivers.

Very much made it clear that there was fault involved.

---

Yes they did. And very proud of my nephew's testimony today. Mystic was negligent and complacent. The Senate investigation is very important to keep this from happening again. And it is a lot worse than just the FEMA stuff. And no I do not love lawsuits or trial lawyers.

---

Do you have the link to the testimony? It was taken off the thread on the OB

I found it online. Clarke was amazing….from what I could hear through my crying.

---

https://senate.texas.gov/videoplayer.php?vid=22495&lang=en

The change was between "lake" camps and "river" camps. Ie camp longhorn inks lake can keep their cabin in the flood plain. However they must evacuate anytime a flash flood warning is issued. That is the only exception and FEMA LOMAs don't matter.

Floodway*

I am not surprised that the family of Jayda Floyd has filed a lawsuit against HTR TX Hill Country Resort, but they are unlikely to win a favorable ruling because this was something that no one had control over

Brother Shamus said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Until you need em.

---

Sure, in criminal proceedings and dealings with the authorities. With respect to civil law however, the legal profession can in many cases be a self propagating entity. Often the reason you need a lawyer is because of the actions of another lawyer.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I am not surprised that the family of Jayda Floyd has filed a lawsuit against HTR TX Hill Country Resort, but they are unlikely to win a favorable ruling because this was something that no one had control over

---

I would invite you to read the previous eleven pages of discussion on this.

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

LOL. You literally spent the first four lines of this mess claiming that it's "flood alley" "most deadly river system", and "aren't unexpected" and then turn right around and say "nobody warned them" LOL. Some just look for someone to blame rather than looking in the mirror.

txags92 said:

---

JunctionBoy1138 said:

---

Anyone able to clarify something contradictory I have seen about SB 1? I heard in the hearing and read in the reporting afterwards that ladders and escape hatches would be required for cabins in flood plains, but also that cabins would not be allowed in floodplains. Is this a case where the former is for existing cabins and the latter for new cabins?

---

I really wish they would just forbid sleeping in cabins in the floodplain during any flood watch or warning. Going to things like ladders and escape hatches just seems like we are conceding that we are ok with the idea of kids being put in that situation again. Let them go sleep in a gym or parish hall or something else on high ground. It is camp. The kids will love a giant sleep in on the floor of a gym for a night.

---

The problem is what is the definition of a "flood plain"? FEMA's definition, which changes about every decade? 50 year? 100 year? 500 year? It's along a river with endless vertical acreage upstream. Sad situation.
Warning systems? If you've ever been in a camper or tent during a rain storm you can't hear yourself think, much less being able to hear in an RV with the AC running.

From Senate Bill 1:

Section 762.001 defines a floodplain as "any area within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

Section 141.0052 says "The department may not issue or renew a license under this chapter to a youth camp that operates one or more cabins located in a floodplain."

At Mystic, the ground outside Twins and Bubble Inn cabins is about 6 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

In the Letter of Map Amendment, FEMA said:
"we have determined that the structure(s) on the property(ies) is/are not located in the NFIP regulatory floodway or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the NFIP regulatory floodway and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map"

So technically, SB1 as it is currently written would still allow Bubble Inn and Twins be used as cabins.

Section 762.002 says "A campground operator shall… develop an emergency plan for: evacuating on issuance of a flash flood warning campground occupants who are at a campground area within a floodplain"

This bill would not require evacuation for campers in the 500-year floodplain. At Mystic, the flood was about 15 feet above the current published 100-year flood elevation and about 5 feet above the 500-year flood elevation. The bill as it is currently written would not provide any additional protection for extreme weather events like the 500+ year flood that occurred at Mystic.

so proud of my friends who also spoke yesterday. please everyone continue to pray for all these families.

Secolobo said:

---

txags92 said:

---

JunctionBoy1138 said:

---

Anyone able to clarify something contradictory I have seen about SB 1? I heard in the hearing and read in the reporting afterwards that ladders and escape hatches would be required for cabins in flood plains, but also that cabins would not be allowed in floodplains. Is this a case where the former is for existing cabins and the latter for new cabins?

---

I really wish they would just forbid sleeping in cabins in the floodplain during any flood watch or warning. Going to things like ladders and escape hatches just seems like we are conceding that we are ok with the idea of kids being put in that situation again. Let them go sleep in a gym or parish hall or something else on high ground. It is camp. The kids will love a giant sleep in on the floor of a gym for a night.

---

The problem is what is the definition of a "flood plain"? FEMA's definition, which changes about every decade? 50 year? 100 year? 500 year? It's along a river with endless vertical acreage upstream. Sad situation.
Warning systems? If you've ever been in a camper or tent during a rain storm you can't hear yourself think, much less being able to hear in an RV with the AC running.

---

If I had it my way, it would be any defined flood plain. As was shown above, being above the 100 yr flood plain didn't help the Camp Mystic girls.

Floodplain modelling is as much art as it is science. It is extremely computationally intensive, and over large areas, you have to make a lot of assumptions and generalizations about the land characteristics and storm events. I have seen the floodplain maps alongside the affected area maps from this event. In some places the flood didn't break past the 100-year floodplain, and in other locations it exceeded the 500-year floodplain.

It is easy to say "don't allow kids to lodge in the 100-year floodplain", but as has been pointed out that is essentially an arbitrary elevation established as a baseline for insurance and regulatory purposes. When the rains actually fall from the heavens, a lot of that can become less relevant.

Burdizzo said:

---

Floodplain modelling is as much art as it is science. It is extremely computationally intensive, and over large areas, you have to make a lot of assumptions and generalizations about the land characteristics and storm events. I have seen the floodplain maps alongside the affected area maps from this event. In some places the flood didn't break past the 100-year floodplain, and in other locations it exceeded the 500-year floodplain.

It is easy to say "don't allow kids to lodge in the 100-year floodplain", but as has been pointed out that is essentially an arbitrary elevation established as a baseline for insurance and regulatory purposes. When the rains actually fall from the heavens, a lot of that can become less relevant.

---

For sure, and I am not at all convinced that HEC-RAS or the other models do all that good of a job modeling flow interactions from tributaries at the point where they join a main channel. In the case of Mystic, the contribution from Cypress Creek was part of the modeling of the base flood elevation in the South Fork, but from the maps it appears they did not actually model elevations along the creek separately. They just showed the overall BFE elevation from the South Fork projected up the creek. The water coming down the creek was undoubtedly higher than what was in the South Fork just by simple fact that water runs downhill. The flood plain maps don't reflect that reality because the side creek was not modeled separately.

We as a society unfortunately tend to use the 100 yr BFE as a demarcation line of risk vs no risk. There IS still risk above the 100 yr BFE, just not as likely.

Fema, as we know, is as political as any agency. They redraw maps every few years and the last administration even figured climate change into definitions. It's a moving target.

AustinCountyAg said:

---

so proud of my friends who also spoke yesterday. please everyone continue to pray for all these families.

---

They were absolutely heartbreaking to listen to.

jt16 said:

---

Why can't they sue? I just don't understand this mentality. Acts of God can be planned for and mitigated. They didn't die because of a heart attack. They died during a flood in an area known as flood alley, the most deadly river system in the country. These floods do happen in central Texas. They aren't completely unexpected. And nobody warned them until it was too late. People died because flooding in a known flood area wasn't taken seriously enough. Lots of times lawsuits change habits going forward to prevent things from happening again. families were swept away in 2015 and we did jack **** to prevent it from happening again. I'm not a lawyer, but lawsuits serve a purpose other than looking for someone to blame.

---

When in the history of Hill Country flooding can you cite as the equivalent of the July flood? Given your statement I assume that you know that of which you speak.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

I think there will be many lawsuits unfortunately, people want to blame someone…. That was a 500 year flood.. if that's not an "act of god"…. Then what is ?

---

500 year flood or not, anyone living on a river, or in this case operating a campground, in Texas and especially in the hill country knows there is a risk of flash flooding. Their lawsuit probably states the campground did not properly mitigate that risk by having an evacuation plan or properly executing it if they did. I haven't read it yet, but that's what I assume it would say. You can't predict the particulars of the actual event, but that doesn't mean you can't adequately prepare for the eventuality.

---

You say,"500 year or not" and if that's so then there should never be allowed any camp, camp ground, RV Park, or structure along those rivers which flooded as in the July 4th flood. Flash flooding is one thing but the flood of July 4 was a whole different animal. Over the past hundred years, how many floods has the Hill Country experienced? Of that flood history how many were of the same magnitude as the July 4th? So, based on your opinion, are you saying the plan should be based on the "500 year" threat? Sounds good but you can kiss much of the area's history good bye, which may be a good thing.

Texarkanaag69 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

I think there will be many lawsuits unfortunately, people want to blame someone…. That was a 500 year flood.. if that's not an "act of god"…. Then what is ?

---

500 year flood or not, anyone living on a river, or in this case operating a campground, in Texas and especially in the hill country knows there is a risk of flash flooding. Their lawsuit probably states the campground did not properly mitigate that risk by having an evacuation plan or properly executing it if they did. I haven't read it yet, but that's what I assume it would say. You can't predict the particulars of the actual event, but that doesn't mean you can't adequately prepare for the eventuality.

---

You say,"500 year or not" and if that's so then there should never be allowed any camp, camp ground, RV Park, or structure along those rivers which flooded as in the July 4th flood. Flash flooding is one thing but the flood of July 4 was a whole different animal. Over the past hundred years, how many floods has the Hill Country experienced? Of that flood history how many were of the same magnitude as the July 4th? So, based on your opinion, are you saying the plan should be based on the "500 year" threat? Sounds good but you can kiss much of the area's history good bye, which may be a good thing.

---

That is why I suggested not forbidding having buildings in the flood plain, but instead just forbid sleeping in them when floods are predicted to be possible. How many nights in a typical summer are these camps under flash flood warnings/watches? Maybe 2-3 per year? So move all the kids up to the gym or parish hall on high ground, let them sleep on the floor in sleeping bags for a night, and then go back to what you were doing. Give every cabin a radio linked to a central system where they can receive warnings about flood alerts that would require moving out in the middle of the night and to communicate where they should go and other important info.

On the rest of the summer nights, the camp operates business as usual, and they just need to change a few nights a year.

Quote:

---

The problem is what is the definition of a "flood plain"? FEMA's definition, which changes about every decade? 50 year? 100 year? 500 year? It's along a river with endless vertical acreage upstream. Sad situation.
Warning systems? If you've ever been in a camper or tent during a rain storm you can't hear yourself think, much less being able to hear in an RV with the AC running.

---

I'm a scanner nerd.

We had a deer camp in E TX and I would use the WX Warn feature always. Often my family was w/ me in a trailer and more than once It went off in the middle of the night. It was certainly loud enough to wake me w/ the A/C running.

Camp wasn't in a flood prone area, but I was worried most of falling trees and limbs. Only once did I think it was bad enough to evacuate to my truck and drive to an open area w/o trees.

Looked it up and there is a NWR(National Weather Radio) transmitter in Kerrville. I know these warnings can go largely ignored, but anyone w/ a weather radio in the area should be able to receive the transmissions.

https://www.weather.gov/nwr/sites?site=WWF90

Flash flood warnings were in effect that night and early morning. As Gunny pointed out there are some flood gauges, but not sure if NWS was monitoring and reporting that data.

They were and it was known there would be weather in the area. I don't think the RV or each camp site can expect or should be accountable for everyone to have a radio on monitoring the weather.
As far as the sound, I was referring to the proposed emergency sirens along the river and being able to hear them. That's a long stretch.

Obviously emotional and tragic situation. I will say I'm a little surprised about some of what I'm hearing on Mystics response. As a parent who has sent a daughter to Mystic a number of years it was pretty well known the risk of the river and I never thought the Eastlands underplayed it and took it very seriously. I certainly had multiple pretty open conversations with them and never found them to simply ignore the risk. And quite frankly one of the most dangerous activities that can occur in these storms is evacuating. Some of what is being said about cabin placement is simply not accurate. That will all come out in court obviously as there will be many lawsuits.

No idea if Mystic will continue to exist but if it does I know I'll continue to send my daughters and almost all the Mystic parents I personally know pretty much feel the same way. The best places in the world unfortunately usually contain the most risk of natural disasters.

Continued prayers for everybody involved or affected. Long road ahead.

Didn't say they should be.

And I agree sirens are not the answer.

It's also not reasonable to expect everyone to have a weather radio. Is it reasonable to expect the RV park be monitoring one? Maybe not.

But, I think it reasonable to expect someone at a kids summer camp to do so. I also think it reasonable that all counselors should have a handheld radio and be trained in its use.

Point is, the "tech" is there. Albeit old school RF.

Jugstore Cowboy said:

---

As an outsider who knew nothing about CM before July 4th but took a little time to read about it, it was pretty surprising to learn that the owners had drastically expanded capacity by building new dorms on low ground closer to the river after experiencing previous flood emergencies. And then put the youngest girls in those new, low-lying cabins.

That stands out to me more than anything.

This business has been owned and operated by the same family for the better part of a century; presumably they were the experts on the property and the business.

There are some historical facts that make it difficult to accept the whole "Act of God" notion as a dismissal of the owners' responsibility.

---

This is simply inaccurate. The amount of inaccurate information that gets spewed as fact is astounding.

Gator92 said:

---

Didn't say they should be.

And I agree sirens are not the answer.

It's also not reasonable to expect everyone to have a weather radio. Is it reasonable to expect the RV park be monitoring one? Maybe not.

But, I think it reasonable to expect someone at a kids summer camp to do so. I also think it reasonable that all counselors should have a handheld radio and be trained in its use.

Point is, the "tech" is there. Albeit old school RF.

---

The RV parks are not going to be found liable, if this goes to trial (insurance may settle to avoid litigation costs). There is clear precedent on that point. It's not an RV park's responsibility to warn people that the river they are camping next to (which is their draw for coming to the campground in the first place) might flood. That's already been litigated.

Kids camps are a completely different matter. Those are childcare facilities, not land or room rental.

You keep saying that the camps are childcare facilities.

I don't disagree, but are they licensed as such?

Do they have to undergo licensing such as your local Kinder Care?

Is there a legal distinction?

Gator92 said:

---

You keep saying that the camps are childcare facilities.

I don't disagree, but are they licensed as such?

Do they have to undergo licensing such as your local Kinder Care?

Is there a legal distinction?

---

I believe they do, as I recall somebody claiming CM had just had an inspection by the state days before the floods.

txags92 said:

---

Gator92 said:

---

You keep saying that the camps are childcare facilities.

I don't disagree, but are they licensed as such?

Do they have to undergo licensing such as your local Kinder Care?

Is there a legal distinction?

---

I believe they do, as I recall somebody claiming CM had just had an inspection by the state days before the floods.

---

The second half of the senate testimony (after the parents) was from different agencies and camps. One of the guys testified specifically to what the inspection in the preceding days was for.

mcsatx said:

---

From Senate Bill 1:

Section 762.001 defines a floodplain as "any area within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

Section 141.0052 says "The department may not issue or renew a license under this chapter to a youth camp that operates one or more cabins located in a floodplain."

At Mystic, the ground outside Twins and Bubble Inn cabins is about 6 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

In the Letter of Map Amendment, FEMA said:
"we have determined that the structure(s) on the property(ies) is/are not located in the NFIP regulatory floodway or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the NFIP regulatory floodway and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map"

So technically, SB1 as it is currently written would still allow Bubble Inn and Twins be used as cabins.

Section 762.002 says "A campground operator shall… develop an emergency plan for: evacuating on issuance of a flash flood warning campground occupants who are at a campground area within a floodplain"

This bill would not require evacuation for campers in the 500-year floodplain. At Mystic, the flood was about 15 feet above the current published 100-year flood elevation and about 5 feet above the 500-year flood elevation. The bill as it is currently written would not provide any additional protection for extreme weather events like the 500+ year flood that occurred at Mystic.

---

The bill has updated the floodplain definition to the following:

"Floodplain" means any area within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Section 4001 et seq.). This term includes any area removed from the 100-year floodplain by a letter of map amendment, a letter of map revision based on fill, or a substantially similar administrative process conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

While this update means that most of the Mystic cabins could not be used going forward, it would still not protect cabins at other camps that are located in the 500-year floodplain from an extreme 500+ year flood like the one that occurred at Mystic. The issue at Mystic was not the Letter of Map Amendment. The issue was that the flood was 15 feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation and there was not adequate warning from NWS or local officials to evacuate and seek higher ground.

Quote:

---

The issue was that the flood was 15 feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation and there was not adequate warning from NWS or local officials to evacuate and seek higher ground.

---

What do you want the weather service to do? Go door to door and wake people up? They issued the appropriate warnings, it's just that the folks at Camp Mystic and elsewhere along the river either ignored them, or weren't aware of them because they were asleep. As to Camp Mystic, the folks who ran the camp are the only ones at fault.

mcsatx said:

---

mcsatx said:

---

From Senate Bill 1:

Section 762.001 defines a floodplain as "any area within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

Section 141.0052 says "The department may not issue or renew a license under this chapter to a youth camp that operates one or more cabins located in a floodplain."

At Mystic, the ground outside Twins and Bubble Inn cabins is about 6 feet above the 100-year flood elevation.

In the Letter of Map Amendment, FEMA said:
"we have determined that the structure(s) on the property(ies) is/are not located in the NFIP regulatory floodway or the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood). This document revises the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the NFIP regulatory floodway and the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map"

So technically, SB1 as it is currently written would still allow Bubble Inn and Twins be used as cabins.

Section 762.002 says "A campground operator shall… develop an emergency plan for: evacuating on issuance of a flash flood warning campground occupants who are at a campground area within a floodplain"

This bill would not require evacuation for campers in the 500-year floodplain. At Mystic, the flood was about 15 feet above the current published 100-year flood elevation and about 5 feet above the 500-year flood elevation. The bill as it is currently written would not provide any additional protection for extreme weather events like the 500+ year flood that occurred at Mystic.

---

The bill has updated the floodplain definition to the following:

"Floodplain" means any area within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Section 4001 et seq.). This term includes any area removed from the 100-year floodplain by a letter of map amendment, a letter of map revision based on fill, or a substantially similar administrative process conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

While this update means that most of the Mystic cabins could not be used going forward, it would still not protect cabins at other camps that are located in the 500-year floodplain from an extreme 500+ year flood like the one that occurred at Mystic. The issue at Mystic was not the Letter of Map Amendment. The issue was that the flood was 15 feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation and there was not adequate warning from NWS or local officials to evacuate and seek higher ground.

---

And unfortunately - there is going to be a weather event where kids die because now we are forcing them to evacuate. And everybody will blame the camp operators for doing so. It's just the unfortunate world we live in today.