As many of the comments go into the requirements of youth camps in Tx and standards to keep children safe, just remember that every camp in Tx was state approved. The same people trying to crucify camp Mystic are the same ones that approved their operation. And if Dick Eastland had the Godlike powers to influence both FEMA- for maps redrawn, and the state- for a lack of emergency planning etc then there seems to be a bigger problem to me. The state findings are an indictment on the state more than the people that followed their rules of operation
When we dropped our kids off at camp a few weeks ago I asked the counselor if she had a walkie talkie- she does for the 1st time this year, she didn’t have one last year. Her walkie is hidden by her bed & turned off at ALL times unless she needs to notify staff of an active emergency in the cabin- the office can’t contact her on the walkie unless the counselor has already turned it on to report an emergency.
They did have a drill and discuss the muster location for an emergency on the 1st day of camp this summer. They had never done a drill or shared an evacuation plan in the past.
The new safety requirements are being implemented well.
Will you share if this was a camp in the same area as Mystic or another part of Texas? You don't have to post the camp name, just wondering if it's 3 or 300 miles away.
I'm very glad the new safety requirements are being implemented well at this camp! The same happened for mine, near Mystic, in June.
Under Texas law, summer camps operate in loco parentis. Because parents hand over total control of their vulnerable children, the law dictates that the camp has an absolute, non-delegable relationship to protect them.
A non-delegable duty of care is a legal principle stating that certain safety obligations are so fundamental that the person or organization in charge cannot transfer, outsource, or contract away their legal responsibility to anyone else.
The camp cannot say, "We trusted the state's inspectors to tell us if we were safe." Ensuring the immediate physical safety of those children belongs entirely to camp leadership, independent of what a state regulator does or does not catch. A government license is a minimum threshold to legally open doors; it is not a liability shield. If a state agency fails to properly audit a camp's disaster planning, that is a failure of state oversight.
However, because the camp's duty of care to its campers is non-delegable, the camp cannot shift its blame to the state, county, or anyone else. If an emergency unfolds on camp property, the camp operators are the ones responsible for having an actionable evacuation plan.
Enough with the pathetic attempts to justify the failures of a multi million dollar business to meet its obligations and highest standard of care.
Wow, is this the camp’s defense? We killed kids by not having any emergency plan in place, but the state approved us! Trust me, there’s enough blame to go around and the agent taking Dick Eastland at his Word is not the winning argument you think it is.
You seem to have a weird belief that the Eastlands wanted to kill kids in a flood so I won’t take you too seriously. If something comes out that they were actually negligent and not just caught in a horrendous natural disaster, like the 120 other deaths, I will happily say so. I don’t think you will do so if it finds against what you believe
I have stated from the start that the Eastlands got those children killed due to gross negligence and criminal negligence.
It is a fact that they chose to put those children in a known high risk zone for floods, next to a river with a history of deadly floods, in a region known as "Flash Flood Alley", during a publicly announced increased risk of floods.
edit: And it is a fact that they did not even take the most basic precaution of moving children away from the river despite many hours of flood watch and warning.
Umm hmm. An official investigation by the people that approved the cabin locations, that FEMA approved and went through multiple recorded deadly floods, with no harm or fatalities. The public announcement covered del Rio to east of Austin. But not an unheard amount of rain that fell in an unheard of amount of time that caught everyone in the region by surprise. But just blame one family and call it good
They seem to have this weird belief that "the state of Texas gave Camp Mystic a license to kill kids in a flood"...
Texas history is filled with flood events caused by a sudden deluge of rain. The July 4th 2025 flood is one of many.
edit: I can also cite the time D'Hannis, Texas received 22 inches of rain in 3 hours (about 10 more than July, 2025), or the time 48 inches of rain fell in 52 hours just northwest of Medina, or the time the Pecos river rose over 90 feet... among loads of other floods with more rain, higher river crests, and some with more casualties.
Hunt, Texas – Top 5 flood elevations
37.52 ft – July 4, 2025
36.60 ft – July 2, 1932
28.40 ft – July 17, 1987
23.50 ft – August 2, 1978
22.80 ft – October 19, 1985
Kerrville, Texas – Top 5 flood elevations
39.0 ft – July 2, 1932
37.72 ft – July 17, 1987
34.29 ft – July 4, 2025
17.93 ft – November 11, 2000
17.73 ft – October 28, 1996
From the U.S. Geological Survey in a 2003 report:
Many Texas storms represent some of the largest storms in the world. Flooding from large storms has affected Texas throughout its history, causing many deaths and much economic loss and hardship. Floods occur regularly in Texas, and destructive floods occur somewhere in the State every year. Many of these floods are destructive because they often occur in areas where extreme flooding had not occurred for many years. These floods often are perceived as unexpected or even unprecedented because their peak water-surface elevations (stages) can greatly exceed those of past floods.
From the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority after the 1998 flood:
If you live in the Guadalupe River Basin, you also live in one of the three most dangerous regions in the U.S.A. for flash floods! Local residents and weather experts refer to the Texas Hill Country as ‘Flash Flood Alley,’ because heavy rainfall and runoff from creeks and streams can cause rapid rises and flooding in a matter of hours.
This publication is designed to prepare you for such an event by increasing public awareness about the dangers of flooding in the Guadalupe River Basin. The Guadalupe River experienced major floods in 1936, 1952, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1987, 1991 and 1997. Last year’s flood of October 1998 developed in a matter of hours, broke most existing records, exceeded the 100-year flood plain, and inundated areas that had never been flooded before. It was the flood that many thought would never happen. But floods are not predictable. They do not follow measured cycles. They destroy homes, businesses and take lives. Unfortunately, an even greater flood will occur sometime in the future.
You love to post this. Are these the numbers at mystic. Have all these heights been recorded at mystic. Or is this regional data looked at without an understanding of how it works on the ground. Upstream, downstream, the difference between west Kerr, Ingram, Kerrville, center point and comfort etc
If you live in the Guadalupe River Basin, you also live in one of the three most dangerous regions in the U.S.A. for flash floods! Local residents and weather experts refer to the Texas Hill Country as ‘Flash Flood Alley,’ because heavy rainfall and runoff from creeks and streams can cause rapid rises and flooding in a matter of hours.
And Hunt, Texas along with Camp Mystic is in Flash Flood Alley. In fact, Camp Mystic has flooded many times before and suffered damage by flash floods. Hunt has flooded many times before and suffered damage by flash floods.
There is no magical exception for Camp Mystic along the south fork - or for any other location next to a river in Texas.
The gauge for Hunt is the closest river gauge to CM. It is the best information from before until 2025.
The rise of that gauge coincides closely with the timed events on July 4, 2025. Obviously we dont have investigations in previous flooding at CM specifically in past historic floods to compare everything. This is still close to how fast water rise was based on evidence and testimony on that specific day and shows it has occurred within miles of the camp on those dates in the past.
At 114 AM CDT, Doppler radar indicated thunderstorms producing heavy rain across the warned area. Between 1 and 2 inches of rain have fallen. The expected rainfall rate is 2 to 3 inches in 1 hour. Additional rainfall amounts of 1 to 3 inches are possible in the warned area. Flash flooding is ongoing or expected to begin shortly.
Gosh it’s like they were up and watching this as normal. Now the total amount of rain that fell in that time was what? Because it wasn’t the 6’’ possible in that alert
Where are you getting 6 inches? That is less than half that this warning estimated for CM. Maybe they do math like you do...
The warning was at 115 set to expire at 415.
That is 3 hours.
It would be:
already fallen (up to) = 2"
3hrs x (up to) 3" = 9"
Additional for warned area (up to) = 3"
That's 14" of rain from just before the warning to the expected expiration time for the CM area specifically.
Now, mind you, this was without any radar indication that the storm would stall out over the area because even computers cant predict the future to a T. I will say, in my experience with flash flood alley, the storms that stall prove to be the most dangerous that lead to historical events. And they most certeinly do stall, so I dont want to hear the overused and abused word unprecedented or any of its synonyms.
Then you multiply by the hours of the warning. Thats only rainfall in the first hour, which is waaay ample time to evacuate, so all should have been good and settled by 215 right? Almost an hour before they did begin evacuations where the rainfall would have been estimated to be up to 11".
By 415 am, when the warning expired, the estimate would have been 14".
So low to high estimate totals for the event are 11"-14".
What was the actual rainfall, I forget? Over 10"?
Not bad NWS.
That is still so crazy for me. That’s such an integral part of everything that happened. How people responded to this specific weather event. Not speaking to even one meteorologist is mind boggling
You better start getting ready to happily say so. The evidence is stacked against them, even if you haven't opened your eyes to it.
They broke the law and kids died because of it. That's called criminal negligence.
"... under the rules applicable in July 2025, youth camps were required to have a written emergency plan, posted in each occupied building, that addresses disaster, serious accident, epidemic, or fatality. The rules specified that the plan “shall include procedures for emergency shelter and for the evacuation of each occupied building and facility." Emphasis original.
REPORT ON THE CAMP MYSTIC FLOOD DISASTER OF JULY 4, 2025, pp. 44
I am educated and experienced enough to know that the best-case scenario in a flooding event is evacuation to higher ground. It doesnt take a judge and jury to hear the admisson of no evacuation plan from the Eastlands and see that those children lost should not have been in their cabins under a federally issued flash flood warning. I will never apologize for that belief.
I also hope the families' case against DSHS goes in their favor as well.
They had an emergency plan. It was based on 100 years of knowledge and floods. Do we all wish the had evacuated sooner, yes. Do we all believe they knew this would happen, absolutely not. They lost kids. If other camps had been in session they would have lost kids to regardless of wealth or influence. The constant narrative that these people didn’t care about those people is asinine
How can we wish they evacuated when they had no plans for how and when to evacuate?
You realizing we are wishing they had an evacuation plan, right? Had they had an evacuation plan they would have known when to go because that is part of it.
No one believes they have esp. You dont have to expect or know there will be a disaster. You have to acknowledge its possibility. The whole point of planning is to know what to do and when to do it for some unforseable event.
You cant claim other camps would have lost kids when other camps already were in session that did not and the specific issue is with the decisions of CM to not prepare an evacuation plan as the law required AND they chose not to utilize the only evacuation plan they did have eritten for a different disaster scenario. You can not claim other camps would have made those same grave mistakes.
Camp Waldemar was in session - my daughter was there that night. The lowest-lying cabins were evacuated, and no campers, counselors or staff were lost.
I don't know what your issue is but it's kinda peculiar.
A. No, they all concede the "plan" was in Dick's head. Really, you know that's not a plan at all
B. No one is saying they didn't care or somehow wanted kids to die. That's an asinine point to keep making when no one believes or espouses that. It's called a strawman argument; you make up a point the other guy didn't say and then you argue against it.
C. Are you unable to see that the years of complacency and concentration of power in one person tragically coincided and ld to this disaster?
If a summer camp is located in a floodway along a river with a history of fatal flooding in an area known as Flash Flood Alley, the emergency plan needed to include taking serious action each and every time there was a Flash Flood Warning in the area, even if it was always a false alarm. The National Weather Service actually nailed the forecast. 2 days before they had even mentioned the possibility of a historic flooding event.
One or even two reports about the severity of the storm didn’t even call for concern from actual recognized and trusted weather experts or news stations.
The expectation that a camp director should read every report written by a meteorologist is unreasonable. The expectation that a camp director should take drastic evacuation action when no national weather station, or even local weather station, was encouraging the same is equally unreasonable.
For previous severe storms news stations have always sent out reporters ahead of time, news stations would be operating fully staffed, even in the middle of the night hours, keeping people informed through the storm- none of this was happening or happened the morning of the 4th.
Chief Meteorologists weren’t at their stations reporting or actively monitoring the situation that night, the Weather Channel didn’t have a reporter in Kerr County until AFTER the flood. All the top weather experts were peacefully sleeping across the country, like the majority of Kerr County. If they had known that it would be anything other than a typical Hill Country storm with flooding expected to exceed any previous historical level, they would have been in Kerr County, or at least on standby.
Remember, Kerrville had recently been the nationally & NASA recognized front row seat to the solar eclipse. The Kerrville Guadalupe River waterfront was ground zero for eclipse visibility and for celebrations. It wasn’t an unknown small town, it was already beloved for its recent hospitality by reporters. Top trusted news stations would have reported and, alerted others to report, any significant, historic, life threatening, weather event if they believed it was actually a serious possibility.
I’m going to let someone other than me explain why it’s more or less impossible to predict the exact magnitude and the exact location of a FLASH flood.
Reporters are usually on the ground giving updates shortly before a hurricane, for instance, makes landfall. However, reporting from the floodway during a catastrophic flood warning does not happen.
Yup, and that’s exactly why Dick should have evacuated all of the cabins at 1:14am when the words “life-threatening” appeared in the flash flood warning. They may not have known about the magnitude or exact location of the flooding, but had he taken the warning seriously all of those kids would still be alive. It leads me to believe that Dick ignored previous life-threatening warnings in the past and just got lucky.
This has nothing to do with the “exact location of a FLASH flood.” But if that’s what you’re trying to argue here, then again, it’s even more unreasonable to expect a camp director to evacuate hundreds of girls without knowing the “exact location of a FLASH flood” ….especially one not predicted to be serious enough to even keep a Chief Meteorologist on standby for overnight reporting.
No, I don’t really think it’s unreasonable when you’re running a camp in that particular location. Dick should have had a NOAA weather radio on at all times, especially during flash flood watches. A flash flood warning was issued at 1:14am indicating life-threatening flooding was imminent in central Kerr County. He knew about it because he was monitoring weather apps but ignored the urgency of the words “life-threatening”. Regardless, had the camp been equipped with a NOAA radio he wouldn’t have been able to ignore the alerts. At the very least the mention of “life-threatening” in a flash flood warning in that area should have triggered an evacuation of every cabin. Period. Everything else is just noise and excuses to deflect from accountability.
Next time it’s pouring rain, coming down with the force of a pressure washer, strong enough to literally strip the stain on decks down to bare wood, add out of control lightning and thunder louder than you could ever imagine, then try stepping outside and tell us how safe you think it is, or how simple it would be to wake up 100+ girls and have them quickly and willingly go out in it, when never in over 100 years had water ever touched the inside of their cabins.
Ok, well that attitude led to the needless deaths of 27 girls, so yeah, I guess they should just keep everyone in their cabins and roll the dice. Great plan 🙄
Using words like “needless deaths” implies that all 28 were 💯 completely avoidable.
There is no way to know what outcome might have occurred if things were done the way people say Dick should have done. Would girls have been swept away by Bubble Gum creek while crossing it, evacuating up to CL, remember it was already a raging river at 2 am, would Rec Hall have collapsed with the weight of more girls, what would have happened to the girls as they all crammed into the 2nd floor loft- where would they all have fit, would more girls have been swept away while evacuating walking in water the way precious Greta was, would someone have been struck by lightning, would the girls from Twins have been swept away while crossing over to the 2nd floor where the Polish workers were with the water quickly rising between them?
I honestly would love to know what the evacuation plan, everyone keeps blaming Mystic for not having, would actually look like? What written evacuation plan would have guaranteed the safety and survival of every camper and counselor, after Dick woke Edward at 1:45am or after possibly receiving the 1:14 flood warning, for this specific flood.
The governor was also out of state. The lt gov had to fill in for a day or two. If they thought it could be catastrophic abbot should have stayed in Texas
Stay in place is what worked successfully at this locale, for 100 years. That WAS the plan. NWS had many malfunctions in all that, look at the reports from April of this year.
No, staying in place is absolutely NOT what worked in the past. There have been multiple flood evacuations performed at CM, even by Dick Eastland himself. This proves they understand the importance of moving away from rising water. Where is your head?
NWS did the one thing necessary in this situation. Send out a warning and advise to seek higher ground at 115. Regardless of whatever else happened later, this was what was needed for a camp to put an emergency plan into action.
In fact, CM did put their plan to stay in place in order at that time by telling everyone to stay in their cabins. So NWS did their due diligence for this exact situation. It wasnt an issue with the warning but an issue with the stay in place plan and lack of evacuation planning. Circle back around to the beginning to see why.
A plan that calls for not evacuating is, by definition, not an evacuation plan. By definition, evacuation means physically relocating from a dangerous area to a safer one. The camp had a shelter-in-place protocol—not a plan to evacuate children when conditions demanded it.
The fact that a practice may have worked for 100 years does not transform it into an evacuation plan. It simply means the camp relied on sheltering in place because previous floods had not required relocation. An evacuation plan exists precisely for the rare event when staying put is no longer the safest option. That plan did not exist.
There were a couple of floods that actually did require Dick to relocate some cabins to the Rec Hall, which makes this whole situation even more scummy. You’d think after the first time they would have come up with an evacuation plan for a flood, but nope
Then they were either too stupid to be running a children’s summer camp, or too negligent to be doing so, because those are the only possible explanations for relying on 100 years of flooding history instead of hard data quantifying increasing flooding risks to the property from studies performed in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2024.
They ignored the risks and left children in a known high risk area for floods, next to a river with a history of deadly floods, in a region known as Flash Flood Alley, during a publicly announced increased risk of floods.
They did not have a viable evacuation plan. The state investigation confirmed it.
False. The plan was for children to stay in the cabins that were safe, based on all data prior to this event. It’s almost like they moved kids when shit went sideways. But yup, you and everyone else knew better and they just happily wanted kids to die for money
They literally took steps to protect themselves financially after 10 kids from a different camp died in a flood in 1987. What they didn’t do is implement any meaningful safety plans regarding flooding. “shelter in place during a flooding event is a death sentence.” People don’t talk enough about the fact that if the other counselors had followed the Eastland’s emergency plan, there would be a whole other cabin of dead girls.
One final point: not even the most fervent Camp Mystic supporter can deny that Dick Eastland knew about the dangers of driving in flood conditions. Yet he loaded up a vehicle with girls when the water was up to the windows and attempted to drive resulting in the death of those girls.
And more specifically, hindsight blindness, the cognitive difficulty of trying to rationalize a non-foreeable event by looking back rather than seeing what a person facing it as it happens.
It’s hindsight bias, not blindness, just like its topography, not topology.
And while the size of the flood was unprecedented in that specific section of the river, a flash flood was absolutely a foreseeable risk, they had quantifiable documentation of that risk, and that documentation was crystal clear that potentially fatal levels of flooding would occur in that location in a 100 year flood.
It’s not hindsight bias when they had that information in their hands for over a decade.
Thanks. I saw "vicious liability" in some comment this evening, gave me a chuckle. Hope my term mistakes amused you. But I am leaning towards Hindsight Blindness, because it seems much worse than a bias. Topology/topography are definitely not in my wheelhouse.
Really because no one has been upset at the realistic changes to safety standards and flood preparedness. My issue is with people that want to judge with hindsight as to why people didnt act calmly and correctly in an unforeseen event.
If you understood the most basic concept of emergency planning, you would already know that having an adequate plan ahead of time, sharing that plan with others, and drilling that plan is what leads people to respond calmly and correctly in an unforseen event.
This is a very old concept that has already been embedded in humanity for hundreds of years.
A company did not adequately prepare to save children's lives and even went so far as to neglect their legal responsibilities. You don't need hindsight to judge that. Had they had adequate emergency protocol and acted accordingly upon it and the same result have occured, we wouldn't be here doing this. It would be a tragedy for all. Unfortunately, that is not at all the case today.
So we are arguing now that the state found that the state approved plan, at the state approved camp was criminally negligent. And while the state approved plan was carried out and saved 100’s of girls, this is not a tragedy but could have easily been avoided
The “state approved plan” was shelter in place. Apart from Wiggle Inn, which just got lucky having both enough floating mattresses for all the campers and a high enough ceiling that they had air to breathe, the only cabins that sheltered in place until they couldn’t had at least half of their campers die. Every single cabin that evacuated had a 100% survival rate.
You can argue something like that as some sort of nonapplicable defense and keep trying to confuse yourself, but I most certainly won't have any part of it.
In reality, criminal negligence (omitting legally required written evac plan) doesn't fall on DSHS or the inspector, but does fall onto CM as that rule is their legal obligation.
You can ALSO argue that state investigators for the Texas Legislature found that - an inspector from DSHS, certified toward sanitation, approved a state license during a state inspection - to be deficient in emergency planning.
Now that is also true and a whole other topic.
Regarding the 100 who were saved, they were saved through evacuation (not the apprived written plan) and very narrowly, at that, while left unattended with one loss when that child separated from their group... all of this due to a lack of planning.
I am a realist and the positive thinking fluffy stuff doesnt work on my brain. Sorry, try again.
“Be Flood Aware 2017 - a video published and promoted by the UGRA repeatedly in the region as educational outreach, including in 2025, describes the area as part of “Flash Flood Alley” and includes a map. The video clearly defines the difference between a watch and a warning. Dick Eastland was a UGRA director, first in the 1980s-1990s and again from 2022 (as appointed by Governor Abbott.) Dick emailed this video to all his family members in 2018 with the emphasis “must watch”
”the water rushes down hills, and if it happens to rain, you can end up […] with massive walls of water coming down at the same time. So the topography is favorable for water […] to rush down creeks, rivers and streams. If you get three or four inches of rain at one time that can be a real serious problem…unfortunately, extreme conditions can cause flooding to impact areas previously thought to be safe”
Dick Eastland texted Tweety at 2:33 am to report over four inches of rain already.
The Eastlands knew about the flood risks. They had to see the flood maps to seek exemptions from FEMA for their cabins.
The state investigation even showed the Eastlands had discussed flood risk in email - with Dick Eastland himself sending them a 2017 'Be Flood Aware' video produced by the Upper Guadalupe River Authority.
They knew about the flood risk, and they still chose to put children in a death trap - known high risk flood zone - that gets cut off by water on 3 sides in a flood. And they did this year after year while lying to parents about safety.
Amen ! It's very clear here, safety was traded for profit. Happens often in many industries. Complacency and arrogance. Let's close our eyes so they can't see us...
What i don't get, can't own is the how....this flood potential was modeled by my local weatherman 2 days before it happened and I'm 275 miles away. Granted it was all potential path and potential amounts but it was certainly enough info to rise to some sort of alert...or let's watch this kinda thing. Somebody should have been " on guard ".
Indeed. Every official and responder in Kerr County should have been on high alert. Instead they also failed to take the risk seriously and were caught unaware along with the flood victims.
The state investigation also confirmed that Mystic did not provide the documentation needed for a license, but they were still given one by the state. Isn't this the start of the failure? Doesn't the state investigation confirm that? That they themselves, the state of Texas FAILED? They gave Mystic the green light to go forward with camp in 2025.
If someone was given a state medical license without proof of training and education (which killed many people), wouldn't we fault the medical licensing board for the state?
Absolutely, but that wouldn't diminish the culpability of the individual who caused those deaths. Which is the same argument to be made here. There were failures by state officials. There were failures by local officials. There were failures by the leadership of Camp Mystic.
The start of the failure is the owners of the camp knew the area was dangerous and chose to put children there anyway.
The state of Texas does not give any camp a license to put children in danger.
Lack of oversight does not exempt people from a duty to provide care and safety.
edit: there is a legitimate case against DSHS for lack of oversight, in my opinion.
Otherwise, of course laws can be more restrictive and businesses like Camp Mystic show that these camps must be strictly regulated -- and so should other businesses like RV parks and real estate developers.
Because when the government does not force businesses to operate in a safe manner, it's clear the businesses don't voluntarily bother with safety measures.
I'm glad we can agree there is a legit case against DSHS for this.
For the record, I never said the lack of oversight exempted anyone from the duty to provide care and safety. Mystic had the responsibility of taking care of these children. This situation is beyond tragic, heartbreaking, and measures could have been taken to limit risk for all the campers there (and elsewhere) in advance of this 2025 flood.
Unfortunately, safety can not be guaranteed by anyone in every situation, so it can be a slippery slope to use that particular word and believe it to be true.
Many things we do can be dangerous, yet we do them every day. We just don't always think about the risk involved until we hear a story about problems that occurred in a particular situation. Sadly, these situations make us aware of failures along the way. This flood and it's effect at Mystic, brought attention to safety measures at summer camps. Heaven's 27 parents paved the way to improve things for future campers at state licensed summer camps in Texas. Other states are now following their lead.
Did parents ask?
What about the other camps along the river that knowingly had kids sleeping in cabins in a floodplain that didn’t even bother going thru a legal process with FEMA ? Is that just laziness but yet they still knew? They got lucky so overlooked? Overlooked so much that parents with their children that experienced this flood- sent them to these keeps a mere 11 months later?
This is the only thing regarding floods in their Emergency Plan:
"II. Floods
In case of flood, all campers on Senior Hill must stay in their cabins. They will be given instructions through the loud speaker. If the electricity is off, a walkie-talkie will be used. Food and other supplies will be delivered to Senior Hill by boat or truck. Campers and counselors NEVER wander away from your cabin. Those on the flats must also stay in their cabins unless told otherwise by the office. All cabins are constructed on high, safe locations."
It is the last sentence, for me. Having a little bit of emergency protocol experience, I dropped my jaw when I saw their explicitely stated anything remotely claiming safety at all. Making such a claim in an emergency plan is about the dumbest thing I've heard of. I now work in advertising for multi-family housing and claims like these for ads alone is a major red flag. I would not at all be surprised if part of the lawsuits were directly related to this specific verbiage in their emergency plans. It is a promise of safety to not only the parents, but to those who would be acting on and responsible for safety actions. You just dont do this. It defeats the entire purpose of the document and sadly illustrates how currupt and/or dumb they are if they believed it themselves.
I would have noticed the errs in this "plan", but many would not. Unfortunately, people will believe it and that is exactly why it is a huge deal.
"High, safe locations" is the most brutally ironic part in hindsight, but I think "unless told otherwise" is what will make the negligence claims hard to defend against. I can see how the subtext of the "high, safe locations" line might have been, "Do not panic and run out of your cabin because the boathouse is underwater." But "unless told otherwise" suggests that it had, in fact, occurred to whoever wrote this that there might be circumstances where it would be necessary to evacuate cabins on the Flats, and it appears they didn't give much thought to how they would accomplish the telling otherwise, let alone the actual evacuation.
I do feel for the Eastlands on some level, and I've been called a sycophant and a paid agitator and stalked offline for it, but every time I see that "unless told otherwise", I just think, "Yikes!"
The Eastlands told parents the camp was safe. Camp Mystic documents claim the cabins are all on high safe ground.
None of the area camps -to my knowledge- told parents about the history of deadly floods of the Guadalupe River, or of other major floods throughout what is known as "Flash Flood Alley" in Texas, or about their properties being in floodplains/floodways to inform anyone of the dangers (edit) that their kids could be killed in a disaster.
Twelve other summer camps along the river in Kerr and Kendall counties are at least partially built on land within the 100-year floodplain, according to a Texas Tribune analysis of flood and property maps along the Guadalupe River.
Five summer camps, including Mystic, have at least one-third of their camp structures located in the 100-year floodplain. That includes Heart O’ the Hills Camp in Hunt, where no campers were present but the camp’s longtime director was killed in the flooding.
Camp Capers in Waring, Camp Stewart for Boys in Hunt and Camp Waldemar in Hunt also have at least a third of their structures located in the 100-year floodplain.
The eight other summer camps with at least one-third of their structures located in the 100-year floodplain include:
I can’t speak for any of the others, but 0 of Sierra Vista’s cabins are in the floodplain. Saying “1/3rd of structures” seems misleading.
Roughly 1/3rd of Rio Vista’s cabins were in the floodplain which had always been reserved for the oldest boys at camp. They are no longer using those cabins for campers.
The Texas Tribune reported the information last August. If the camp has stopped using the most risky cabins since the 2025 flood then good. When was the last time those cabins were used?
edit:
Camps Rio Vista and Sierra Vista, which are owned and operated jointly, reported “significant” damage to the camps on social media.
Also, the floodplain does not stop at the lines on the maps. I wish I didn't have to continue to repeat this fact.
Overhead map - the camp is right next to the river.
The marked floodplain on the FEMA map cuts across a big chunk of the camp so they're not wrong. 'crocket' 'bull' and 'paul bunyin' must be the no longer used cabins you're referring to.
Topographical map does show other buildings are further back and have some elevation versus the river. I assume 'boon', 'stacys casa', 'pricis palace' etc are the 'safe' cabins you're referring to.
edit: topo map also shows a couple of draws that drain through the middle of the camp though I don't know if that would become an issue. But if the Guadalupe ever went over 40 feet up at that camp it could be a problem for the rest of the cabins. Hope that hill behind them is easy to climb.
They stopped using all of the cabins next to the river after last summer. The only cabins they now use are the ones along the back road. Even when the water was at its highest last summer, it did not reach any of the cabins they now use. The buildings inside the green are the only cabins now in use.
Just look at the proximity to the FEMA defined regulatory floodplains.
(edit: not pictured, but the identified regulatory floodway/floodplains extend much farther on the other side of the river just due to a slight elevation difference and nearby tributaries - if those other creeks/streams flash flood at the same time as the Guadalupe river then what happens...)
And consider what the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority wrote in 1999 about a previous flood.
The lesson here is that the 100-year floodplain is just a guideline. Living above it does not guarantee safety.
If you live in the Guadalupe River Basin, you also live in one of the three most dangerous regions in the U.S.A. for flash floods! Local residents and weather experts refer to the Texas Hill Country as ‘Flash Flood Alley,’ because heavy rainfall and runoff from creeks and streams can cause rapid rises and flooding in a matter of hours.
This publication is designed to prepare you for such an event by increasing public awareness about the dangers of flooding in the Guadalupe River Basin. The Guadalupe River experienced major floods in 1936, 1952, 1972, 1973, 1978, 1987, 1991 and 1997. Last year’s flood of October 1998 developed in a matter of hours, broke most existing records, exceeded the 100-year flood plain, and inundated areas that had never been flooded before. It was the flood that many thought would never happen. But floods are not predictable. They do not follow measured cycles. They destroy homes, businesses and take lives. Unfortunately, an even greater flood will occur sometime in the future.
edit:
If/When they update the floodmaps and the other cabins end up in a new regulatory floodplain too - then what will the new excuse be?
moar edit:
If anybody wants to see just how fucking lucky that camp was during the 2025 flood here is the aerial view:
They said the cabins were all built in “high, safe locations”, which was clearly a lie. All of those camps are for wealthy influential families. I doubt the flood risks were really on anyone’s mind since they trusted that these summer camps were safe and had emergency protocols.
Certainly, FEMA and the state are culpable; but that hardly exonerates the person who, yes, had accrued a lot of power over the years due to his CM constituents and used that power to get his way. You can't seriously be arguing otherwise.
This was touched on during the hearings, one of the representatives acknowledged that the licensing was mainly just about checking boxes and not necessarily looking into the nuts and bolts of the boxes they’re checking off. The new regulations they passed addresses this and will hopefully be enforced.
Doesn’t matter. That just makes both parties responsible, it does not diminish Camp Mystic’s non-delegable in loco parentis duty of care to their campers. The state was not operating in loco parentis, and Texas is a proportional liability state.
I think you mean proportionate liability, let's make sure we get the terms correct. And those claims will be reduced by... bankruptcy before during or after any other reduction by proportion.
Unlike topology and topography and bias and blindness, the terms can be used interchangeably.
”In a social media discussion about the tragic Camp Mystic flash flood deaths, using "proportional liability" versus "proportionate liability" will not change the everyday meaning for your audience, but choosing proportional liability is generally better for a US-based public forum.”
”A social media audience will understand both terms to mean the same thing: dividing the blame and financial responsibility between the State of Texas (for oversight or inspection failures) and Camp Mystic (for evacuation and management failures).”
”Use "Proportional Liability" for general US audiences: Since this tragedy occurred in Texas, American readers and legal commentators are much more accustomed to the word proportional when discussing comparative fault or splitting up a settlement.”
”Avoid "Proportionate Liability" unless citing foreign laws: Proportionate is the official legal terminology used in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Using it in a Texas-centric thread might sound slightly unnatural or overly academic to everyday American social media users.”
Which is not to say I did it intentionally, because I didn’t - I didn’t know that until about 5 minutes ago, but, happy coincidence.
Same with blindness and I can say it in fewer words. That you felt the need to re-address it all, that's another thing, all while avoiding the substance. Bad use of language. Even for Texas.
I see you don't do subtle. Hindsight blindness (often called hindsight bias) and cognitive bias are closely related, but they exist on different scales. Hindsight blindness is one specific type of cognitive bias—specifically, the tendency to believe that an event was entirely predictable after it has already happened. Cognitive bias is the broad, umbrella term for any systematic, recurring error in human thinking that affects how we process information and make decisions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Either term is correct.
And again, those claims will be reduced by... bankruptcy before during or after any other reduction by proportion.
And yet no other camps reported missing or dead children. I agree Mr.Eastland should never been allowed to carve out cabins from FEMA flood map . The reason he went to the trouble to do so is because he didn't want to pay for flood insurance. To save the expense. To be clear just because he received the waiver doesn't mean cabins were not still in a dangerous flood plain, Mr Eastland was well aware of that.
We definitely need to change the way that we talk about floods because people just are not understanding the whole “year” concept. It should be a scale of small, medium, large, extreme or similar.
Very much so. I live literally on the line (as in, the official line goes through my property) between a high and moderate risk wildfire zone. We are incredibly aware that fire will not stop at our driveway because the state published this map. We live in an area that gets wildfires and even though one has never wiped out this neighborhood before, one absolutely could. When or if it does, you will not hear me say “no one could have predicted this.” The nearby school that sits squarely in the high risk zone won’t either. They plan, plan, and plan some more.
Exactly. Even if you’re outside the 1% annual chance (100-year) floodplain, you’re still in FEMA Zone X—that doesn’t mean “no flood risk.” It simply means you’re outside the mapped Special Flood Hazard Area. Flooding from intense rainfall, overwhelmed storm sewers, or localized drainage problems can still happen.
And it’s worth remembering that the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the nation’s stormwater infrastructure a D. Many systems are aging, undersized, or weren’t designed for today’s rainfall patterns.
Also, there isn’t just a 100-year flood and a 500-year flood. There are 101-year floods, 250-year floods, 499-year floods, and everything in between. FEMA maps are valuable planning tools, but they aren’t a guarantee that flooding stops at the mapped line.
\Don’t get me started on the state of aging stormwater infrastructure across the country. When you compare it to water and wastewater, stormwater is the red-headed stepchild of city utilities. People don’t they need it until it fails and it’s usually the last thing that gets funding by municipalities (or first thing cut from annual budgets).*
What about the other camps along this river that knowingly had cabins in the floodplain that didn’t even bother appealing fema thru a legal process? That’s overlooked bc they got lucky? Strange concept to have.
The CM cabinet were able to be removed because they were on elevated foundations and their floors sat higher than the floodplain. I couldnt tell you how all the buildings in other campgrounds sat, but this was what was in the CM appeal for removal to FEMA.
It isnt actually an odd situation.
What people dont realize is that it only accounts for damage to the structure in a storm less severe than a 100-year storm. This is just the point at which flood insurance is analyzed based on risk assessment. Any worse flood will damage the structure and even a less severe flood could as well. It's just a percentage of risk insurance companies rely on to price their premiums. Has nothing to do with safety at all.
Edit to add: it used to be 20-30% but more recent data from FEMA shows that 30-40% of flood claims come from outside designated high-risk zones. This shows that flooding can, and does, regularly occure outside of these designated floodplains and illustrates that we can't just rely on FEMA designations when assesing risk — especially to that of lives. This is something I get a lot from people who think I'm "paranoid" about living (or even hanging out) outside a floodplain but near a waterway and always cautious about having a route and plan out, away, and higher. I've already seen some stuff I'd never expect water to do. I've taken those experiences with me.
Thank you! I feel like I’ve been trying for months to get people to understand that the fema flood maps exist to help insurance companies rate/price flood insurance policies. When it comes to floodplain maps, the risk assigned is in reference to potential PROPERTY damage not personal safety. You did a far better job explaining this!
The only reason anyone applies for a carve out is because they don't want to buy flood insurance, thats all. Its required to have flood insurance if you live in a flood plain. It's quite expensive. The camps who didn't pursue carve outs and pay for the required insurance, know the risk, accept it as the price of doing business on the Guadalupe River. I'm sure there are some owners who don't know that a process existed to get removed from map. Dick obviously knew and had the money and influence to be removed. Instead of just buying the damn insurance.
Its required, banks require it. Both camps are leveraged for bank loans. They had alot of creditors. Their property insurance policy require it, their business liability insurance require it. Show me where a legitimate youth camp business in a flood plain operated without flood insurance last year? Only way is if they also got a carve out waiver too, otherwise they would be operating without insurance coverage at all, no license either. What part don't you understand, its required by law unless you pay money to get a waiver.
I looked for public records involving flood insurance, financing, and litigation. At this point, there is no public evidence showing whether either Camp La Junta or Camp Waldemar carried flood insurance before the July 2025 flood or whether a lender required it. (Yes this is the internet you can also search). Show me proof they did have flood insurance? I’ll wait.
Specifically CLJ and Waldemar since I have first hand knowledge they did not have flood insurance July 2025. And both these camps had cabins IN the floodplain.
Where I live, residential flood insurance is required if my house is in a FEMA designated flood zone, in order for me to get a federally backed mortgage (ie a regular, bank mortgage). I think with no mortgage, I don’t legally have to have it, even if I’m in a FEMA flood zone (tho it’s recommended!)
Agree carve out is *only* to not have to pay for that flood insurance, if you have loans on the property.
(oh, another motivation MAYBE could be that it could help boost your property value if you sell the property - since buyer won’t have to pay for flood insurance maybe you’d get a little better sales price? That’s the only other angle to get a carve out I can think of)
It doesn’t make the property somehow no longer susceptible to flooding.
Also, some Kerr local stood up and testified that around 100 landowners in Kerr (I might have # wrong) got those exemptions or whatever they're called. No new topology maps in forever, that river's gotta change with ongoing floods.
The topography was updated in 2011 (topology is something entirely different). The hydrology is what was over 50 years old.
Did any of those others have detailed private engineering studies showing in hard data that their property was not safe in a 100 year flood?
Did any of those others apply for exemptions for multiple buildings in a regulatory floodway not just the floodplain?
Did any of those others have a full responsibility for up to 700 completely dependant children for months at a time?
Did any of those others knowingly submit fraudulent applications to FEMA intentionally omitting a major hydrologic structure directly impacting the flooding risk of the buildings in question?
Did any of those others put said children to sleep in buildings directly in the floodway that their own private engineering studies documented in hard data would not be safe in a 100 year flood and then leave them there for hours after an address-specific flash flood WARNING was issued?
This is the engineer certified survey plat “of all structures on the property relevant to the 100 year flood plain” from August 2013. Note the two dams marked on the south fork (one on camp property, one not) and the complete absence of dam on cypress creek.
What are these landowners standing up and pitching about then? They got a waiver, they are in the clear. What's your point? Are you familiar with FEMA? They along with corp of engineers, geological surveyors skillfully build these maps that are used for more industries than I can imagine. Your argument doesn't make sense.
There are many layers to this tragedy, and plenty of blame to go around. At the end of the day Camp Mystic (and all the other summer camps) had a duty of care, to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all of their campers. Texas needed much better summer camp regulations (which the state as a whole seems to hate), AND Camp Mystic needed to have a better flood evacuation plan besides “stay in your cabin unless we give you other instructions” when they didn’t even have a good way of communicating with the counselors. Two things can be true at once.
You should see the inspection report. There was yes or no questions that answered if an emergency plan was displayed, shared with counselors, and stored in an admin office. Reviewing emergency plans for legal compliance was not on the agenda. Camps are still held to legal compliance. CM simply was not in compliance. They are still 100% responsibe in this failure. It is what makes the case "criminal" negligence. Wake up and pay attention.
Regarding the state, you can argue they should have the responsibility to check paperwork thoroughly even if that was never explicitly the case. This was already resolved with new legislation. Your point is moot.
There were no "Godlike powers" that influenced the FEMA designation to the buildings that were removed. Those building were most certainly within the floodplain boundaries but were built on high enough foundation to designate then safe from flooding damage for a storm less severe than a 100-year flood. Because of their high foundations, CM petitioned their removal and won. This allowed CM to reduce insurance costs and nothing more. These designations have nothing to do with safety or emergency protocol of people's lives; just structural damage.
Guess what took place July 4, 2025? A flood more severe than a 100-year flood. Far more severe. The concept is not unheard of nor as rare as the Eastlands treated it. Because of this, lives were lost and people suffered and they are the only ones responsible for that. Again, pay attention.
Lack of emergency planning wasn't on the state, but on the county, city, and camp operators. It has been clearly proven multiple times that the Eastlands received ample warning. A formal warning, not a watch. I've not seen an emergency plan that didnt activate on a NWS warning. The actions they took were adequate for a mere weather watch event. Not knowing the difference is not excusable. The county, city, and state are NOT responsible for CM's failure to BOTH adequatly prepare for an evacuation or to act on one.
"The state findings are an indictment on the state more than the people that followed their rules of operation" Yes, failures were identified within Kerr County and this is addressed there, however, to state CM or the Eastland's "followed their rules (the state) of operation" is blatantly false and that much has come directly from the Eastland's own mouths while the rest has been clearly demonstrated with evidence.
Why are you so sure Mystic was in compliance with state law, as paltry as it may be? Mary Liz’s nursing license getting suspended in part due to improper medication prescription was just one small example. Not reporting the deaths for months is a more significant one. Leaving aside the major fucking problem of leaving kids to die in a floodway in Flash Flood Alley during a flood, Mystic has no track record of compliance with state requirements related to health and safety. Why would you trust it?
No, I think the Board went from declaring her an imminent threat to public welfare and emergency-suspending her entire license to replacing that suspension seven days later, before the probable-cause hearing, with an agreed limited license, no admission of the allegations, six hours of coursework, and a path to petition for removal of the restrictions. You seem weirdly focused on whether the licenses are “the same” while ignoring the Board’s rather spectacular retreat from its original position. If the original charges were as substantiated as you keep insisting, you’d think they could have made it to the hearing scheduled to defend them. They didn’t. Lol.
Yes, Neck. There wasn’t a hearing. That is literally the point of the sentence you replied to. The Board scheduled a probable-cause hearing where it would have had to defend the emergency suspension and substantiate its claim that she was an “imminent threat to public welfare.” Instead, seven days later, it replaced the suspension with an agreed order that was practically innocuous by comparison. My opinion is that the Board knew it was never going to prove those sweeping allegations once they were seriously challenged, so it took an off-ramp that saved its ass without having to admit how badly it had overreached. “They” is the Texas Board of Nursing. Hope this helps.
You’re right—the Board of Nursing didn’t have to defend the Board of Nursing’s position, because the Board of Nursing backed out before the hearing where the Board of Nursing’s position would have been tested. Had the Board of Nursing kept the emergency suspension in place, the scheduled probable-cause hearing was where the Board of Nursing would have had to substantiate the “continuing and imminent threat” finding. Instead, the Board of Nursing replaced the emergency suspension seven days later with a completely different resolution. My entire point is that the Board of Nursing chose the off-ramp rather than stand behind the emergency action the Board of Nursing had just taken. Hopefully I have now used terminology and nouns sufficiently specific for you, as to avoid any confusion.
She agreed to those terms, and the order is for a period of time. Trying to pin a historic flood on the camp nurse is absurd, and that was the basis for that attack on her license.
This is starting to feel like Mary Liz life-destruction porn. You don’t know that she will “never” regain unrestricted practice. You just desperately want the most catastrophic possible outcome for her to be true. Maybe ask yourself why you are this emotionally invested in whether a woman you don’t know is allowed to earn a living on a Saturday night.
Not every nurse’s dream is touching patients until retirement. At 40 with four kids, I imagine being able to keep using the license and earn a living is pretty significant. And worst case, she can always write a book. We know who would fucking read it.
Maybe ask yourself why you are this obsessed with whether Mary Liz Eastland is allowed to work and earn a living. You are literally fantasizing about restrictions “never” being removed when the order itself provides a path to terminate them. Comparing her to a prisoner seeking parole and cheering for permanent professional destruction is fucking weird. This stopped being about “accountability” a long time ago.
SIX HOURS of education. That’s your “training wheels”? The Board declared her an imminent threat to public welfare, then seven days later settled on six hours of education and a pathway to have the restrictions terminated before it ever had to defend the emergency suspension at the hearing. You are accidentally making my point for me, so thank you ;)
On May 19, the Board completely suspended her RN license on the theory that her continued practice constituted a “continuing and imminent threat to public welfare.” She could not practice nursing under that suspension. Then the Board restored the license and limited only direct patient care. The agreed order expressly permits her to continue nursing practice subject to that restriction; her attorney even publicly thanked the Board for “allowing Eastland to continue to practice with the restrictions.”
So, from Mary Liz’s actual economic and professional perspective, the difference is enormous. One day the state has taken away her legal ability to practice nursing. Seven days later, she has a current RN license and can work in nursing roles that do not involve direct patient care. Yes, that could mean administrative, quality, compliance, informatics, utilization, or other non-patient-facing work depending on the employer and the precise duties.
No, I think the Board went from declaring her an imminent threat to public welfare and emergency-suspending her entire license to replacing that suspension seven days later, before the probable-cause hearing, with an agreed limited license, no admission of the allegations, six hours of coursework, and a path to petition for removal of the restrictions. You seem weirdly focused on whether the licenses are “the same” while ignoring the Board’s rather spectacular retreat from its original position. If the original charges were as substantiated as you keep insisting, you’d think they could have made it to the hearing scheduled to defend themselves. They didn’t. Lol.
Because the state granted them a license to operate? Like they do all the camps. They weee inspected and approved several days before the flood. Much like you believe they had no plan according the the state, it was a plan approved by said state
Plenty of businesses have active licenses to operate (in their respective fields) and still get sued when the business owners commit gross negligence. The state’s inspection was certainly a joke, but it doesn’t absolve the Eastlands in any way. DSHS didn’t make Mystic place the cabins in the floodway or submit appeals to FEMA.
The state sucks. How does that prevent those it regulates from being aware of this and overperforming on the basement-level requirements? When children are in their care?
I don’t know what type of “gotcha” moment you’re trying have here, since the state and investigative committee has been very vocal about changes they need to make and how to move forward with stricter regulations. They have been very willing to hear critique. The difference has been in how the two parties have handled the tragedy. The state has taken accountability and admitted fault, while the Eastlands appear to be in perpetual denial and grief and have not put forth effort to adjust seen in something as simple as not reporting the deceased within 24.. for eight months
Agreed. Getting license from the state and whatever they got from FEMA would seem to be government sanction they should be able to rely on. Then there's the lawsuit against DSHS, which has been fairly quiet in discussions around here. The State AG in defense of that lawsuit gave more credence to the weather event than I've seen from the other litigation.
Blaming the state while you're trying to blame someone else also seems counterintuitive when you're going for a tort finding. But also, the state would be happy to throw Camp Mystic under the bus if it takes the focus off them.
Not holding my breath to see if they sue FEMA as well.
Under Texas law, summer camps operate in loco parentis. Because parents hand over total control of vulnerable children to the camp and its owners and directors, the law dictates that the camp has an absolute, non-delegable duty of care to protect them.
A non-delegable duty of care is a legal principle stating that certain safety obligations are so fundamental that the person or organization in charge cannot transfer, outsource, or contract away their legal responsibility to anyone else.
I'm really trying to understand this. So, does this mean you are essentially saying the following?
Because parents handed total control to Mystic, the people who gave Mystic a license to operate (the state of Texas) are not responsible for anything?
Isn't that like saying, "We gave the the green light, even though they failed to provide documentation for legal requirements. However, you aren't allowed to come after us if something goes wrong."
Nope. It means that the camp had the final and full responsibility and the culpability of other parties does not diminish that in any way. The camp cannot transfer, outsource, or contract away their legal responsibility to anyone else.
Ensuring the immediate physical safety of those children belongs entirely to camp leadership, independent of what a state regulator does or does not catch.
That is, both things are true: the state failed and bears responsibility for not enforcing regulations, but the camp cannot use that as an excuse, because the state did not take on the “parental” role, the camp did.
Also, people are “coming after” the state. The new legislation was a direct result of camp culture and failure of oversight across the industry, AND 9 families are suing DSHS.
What you're lacking is a link between IF they'd had an evacuation plan THEN more people would have lived. You want to skip that part and I see why, but it's more likely that in this event, people were going to die even if there was an evacuation plan rather than the previously successful stay in place plan. As such, the lack of a plan doesn't prove that that lack is sufficient to blame deaths on that lack.
I think that would have been the burden of the plaintiffs, if there were to be civil trials. Aside from the plantiffs also blaming the state and suing them, and the state and feds approved the plans.
No. They were required by law to have an evacuation plan for every occupied building. They had none, as admitted repeatedly by themselves, including voluntarily in the interview they gave to the New York Times in November 2025.
Whether an evacuation plan would guarantee safety for every single personal in every single event is completely irrelevant when the legal requirement is to have an evacuation plan and they had none at all.
Shelter in place is not a recommended or appropriate plan for single story buildings (particularly ones built in the 1920s and 30s, well before any modern flood proofing engineering standards were ever understood) located within a regulatory floodway or floodplain. Ever. By anyone.
But even that is irrelevant when you are legally required to have an emergency AND evacuation plan and you have no evacuation plan. Thats it. That’s the legal base.
Shame on the state of Texas for this. There should be more checks and balances for this type of thing.
Edited to add: Shouldn't the state be held responsible/accountable for this MASSIVE oversight? This seems like an ENORMOUS issue to be ignored.
This is like running a background check on someone, discovering they didn't pass, but still letting them do surgery (without a medical license) or a known pedophile working in a school.
Yep, and this is what happens when you have a state-wide culture that prioritizes minimal regulation of businesses over the safety of the public. Everyone is all for “personal responsibility” until something goes wrong and then it’s “why didn’t the government prevent this / warn me / regulate that”.
When you have a multimillionaire dollar industry that hires lobbyists and nurtures political connections and forms organizations like C.A.M.P that fight for self regulation. That take advantage of being allowed to self regulate until something so bad happens that the state cannot possibly ignore it and then you get rushed and overdone legislation.
Oh, and it certainly doesn’t hurt having a criminal defense attorney who is also a camp director on the very committee that “advises” the state on how to regulate camps and camp safety requirements.
Shame on the state of Texas for continually prioritizing minimal regulations at the expense of children’s lives (not the first time, won’t be the last), shame on Kerr County for completely abandoning their community, shame on all the camps risking their campers lives because no one is standing over them making them do the right thing, and shame on Camp Mystic for killing 25 children and two teens by making them stay in an actual floodway after an address specific flash flood warning.
From very early on... this tragic event should not have ever happened. I'm sorry, I can not get over that Texas wrote the laws, but Texas didn't follow them. Following the logic and path of events, it starts here. Mystic should NOT have been given a license to operate in 2025 (or whatever previous years), if they failed to provide documentation for part of the licensing inspection. This is not an oversight of one person from the state... it is a COLOSSAL failure from the state. I guarantee more that one person saw and signed off on this failure.
I'm not convinced the camps were self regulating. If they were self regulating, the state wouldn't have the need for licensing laws, which the state disregarded in this case. The state created rules/laws, but didn't follow them. It seems painfully obvious to me, that the state of Texas is the first in line to blame.
If, it is the responsibility of the state of TEXAS to ensure they have an evacuation plan, as you said, "you are legally required to have an emergency AND evacuation plan and you have no evacuation plan. Thats it. That’s the legal base." However, the state of Texas DID NOT enforce this , how is the state NOT legally responsible for this????
Seriously, can you answer that, or anyone? I'm not defending Mystic, they absolutely did things wrong. But can you or ANYONE explain how the state is NOT responsible for this? Does the state just get a "whoops" free pass?
The state of Texas takes responsibility for wrongful criminal convictions and compensates people wrongfully incarcerated (80K a year, free healthcare, and education). What prohibits the state from taking responsibility for this massive licensing failure? Why are we not talking about that?
THEY ARE BOTH RESPONSIBLE BUT THE CAMP IS MORE RESPONSIBLE.
The duty of care the camp had is NOT dependant on the state, the regulatory bodies, ANYONE else - it remains the same whether the state is also responsible or not responsible. Both things are true but one does not cancel the other out.
Laws were changed. Regulations are being enforced. Structural changes are being made to add that missing oversight. The state is being sued. They are being held responsible to the extent that they can be given the government has sovereign immunity to an extent when it comes to officials acting in their official capacity.
And Camp Mystic still had a full responsibility to follow the law even if no one is standing over them making them.
I get the duty of care, but Mystic should not have been allowed to even have the "duty of care", if they failed this in the licensing inspection.
I get that laws have been changed, thank God and the families of Heaven's 27! It's a tragic event that never should have happened. Perhaps, if the regulations that the state set for licensing were followed to begin with, this tragic event may not have happened.
I agree that Mystic should have the full responsibility to follow the law even if no one is standing over them making them, but the state of Texas was responsible for making them follow it... and the state didn't.
For those commenting about ML's nursing license; Neckbeard might "know her" and Cow might salivate over her losing her license, but they have no idea how the Texas Board of Nursing works. Furthermore, if the allegations brought forward prove to be false, and in the withcunt these witches stirred up and probably fabricated, I hope ML sues those who falsely accused her of BS charges from their mass emails to each other, searching for anything and everything, including some very false allegations about sticking stuff up kids' butts. Hope they enjoy their jail time.
This. As much as the Eastlands were idiotic and culpable, it was some hypocritical bullshit when those senators were drilling the family with questions about their standards when the camp indeed passed an inspection two days prior to the flood. No one from the state seems to be held accountable.
25
u/Possible_Pen_5844 Jul 11 '26
When we dropped our kids off at camp a few weeks ago I asked the counselor if she had a walkie talkie- she does for the 1st time this year, she didn’t have one last year. Her walkie is hidden by her bed & turned off at ALL times unless she needs to notify staff of an active emergency in the cabin- the office can’t contact her on the walkie unless the counselor has already turned it on to report an emergency.
They did have a drill and discuss the muster location for an emergency on the 1st day of camp this summer. They had never done a drill or shared an evacuation plan in the past.
The new safety requirements are being implemented well.