153
Camp Mystic’s leader got a ‘life threatening’ flood alert. They evacuated an hour later.
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
153 points (99.4% liked)
News
30965 readers
2721 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Much of the camp was built in a high risk flood zone, a zone where building is strictly illegal in many states with responsible safety measures. Since Texas doesn’t give a shit about human life, they not only allow building in dangerous flood zones, but they clearly don’t have the infrastructure to make it even remotely safe.
The camp never should have been built there. This tragedy is exactly why planning for future risk when building something (especially something for kids, but that’s pretty much irrelevant) is not optional.
I'm published in watershed analysis - specifically stormwater discharge. I work in a municipal development office in Texas and specialize in drainage plans.
That's simply not accurate.
You generally can't build in the 100-year floodplain. What happened here, from a drainage engineering standpoint, is a combination of 3 factors:
Many of the buildings in question were built prior to the flood plain being defined in that location, and existing non-conforming structures are generally allowed to remain.
New buildings were built a few years back, but out of the 100-year floodplain. Part of that was a floodplain map revision. These can be obtained through FEMA if an engineer provides an analysis showing either that mitigation techniques will change the floodplain area or that the flood maps are incorrect. Many flood plain maps are decades old, and the actual flood areas are different for a variety of reasons.
Unfortunately, there are also engineers who will stamp whatever you put in front of them if you pay them, and there are in fact engineers who specialize in saying "yes" and providing bad analysis to get around drainage, detention, and floodplain requirements. Lots of them are foreign-based, which is why most Texas jurisdictions have started requiring engineers licensed in Texas so we can go after their credentials when their bad engineering leads to failure. The reality is FEMA doesn't have the resources to double-check the analysis of every project, and they must rely on the engineer's stamp as evidence that best practices have been used.
This is super helpful, thanks for the explanation.
Is there any sort of regularly scheduled review to try and catch construction projects that may now be in floodplains that weren't designated as such when constructed?
To what end?
We can't just kick people out of their existing homes or shut down businesses because the maps changed around them. We allow existing structures to remain, but if they're wiped out in a flood we don't allow them to be rebuilt.
The tricky part is when you get outside of cities into counties, where there's generally no permits required for building structures. It's the utilities and subdivision improvements that get attention because they require government involvement.
And strictly speaking, development in the floodplain is prohibited by FEMA, not the county. So the county will tell you "no" if you ask, but they aren't actively hunting for it.
In cities with code enforcement and building permits in a smaller area of land it's a little easier, but even then in my tiny city it's hard to find everything that gets done illegally. It's usually spotted when the neighbors complain, or if our inspectors happen to see it while looking at a neighbor's property.
Just last week we found someone that had filled in a detention pond, scraped all the trees out of the back of their lot (trees provide erosion control and friction to slow down and spread water), and added about 1500 square feet of concrete (speeds up water flow and reduces amount absorbed into ground) when the neighbor asked our arborist to identify which trees needed to come down for fire safety.
Im not sure building is completely forbidden. I was looking into propery and you could build on it if the structure was elevated which of course costs way more money, but it was possible.
There's some nuance on whether it's floodplain or floodway.
It gets technical, but the easy answer is that floodplain us where the waters will rise, while floodway is the path along which water is intended to travel. Lots of the time, the floodplain and the floodway are the same thing, but not always.
Development in the floodplain can sometimes be achieved through a floodplain development permit with a no-rise certification (there will be no net rise of water level in event of a flood caused by the development in the floodplain)
Development in the floodway is generally a hard no, because the floodway is where you want the water to go, and you want water flowing fast in the floodway to clear space for the water coming in behind it. Putting structures on stilts increases friction and slows water down, causing it to back up more upstream.
thanks. It is a distinction I had not thought about. Im pretty sure I could see both terms and if not in the same space close enough to each other, then my brain would think it was referring to the same thing.
Yes, I am sorry but as someone who knows geomorphology I struggle to see this as manslaughter and not as outright mass murder caused by a passion of extreme willful ignorance.
Many people need to go to jail for a long time because of it. Most likely, they will get cabinet positions or something.
Was Paxton already in his position when he drunk drove and killed a man?
Agreed.
I can see how the conversation could go, outside of Texas
It’s a weak argument and I think that places like that need more code than less (think of fires, etc.). There’s ways to make rustic, summer camp buildings fun and safe, but a quick glance at the safety precautions taken to move children to school in the USA is sufficient to understand the risk assessment process. If it hurts kids occasionally, it’s probably fine. Just as long as shareholders aren’t hurt
Would it have been buildable for a camp if they’d constructed some sorts of shelters, or are the forces involved in these floods so large not even that is doable?
I’m asking because a camp seems low density, with temporary structures, where dealing with some level of flooding isn’t going to ruin things like a regular house getting flooded.
But obviously safety needs to be critically considered, hence the question
Who are you who is so wise in the world of pancakes?