clarkebkr07 said:

---

Lots of discovery not only for the eastlands, but the city of Kerrville and Kerr county. Just watch the testimony from the hearing in July. As for when Bubble and Twins were built I do not know. I do know that Rec Hall was built 100 years ago and by the grace of God did not fall bc we're talking about a lot more loss of life. All the while a hill is 20-30 yds away that would have protected everybody. This is why we were so adamant about changing the way things are. We all thought this was in place, we all thought insurance companies would have protected their liabilities. Unfortunately there was a complacency across the entire board. My daughter is gone, i cannot change that, but I can try to ensure that the same complacency that killed her no longer exists. We can all get technical about flood plain, floodway, etc. at the end of the day there was no plan, and orders were to stay in place (only the people that didn't follow orders survived). You can argue, which that is what this is for, but simply put - they weren't prepared.

---

My prayers to you, your family and your daughter.

FM 949 said:

---

I agree, but you missed the point of that statement. You are saying that they didn't have a plan for this event when the event you are talking about dropped anywhere else like Houston or Beaumont would cause cataclysmic damage and loss of life never before seen in those places.

But we're back to what does adequate mean and how does this flood change/impact that.

We talked about it yesterday. You said your wish was for this never to happen again. I think new safety measures and safe guards are going to be put in place by legislation to do just that.

---

You keep saying that nobody would have had a plan for that. But I showed an example of a camp that did. Camp Mo evacuated families on the water. Worst case scenario everyone has a rough night for nothing. They had a plan. Camp Mystic may have thought they had a plan, but maybe they should have adopted the Camp Mo plan. Instead they had three adults in charge of hundred of kids. Teenaged counselors were left to improvise.

I addressed your post at 8:25 this morning. How do you know they didn't have similar plans? Your example is on a different river miles away. Did they have 15' over the 100 year there?

That's why I said it's apples and oranges unless they experienced a similar situation. I don't know.

FM 949 said:

---

I addressed your post at 8:25 this morning. How do you know they didn't have similar plans? Your example is on a different river miles away. Did they have 15' over the 100 year there?

That's why I said it's apples and oranges unless they experienced a similar situation. I don't know.

---

It wouldn't have mattered. They evacuated.

I can type the response again, but I can't help you understand it.

FM 949 said:

---

I can type the response again, but I can't help you understand it.

---

Eh, never mind I read your post from this morning

Azeew said:

---

71 jock said:

---

I'm genuinely curious how many of you have actually ever been to Camp Mystic, met the Eastland's, seen the love and Christian growth these girls experience while there. I've seen a few on this thread. That's it. The rest of you have no idea how this camp has impacted girls and families for generations. Everyone's heart absolutely breaks for what happened to the girls lost, their families, and the Eastland family.

When you actually know how special this place is which 99% of you don't, you can grieve with the families AND want the camp to continue. The best way to honor those girls is to remember them every day but especially every summer at camp. Closing down the camp will do nothing but damage this opportunity. They will never be forgotten, and we continually pray for them. Taking that away from others is not the answer.

It's easy for outsiders to spread misinformation and talk of money and greed, but I'm here to tell you again, you have no idea what you are talking about. We don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you my daughter and her entire cabin she's been with for 6 years, will not hesitate to go back if given that chance. And those of you saying most parents wouldn't send their kids back are just flat out wrong and again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

I'm a Mystic parent and want the camp to reopen. My daughter wants the camp to reopen. My cousin (very influential family in Texas) lost a daughter and they want Mystic to reopen. The camp has done so much for young girls in this state. And the Eastlands did everything they could (including Dick losing his life trying to save girls) once it was apparent there was an issue. Was there enough warning? Was there enough done by the Eastlands before it was apparent? I don't know enough to know. But killing Camp Mystic isn't the right answer, in my opinion.

---

Why would this matter?

Do a little research on how close the cabins were to the water that were evacuated. And a little research on the location of cabins that were not evacuated. When you dig a little for the actual facts you might be surprised.

redcrayon said:

---

Azeew said:

---

71 jock said:

---

I'm genuinely curious how many of you have actually ever been to Camp Mystic, met the Eastland's, seen the love and Christian growth these girls experience while there. I've seen a few on this thread. That's it. The rest of you have no idea how this camp has impacted girls and families for generations. Everyone's heart absolutely breaks for what happened to the girls lost, their families, and the Eastland family.

When you actually know how special this place is which 99% of you don't, you can grieve with the families AND want the camp to continue. The best way to honor those girls is to remember them every day but especially every summer at camp. Closing down the camp will do nothing but damage this opportunity. They will never be forgotten, and we continually pray for them. Taking that away from others is not the answer.

It's easy for outsiders to spread misinformation and talk of money and greed, but I'm here to tell you again, you have no idea what you are talking about. We don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you my daughter and her entire cabin she's been with for 6 years, will not hesitate to go back if given that chance. And those of you saying most parents wouldn't send their kids back are just flat out wrong and again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

I'm a Mystic parent and want the camp to reopen. My daughter wants the camp to reopen. My cousin (very influential family in Texas) lost a daughter and they want Mystic to reopen. The camp has done so much for young girls in this state. And the Eastlands did everything they could (including Dick losing his life trying to save girls) once it was apparent there was an issue. Was there enough warning? Was there enough done by the Eastlands before it was apparent? I don't know enough to know. But killing Camp Mystic isn't the right answer, in my opinion.

---

Why would this matter?

---

Thank you. I read this over and over and tried to figure out why that was necessary. Who cares?

redcrayon said:

---

After watching the testimony from the parents of some of the lost girls, it's clear that Mystic wasn't safe or prepared. Devastating. It's really heartless at this point to continue posting about how much good the camp did for "Texas girls." The tone-deaf nature of those posts is unreal to me.

---

It goes to deciding the value of trying to fix it vs just getting rid of it, If it were some random water park that were grossly negligent and killed 27 kids through carelessness, but otherwise had no redeeming value, it would be an easy choice to just say "shut it down". When it comes to Mystic, there is a difference between being negligently unprepared and being unprepared for an unimaginable flood. The plan they had would have worked and all the kids would have survived a 100 yr flood event or even one 3-5' above that. It was inadequate and they were unprepared for the flood that actually happened (along with everybody else along the river between Hunt and Kerville). The flood crest forecasts at Hunt that were initially shown on USGS river gauges would have been easily survivable at Mystic. By the time the NWS started issuing catastrophic messages, the campers were already in the water. They still clearly could have done things differently and saved more lives, but to call them unprepared does a disservice to the actions they did take that did save lives.

If this were a condolences thread, it would be inappropriate to be trying to balance the losses against the good that came from the camp. But it isn't "heartless'" or "tone-deaf" to discuss the good things about the camp on a thread about lawsuits where we are balancing what outcome seems appropriate. Nobody here is tone deaf to the losses suffered by the families and nobody is trying to say that the "good" of the camp somehow outweighs the losses. But their loss and grief are not the only factors that influence whether the property should be an empty cemetery as a grave stone to the 27 who died or a place where the next generation can carry on the legacy that made the camp experience what it was and learn from the losses and tragedies that came before them.

I think you need to be able to separate the idea of the camp continuing from the idea of the Eastlands managing it or being absolved of any responsibility. Everybody here understands that they screwed up and should not be able to continue to operate the camp, but there is a case to be made that the camp has value and should be able to continue to operate for the benefit of the whole with newer, better, and safer plans in place.

Alta said:

---

Do a little research on how close the cabins were to the water that were evacuated. And a little research on the location of cabins that were not evacuated. When you dig a little for the actual facts you might be surprised.

---

We'll see where this ultimately goes. You can continue to goaltend for the camp, I won't.

It's interesting that folks who have actually stepped foot on the camp and know things get told they are goaltending. Is it not possible to have a civil discussion without that kind of rhetoric?

Call it what you want but I'll continue to goaltend for the truth. If we can't even at least start with the facts then how does anybody actually learn useful lessons from the tragedy?

Queso1 said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Somebody wanted to sue. The law still exists. Lawyers are just practicing their profession and recover whatever is just compensation for their client.

I'm an attorney and I'd like to think that I've helped out a lot of people. I certainly can't say I do it for the money. But, I employ members of my community and I offer counsel and advice to clients. My clients are happy to use my services. I don't solicit clients. I'd say most attorneys are like me. What makes us a blight?

---

You won't get any serious replies. Some people just like to bi*ch and moan about the professions of others, mostly because it allows you to achieve a measure of success in life that they can only dream of. Perhaps it's because they made different or even bad choices that led them to where they are in life currently.

i think multiple things can be true

some parents want the camp to open some are adamantly opposed

dick and tweety did their best but their best wasn't good enough

camp mystic is a special place to a lot of folks in large part to dick and tweety but if it comes back it's not going likely not going to be with the eastlands leading it.

Sadly, I think that middle one won't turn out to be true.

Here is a copy of the flood instructions given to the campers' families.

Burdizzo said:

---

StringerBell said:

---

i think multiple things can be true

some parents want the camp to open some are adamantly opposed

dick and tweety did their best but their best wasn't good enough

camp mystic is a special place to a lot of folks in large part to dick and tweety but if it comes back it's not going likely not going to be with the eastlands leading it.

---

This thread reminds me a lot of the discussion in the aftermath of the Bonfire accident 25 years ago. Some folks were passionate about it continuing. Others saw no way it would continue with any resemblance of the way it was. I know there are strong feelings to go around. After watching those discussions years ago, I try not to judge anyone too harshly for an opinion. More than anything, we all want our friends and family back from Kerr County just like we want our Aggies back from Bonfire, but sadly that is not possible.

---

Well stated. And just like with Bonfire, I never want it to happen again.

redcrayon said:

---

After watching the testimony from the parents of some of the lost girls, it's clear that Mystic wasn't safe or prepared. Devastating. It's really heartless at this point to continue posting about how much good the camp did for "Texas girls." The tone-deaf nature of those posts is unreal to me.

---

I didn't watch any of the testimony, but did you expect the parents who lost kids to say everything was great and Mystic had a wonderful plan but it just didn't work this time?

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

Yes

txags92 said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Did that relocation take place before or after the NWS flood warning? Or before or after the USGS flood crest forecast showing 8' at Hunt? If you were not expecting a 500 year flood and the cabins were all safe at the forecast levels, there is nothing sinister about protecting expensive equipment if you thought the kids were safe where they were. I understand the hate some seem to have for camp management and the desire to portray them as callous and greedy, but you are talking about a guy who gave his own life trying to save campers. Maybe consider whether his actions made sense in the context of what knowledge he had at the time instead of assuming he cared more about his equipment than the kids.

---

I don't think anyone has portrayed them as callous and greedy. On the contrary, I think even those on this thread who don't want the camp to reopen have stated they don't think the camp was acting with nefarious intent.

It was more that the camp was complacent and unprepared.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Did that relocation take place before or after the NWS flood warning? Or before or after the USGS flood crest forecast showing 8' at Hunt? If you were not expecting a 500 year flood and the cabins were all safe at the forecast levels, there is nothing sinister about protecting expensive equipment if you thought the kids were safe where they were. I understand the hate some seem to have for camp management and the desire to portray them as callous and greedy, but you are talking about a guy who gave his own life trying to save campers. Maybe consider whether his actions made sense in the context of what knowledge he had at the time instead of assuming he cared more about his equipment than the kids.

---

I don't think anyone has portrayed them as callous and greedy. On the contrary, I think even those on this thread who don't want the camp to reopen have stated they don't think the camp was acting with nefarious intent.

It was more that the camp was complacent and unprepared.

---

Exactly.

mcsatx said:

---

The written plan to remain in cabins during a flood aligns with Senate Bill 1, which does not require evacuation for cabins in the 500-year floodplain.

Prior to July 4, based on all the information that was publicly available at the time, the cabins did seem to be located on high safe locations. The ground around Twins and Bubble Inn was about 6 feet above the 100-year flood elevation and the floors were a couple feet or so above the ground. That is well above and beyond the minimum requirements established by the building code for new buildings.

And according to The Code of Federal Regulations 44 CFR 65.2(c), the cabins were "reasonably safe from flooding":
"For the purposes of this part, "reasonably safe from flooding" means base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage structures to be removed from the SFHA and that any subsurface waters related to the base flood will not damage existing or proposed buildings."

When an extreme weather event is about to occur that exceeds the capacity of our built environment, a different type of warning is needed so that the level severity can be clearly communicated and be distinguishable from other minor weather warnings. People who are in an otherwise "safe" location need to be warned to take an immediate extreme action to ensure their safety (like climbing a steep hill in the middle of a torrential downpour).

---

And that's the debate. Some believe that no matter if there was a 30', 50' or 150' wall of water coming down the river, the camp should have been prepared for it.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Did that relocation take place before or after the NWS flood warning? Or before or after the USGS flood crest forecast showing 8' at Hunt? If you were not expecting a 500 year flood and the cabins were all safe at the forecast levels, there is nothing sinister about protecting expensive equipment if you thought the kids were safe where they were. I understand the hate some seem to have for camp management and the desire to portray them as callous and greedy, but you are talking about a guy who gave his own life trying to save campers. Maybe consider whether his actions made sense in the context of what knowledge he had at the time instead of assuming he cared more about his equipment than the kids.

---

I don't think anyone has portrayed them as callous and greedy. On the contrary, I think even those on this thread who don't want the camp to reopen have stated they don't think the camp was acting with nefarious intent.

It was more that the camp was complacent and unprepared.

---

What other portrayal would you assume from somebody making an assertion that they moved equipment to high ground before moving kids? In the absence of any other info about what was known about the likely flooding at the time, or the timing of the actions, the insinuation is that they valued the equipment more than the kids lives which is absolutely false. I can guarantee you that they would not have risked their lives to save a lawnmower, but Dick gave his trying to save kids.

Were they complacent? I don't have the information to know, but based on how I react to the dozens of warnings that come through my phone every time we get weather, it wouldn't surprise me. Were they unprepared? They had a plan that was reasonable for the type of floods that had happened in the last 80 years and they apparently followed it until it became apparent that the flood was much larger. At which time it was too late for the campers that perished.

There are obviously things that they could have done differently (more adults available to help evacuate kids, better communication system to the cabins, etc.), but frankly speaking everybody on the Guadalupe that night was unprepared for the flood that came down the river. Nobody had a plan for that kind of flood, and even the new Bills just passed in the legislature don't require them to plan for such a flood.

Everybody wants to learn from what happened and to take actions to make sure it never happens again. That is not a controversial position. I just don't think it is necessary to insinuate that people who were responding to a flood unlike any that had occurred in the last 80 years in the middle of the night that had not been warned that it would be that bad are bad people for not executing a perfect response based on the information we all know now.

txags92 said:

---

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Did that relocation take place before or after the NWS flood warning? Or before or after the USGS flood crest forecast showing 8' at Hunt? If you were not expecting a 500 year flood and the cabins were all safe at the forecast levels, there is nothing sinister about protecting expensive equipment if you thought the kids were safe where they were. I understand the hate some seem to have for camp management and the desire to portray them as callous and greedy, but you are talking about a guy who gave his own life trying to save campers. Maybe consider whether his actions made sense in the context of what knowledge he had at the time instead of assuming he cared more about his equipment than the kids.

---

I don't think anyone has portrayed them as callous and greedy. On the contrary, I think even those on this thread who don't want the camp to reopen have stated they don't think the camp was acting with nefarious intent.

It was more that the camp was complacent and unprepared.

---

What other portrayal would you assume from somebody making an assertion that they moved equipment to high ground before moving kids? In the absence of any other info about what was known about the likely flooding at the time, or the timing of the actions, the insinuation is that they valued the equipment more than the kids lives which is absolutely false. I can guarantee you that they would not have risked their lives to save a lawnmower, but Dick gave his trying to save kids.

Were they complacent? I don't have the information to know, but based on how I react to the dozens of warnings that come through my phone every time we get weather, it wouldn't surprise me. Were they unprepared? They had a plan that was reasonable for the type of floods that had happened in the last 80 years and they apparently followed it until it became apparent that the flood was much larger. At which time it was too late for the campers that perished.

There are obviously things that they could have done differently (more adults available to help evacuate kids, better communication system to the cabins, etc.), but frankly speaking everybody on the Guadalupe that night was unprepared for the flood that came down the river. Nobody had a plan for that kind of flood, and even the new Bills just passed in the legislature don't require them to plan for such a flood.

Everybody wants to learn from what happened and to take actions to make sure it never happens again. That is not a controversial position. I just don't think it is necessary to insinuate that people who were responding to a flood unlike any that had occurred in the last 80 years in the middle of the night that had not been warned that it would be that bad are bad people for not executing a perfect response based on the information we all know now.

---

I don't think that anyone on here has said or even insinuated that CM intentionally or nefariously acted in such a way that children would be harmed or lose their lives.

The action above (moving lawn equipment first) to me, sounds complacent: they knew the water may get high enough to cause damage to the equipment, but would never be so high that there would be loss of life.

Claiming that anyone, in any post, on any of the threads about CM, has stated that anyone at the Camp intentionally acted with malice in disingenuous.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Anti-taxxer said:

---

txags92 said:

---

SECond2noneAgs said:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids. This was the first I'd heard of this. Was he referring to Mystic?

---

Did that relocation take place before or after the NWS flood warning? Or before or after the USGS flood crest forecast showing 8' at Hunt? If you were not expecting a 500 year flood and the cabins were all safe at the forecast levels, there is nothing sinister about protecting expensive equipment if you thought the kids were safe where they were. I understand the hate some seem to have for camp management and the desire to portray them as callous and greedy, but you are talking about a guy who gave his own life trying to save campers. Maybe consider whether his actions made sense in the context of what knowledge he had at the time instead of assuming he cared more about his equipment than the kids.

---

I don't think anyone has portrayed them as callous and greedy. On the contrary, I think even those on this thread who don't want the camp to reopen have stated they don't think the camp was acting with nefarious intent.

It was more that the camp was complacent and unprepared.

---

What other portrayal would you assume from somebody making an assertion that they moved equipment to high ground before moving kids? In the absence of any other info about what was known about the likely flooding at the time, or the timing of the actions, the insinuation is that they valued the equipment more than the kids lives which is absolutely false. I can guarantee you that they would not have risked their lives to save a lawnmower, but Dick gave his trying to save kids.

Were they complacent? I don't have the information to know, but based on how I react to the dozens of warnings that come through my phone every time we get weather, it wouldn't surprise me. Were they unprepared? They had a plan that was reasonable for the type of floods that had happened in the last 80 years and they apparently followed it until it became apparent that the flood was much larger. At which time it was too late for the campers that perished.

There are obviously things that they could have done differently (more adults available to help evacuate kids, better communication system to the cabins, etc.), but frankly speaking everybody on the Guadalupe that night was unprepared for the flood that came down the river. Nobody had a plan for that kind of flood, and even the new Bills just passed in the legislature don't require them to plan for such a flood.

Everybody wants to learn from what happened and to take actions to make sure it never happens again. That is not a controversial position. I just don't think it is necessary to insinuate that people who were responding to a flood unlike any that had occurred in the last 80 years in the middle of the night that had not been warned that it would be that bad are bad people for not executing a perfect response based on the information we all know now.

---

I don't think that anyone on here has said or even insinuated that CM intentionally or nefariously acted in such a way that children would be harmed or lose their lives.

The action above (moving lawn equipment first) to me, sounds complacent: they knew the water may get high enough to cause damage to the equipment, but would never be so high that there would be loss of life.

Claiming that anyone, in any post, on any of the threads about CM, has stated that anyone at the Camp intentionally acted with malice in disingenuous.

---

The comment I was responding to was this one:

Quote:

---

I saw a video clip of a state rep at the flood hearings make the comment that somebody at one of the camps made sure to relocate the mowing equipment due to flooding before attempting to relocate the kids.

---

That seems to imply that the camp valued the equipment more than the kids in the absence of further context. If you know that a 500 year flood is coming and you are moving lawn equipment, then yes, it absolutely sounds complacent and they should be excoriated for it. If instead you have no reason to believe from the warnings given that the flood will be anywhere near that bad, then moving equipment that may be at risk, while leaving kids in cabins that are several feet above the 100-yr flood plain and perceived to not be at risk is a reasonable approach.

What if there was no formal plan for any kind of flood?

I think that is what happens when you have politicians getting involved. They build support by putting an ugly face on what they are trying to fix. Shameful. I think the Eastlands may be guilty of complacency, misplaced priorities,and bad judgment, but if he was as nefarious as some of these people want to project Dick Eastland would not have lost his life trying to save children.

dermdoc said:

---

What if there was no formal plan for any kind of flood?

---

That would be negligent IMO based on the known risks in the area. I would have assumed that the state would have required them to have a written emergency plan as part of the operations.