Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
32 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

Yes. We now know that camp leadership was monitoring the storm and the warnings 24/7, proving your accusation 100% false.

We also know they had a flood plan, inspected and approved by State of Texas Health department on July 2nd. The plan was hanging in every cabin (plenty of parents have taken photos of the flood plan since they have returned to pick up kids belongings). The flood plan literally says “stay in your cabin”.  No where does their plan say to leave cabin and walk up toward Cypress Camp. The camp executed the posted plan until it was obvious it wasn’t working. Then the evac’d.

So, 100% yes. The camp leadership was monitoring (Dick and son in office monitoring), they did have an inspected/approved plan and it was posted. They did follow the plan and 27 kids died. 

What part of this is incorrect?

So you are saying they were just completely negligent? As I also stated in one of my replies to you.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Having a bad, poorly conceived plan is not the same thing as having an actual functional plan. You can have "a plan" and still be negligent. 

If you don't know what you're arguing, maybe you should stop arguing it. 

Also, the plan for a flood is to stay in the cabins and die? I think I see a flaw here that maybe “wait it out” isn’t the safest default when “life threatening” flood warnings were given. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, WBT said:

Dead of night vs daylight had a huge impact imo.

I don't even know what I'm arguing here.  Yes, there should be sirens.  They would have saved lives.  Yes Abbott and many of the locals have responded as buffoons, ghouls, or worse.

It's just the idea that there must be someone to blame and the government could have saved almost everyone rings false to me.  It reads as coping, lashing out in anger, etc. 

These were the highest floodwaters in anyone's living memory that came up in the dead of night at the start of a holiday weekend.  How many people were drinking that night?  Many people probably thought they were on high enough ground.  Cut the death toll in half, which is about the best case scenario I can imagine, and it would have still been the deadliest disaster in Texas of our lifetimes.

You're not seeing the big picture.  Entities are 100% to blame for the lack of planning and reaction to the floods / notifications.

The concept really isn't hard.  Kerr country, the camps and the UGRA spend the time well in advance to develop reaction plans to hazardous alerts:  floods, fires, criminal activity, whatever.  They figure out the mechanics if it involves evacuations, relocations, etc.  They document and practice that shit on a routine basis to work out the kinks, so they're ready to respond to actual alarms. 

Then, when the actually alarms come, BOOM, you kick off the procedure.  No matter how many times it occurs.

Anything less is unfortunately either laziness or inadequacy.

If all that is "too hard" or "too annoying" then those people need to find a new line of work.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
If you don't know what you're arguing, maybe you should stop arguing it. 

Yeah…I mean…the point is to make the toll as low as you can. Cut it by 1/3? That’s a win.
Nothing is perfect. Bad outcomes will still happen. But you do what you can to mitigate them.
There are some car wrecks that are gonna kill you no matter what measures are taken. But it’s still a good idea to have crumple zones, seat belts, and air bags. Because they REDUCE crash deaths and serious injuries.
Sirens are an easy, low-cost measure that surely would have saved some number of lives. At the end of a disaster, you should be able to say “we did everything that reasonably could have been done.” That can’t be said here. That’s not good.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
11 hours ago, WBT said:

Non zero deaths saved I believe.  Dramatically?  I can't get there.  These aren't teleporters we're talking about.

The fucking sooners figured out tornado sirens generations ago. Are you telling me Texans are dumber than sooners?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The fucking sooners figured out tornado sirens generations ago. Are you telling me Texans are dumber than sooners?

with regards to weather.....yes 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The fucking sooners figured out tornado sirens generations ago. Are you telling me Texans are dumber than sooners?

We have flood sirens too on the Arkansas River.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
16 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Also, the plan for a flood is to stay in the cabins and die? I think I see a flaw here that maybe “wait it out” isn’t the safest default when “life threatening” flood warnings were given. 

I think it's more an unfortunate coincidence than anything, but it seems a lot of the deaths were associated with exiting the cabins as the water receded, voluntarily or otherwise.

So, staying in the cabins might not have been quite as insane as it sounds.  Still insane compared to going to higher ground, which apparently was readily available.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

So you are saying they were just completely negligent? As I also stated in one of my replies to you.

This is your first post on the subject:

I know no one wants to say it right now, but the people that own and operate the camps hold a lot of responsibility here.  If you’re hosting that many children, at a site that close to a flood prone river, you should have at least one person on staff monitoring this 24/7, and a well established and trained evac plan.

You made a false accusation there was no plan and that the leadership was not monitoring this.  I called you out and said you didn't know that and were talking shit.  You double-down and said, "What do you even mean? If they had started following the news when the NWS, Austin and San Antonio Mets were calling it out multiple hours in advance, we would not be having this conversation."  They were 100% following the news and the NWS warnings hours in advance and we are in fact "having this conversation".

We now know, they did have a plan and were executing it.  It clearly was a shitty plan after the fact.  But, the FACT is they had a plan, it was inspected and approved by experts (July 2nd), it was posted in every cabin, it was part of the counselor training, and the camp leadership stuck with the posted/inspected flood plan until it wasn't working.  At some point, they started to move kids out of cabins into the Rec Hall or Cypress, or into trees...  27 kids died.  

There is a ton they should have different.  But that is not what you accused them of.  You said they were asleep, not monitoring the storm and did not have a plan in place and if they did, "we would not be having this conversation.".  

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Having a bad, poorly conceived plan is not the same thing as having an actual functional plan. You can have "a plan" and still be negligent. 

Any plan that doesn't involve waking up everyone in camp and getting them in shoes and jackets and ready to move--even if they initially stay in their cabins--and immediately sending an adult with a radio to monitor the river is a shit ass plan.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted

Has it actually been confirmed that the state reviewed and approved the flood plan on July 2nd? I've seen conflicting reporting on that. I believe some said the plans that were reviewed and approved didn't include a flood plan but were for other potential disaster scenarios. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Having a bad, poorly conceived plan is not the same thing as having an actual functional plan. You can have "a plan" and still be negligent. 

I agree.  Their negligence starts well before monitoring the weather warnings 24/7 or having an approved/inspected flood plan.  Cabins in a flood plain, where they have actual knowledge of the cabins have filling up with water is long before this situation ever occurs.  That is where the negligence starts.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Has it actually been confirmed that the state reviewed and approved the flood plan on July 2nd? I've seen conflicting reporting on that. I believe some said the plans that were reviewed and approved didn't include a flood plan but were for other potential disaster scenarios. 

I wish I could find it again, but I thought I had read that the state only checks to see if they have a plan in place, not that the plan is a good plan, and due to the age of the camp that older plans had been grandfathered in.   I know we have to have some disaster plans in place at work that are filed with the state and reviewed once a year, but that is a completely different world than a campsite.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It's just the idea that there must be someone to blame and the government could have saved almost everyone rings false to me.  It reads as coping, lashing out in anger, etc. 

So a county should never issue evacuation warnings for hurricanes bc it won’t save everyone? 

For you, it seems to be “this must save ALL saves and have a 0 fatality outcome or we shouldn’t bother” 

Posted
18 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

This is your first post on the subject:

I know no one wants to say it right now, but the people that own and operate the camps hold a lot of responsibility here.  If you’re hosting that many children, at a site that close to a flood prone river, you should have at least one person on staff monitoring this 24/7, and a well established and trained evac plan.

You made a false accusation there was no plan and that the leadership was not monitoring this.  I called you out and said you didn't know that and were talking shit.  You double-down and said, "What do you even mean? If they had started following the news when the NWS, Austin and San Antonio Mets were calling it out multiple hours in advance, we would not be having this conversation."  They were 100% following the news and the NWS warnings hours in advance and we are in fact "having this conversation".

We now know, they did have a plan and were executing it.  It clearly was a shitty plan after the fact.  But, the FACT is they had a plan, it was inspected and approved by experts (July 2nd), it was posted in every cabin, it was part of the counselor training, and the camp leadership stuck with the posted/inspected flood plan until it wasn't working.  At some point, they started to move kids out of cabins into the Rec Hall or Cypress, or into trees...  27 kids died.  

There is a ton they should have different.  But that is not what you accused them of.  You said they were asleep, not monitoring the storm and did not have a plan in place and if they did, "we would not be having this conversation.".  

 

 

 

 

Which part of the first sentence, of the first post I made about this, are you not quite understanding?

 

"I know no one wants to say it right now, but the people that own and operate the camps hold a lot of responsibility here."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

For you, it seems to be “this must save ALL saves and have a 0 fatality outcome or we shouldn’t bother” 

It's one of the same reasons they oppose any reasonable gun control regulations.  "He would've found some way to get an AR-17 and kill all those kids, so why bother regulating them?"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, WBT said:

Dead of night vs daylight had a huge impact imo.

I don't even know what I'm arguing here.  Yes, there should be sirens.  They would have saved lives.  Yes Abbott and many of the locals have responded as buffoons, ghouls, or worse.

It's just the idea that there must be someone to blame and the government could have saved almost everyone rings false to me.  It reads as coping, lashing out in anger, etc. 

These were the highest floodwaters in anyone's living memory that came up in the dead of night at the start of a holiday weekend.  How many people were drinking that night?  Many people probably thought they were on high enough ground.  Cut the death toll in half, which is about the best case scenario I can imagine, and it would have still been the deadliest disaster in Texas of our lifetimes.

"We can't save everyone, so why bother?"

Are you a member of the Kerr County Commissioners Court, by chance?

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, freyguy said:

The concept really isn't hard.  Kerr country, the camps and the UGRA spend the time well in advance to develop reaction plans to hazardous alerts:  floods, fires, criminal activity, whatever.  They figure out the mechanics if it involves evacuations, relocations, etc.  They document and practice that shit on a routine basis to work out the kinks, so they're ready to respond to actual alarms. 

Its kind of like hurricanes... every hurricane season, the local news reminds people to have a plan, know where to evacuate, have supplies, etc. etc. etc.  Most people don't listen.  Most people should.  Also, most people aren't tasked with protecting the lives of hundreds of children.  These people should have had a plan and had it down flawlessly.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Another BIG WIN for the magats. I wonder what the physician they're so mad about thinks of this. 

 

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets"

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

 

Which part of the first sentence, of the first post I made about this, are you not quite understanding?

 

"I know no one wants to say it right now, but the people that own and operate the camps hold a lot of responsibility here."

That would have been a great post.  You should have just stopped there.

Instead, you accuse them of shit that is totally false and you had no idea about.  They were awake, monitoring NWS warnings ahead of time, had a plan in place, etc...    

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yeah…I mean…the point is to make the toll as low as you can. Cut it by 1/3? That’s a win.
 

No offense, but if the numbers were 88 people dead instead of 134, I highly doubt you would be on here with equal amount of praise for how much lower the death toll was because of how the county decided to install sirens.  I can only imagine you writing something like, without sirens, "It could have been a lot worse."

   

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Texas Fight said:

No offense, but if the numbers were 88 people dead instead of 134, I highly doubt you would be on here with equal amount of praise for how much lower the death toll was because of how the county decided to install sirens.  I can only imagine you writing something like, without sirens, "It could have been a lot worse."

   

Well, you could knock the number down by about 27 and I think there'd be a bit less outrage.

But if campers and people with "river houses" choose to ignore sirens, that does become a bit less of a public problem, as opposed to warnings they may or may not have gotten or camp directors/supervisors (including RV camps and such) ignored "for them."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
Well, you could knock the number down by about 27 and I think there'd be a bit less outrage.
But if campers and people with "river houses" choose to ignore sirens, that does become a bit less of a public problem, as opposed to warnings they may or may not have gotten or camp directors/supervisors (including RV camps and such) ignored "for them."

Correct.
We would still have valid criticisms and concerns about building in floodways, and we’d criticize individuals who disregarded clear warnings and sirens. But from a standpoint of public/govt measures, we wouldn’t have a big list of things they should have done differently.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I hadn't seen this posted on any of the threads, and most people probably don't remember this.  But I've been camping at Pedernales Falls SP when the sirens went off in the middle of the night, so I know they work.

Quote

There were 16 people camped along the limestone banks of the Pedernales River that May evening in 1983. Twelve boys and two adults from a therapeutic wilderness program in Houston had traveled to the Texas Hill Country. The weather was pleasant, warm, and only slightly muggy. Upriver, though, later that night, rain began to fall in the stony reaches of the Pedernales’ watershed, and a wave began to build and move down stream at great speed. When it swept through the campsite where the boys and their counselors had pitched their tents inside Pedernales Falls State Park, they’d had no warning. A 20-foot wall of water carried them into a torrent of spring.

 

Four of them died, their bodies discovered in root tangles downstream. Three were boys in the 11 and 12 year old age group, and a camp counselor. Even the crudest of warnings might have prevented their deaths but they would have needed portable radios tuned to weather forecasts or park rangers who had gotten alerts. The tragedy prompted a discussion that led to the installation of warning sirens with float triggers that set off alarms when the water rises to dangerous levels. Eventually, more than a dozen sirens were installed upriver of the state park, and they remain in service.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Texas Fight said:

That would have been a great post.  You should have just stopped there.

Instead, you accuse them of shit that is totally false and you had no idea about.  They were awake, monitoring NWS warnings ahead of time, had a plan in place, etc...    

Who conceived the plan? Was the plan for 18 year old counselors to tell other counselors and their young campers to remain in their cabins by the river? Where were the adults? Was it a plan for them? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Texas Fight said:

I understand the concept. You hear a siren, and you immediately get up and know exactly what to do and where to go and are clear on time to act. Think tornado or nuclear bomb.

Id like for someone to show it practically for a flood. I think you all know Hwy 39 (if not, look at it in Google map). Consider the stretch from River Inn to Ingram Dam. That’s where all of the people are. There are probably 7-8 low water or river crossings that certainly flood the majority of the time in these scenarios. 

- When would a siren have gone off in this instance or any of the previous floods? At what water level, at what location, giving what amount of time for public to take action?  

- What are the instructions? Get in your car and take the 1 road from River Inn to Ingram? Or towards hwy 83? Or leave your RV and walk to higher ground in the storm? Does one or both cause more risk than just staying indoors? Not necessarily for THIS flood, but for the 40-50 floods before this one.

- At what point does the siren go off, and only go off, in a scenario where staying indoors is no longer the safest option leaving your dwelling IMMEDIATELY, in car or on foot, is the safest and only option. I.e if a siren goes off, the instructions and timing are clear. Do “this”, immediately.

Again, I get the concept. I’d like to see it from concept to reality. Can it be done simply and effectively?

How do you see it working? 

Think of it like Uncle Henry, Hunk, Zeke, Hickory and Aunt ‘Em all getting in the shelter but the girl goes chasing a dog so she gets flung around. Without the mitigation mechanism (shelter) they’re all in a shitstorm but with the shelter or warning siren some people will do the appropriate things. 
 

Don’t think of it as an all or nothing but as an effective means to reduce loss of life. 
 

We see it with Hurricanes too. Warn people to evacuate and the reasonable ones will. You can’t stop saving the majority of people because of the few who aren’t going to listen. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Who conceived the plan? Was the plan for 18 year old counselors to tell other counselors and their young campers to remain in their cabins by the river? Where were the adults? Was it a plan for them? 

I can’t answer all of it. The flood plan hanging on the cabin walls was to stay in the cabins. Nothing about leaving them. When the camp leadership did decide to evacuate, there are several accounts of adults (Dick Eastland (director), Glenn Juenke (security officer and former Ingram Chief of Police) and Edward Eastland (Director) were all actively helping girls evacuate out of cabins. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Chopper said:

Another BIG WIN for the magats. I wonder what the physician they're so mad about thinks of this. 

 

Man you @Hate to see our nations capacity to predict/forecast devastating storms and hurricanes get completely ruined for no fucking good reason.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

Is there anyone alive that can tell us who was monitoring the river height and at what point they decided to begin evacuations?
 Were all the counselors roused and prepared to evacuate their campers?

What kind of a walk/hike is it to higher ground and finally to safe ground?  This, someone can answer. Is it flat for a distance than a decent incline?  Or some incline all the way?  This informs how likely they were to be able to outpace the rising water in transit.  I would hope that they could make 6” a minute of elevation gain. 
 

why did some campers wake up to water in their cabins?  They should have been gone well before that occurred. 
 

where was the water when the camp received the warning, in relation to the cabins?  
 

these are the questions I still have.  Currently, I am sensing a lack of urgency at the situation, followed by the correct amount only when it was too late. 
 

The rv parks are an entirely different situation and I place a lot more personal responsibility on them to be aware of conditions generally, but if there’s no cell service then pushing notifications wouldn’t have done much. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

 Were all the counselors roused and prepared to evacuate their campers?

 

What was the quote? Something like, "This is the deadliest river valley in the US and so shit happens." But even a camp that supposedly had a plan seemed to do nothing when there was a flood warning. They depended on 18 year olds to know what to do. And in some cases they gave each other shitty information. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

We see it with Hurricanes too. Warn people to evacuate and the reasonable ones will. You can’t stop saving the majority of people because of the few who aren’t going to listen. 

I agree with this.  Hurricanes and Tornados evacuations occur days before the weather arrives.  Telling people to evacuate only when the river is rising, seems problematic.  There are too many other perils to give a blanket directive when the actual event is occurring.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Texas Fight said:

- When would a siren have gone off in this instance or any of the previous floods? At what water level, at what location, giving what amount of time for public to take action?  

when a given rainfall volume/time equation is met in a critical mass of rain gauges in the upstream watershed

/science

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

the NWS warning should be heeded by anyone in leadership in a disaster prone area like a river valley in one of the most flash-flood prone areas. individuals should too but the government and camp leadership should immediately go into monitoring mode with the warning. the moment a river is known to be approaching or will approach flood status from river gauges the sirens should go off and all other methods of alerting the public should go into effect. the county should also have the camps on speed dial. this isn't hard, kids are in the flood zone, redundancy matters, fucking get with it.  and since this is a multi-county issue, even on one river let alone all the other rivers and counties in the flash flood areas, it should be the state's responsibility to fund it. this shit is just not that hard folks.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

and for the RVers... if you are camping on a river bank and unaware of the weather and without an analog weather radio then I just don't know what to tell you other than the fact you probably weren't a boy scout.  still, you deserve sirens too.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, NorthLoop said:

sxv-wtf.gif

Evacuations, boarding up homes, securing property, yes.  Sirens during the event are to seek shelter (basement, closet, etc..) immediately.  Not to evacuate. 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

Evacuations, boarding up homes, securing property, yes.  Sirens during the event are to seek shelter (basement, closet, etc..) immediately.  Not to evacuate. 

it's like you are talking about hurricanes and tornadoes and ignoring flash floods. sirens go off, you don't seek shelter in your freaking basement dude. you EVACUATE.  give me 30 minutes of warning time - i'm awakened and told to evacuate now or I'll die (meaning of a siren) and I guarantee you I'm going to be safe, end of story.

stop being obtuse.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
it's like you are talking about hurricanes and tornadoes and ignoring flash floods. sirens go off, you don't see shelter in your freaking basement dude. you EVACUATE. stop being obtuse.

Just like the sirens on the Pedernales, which are specifically designed to give people close to the river advance warning so they can leave the low area and get to higher ground.
BTW, I have years of involvement with Mo Ranch. “Get to higher ground” is 100% one of the protocols. Warning helps you do that.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Texas Fight said:

I agree with this.  Hurricanes and Tornados evacuations occur days before the weather arrives.  Telling people to evacuate only when the river is rising, seems problematic.  There are too many other perils to give a blanket directive when the actual event is occurring.  

If you get 15 minutes warning for a tornado, you're doing really fucking well. No one is evacuating "days before weather arrives." Your entire contribution to this thread has been pure, unadulterated, bullshit. 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Just like the sirens on the Pedernales, which are specifically designed to give people close to the river advance warning so they can leave the low area and get to higher ground.
BTW, I have years of involvement with Mo Ranch. “Get to higher ground” is 100% one of the protocols. Warning helps you do that.

No, it is go to lower ground or even under ground per @Texas Fight

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If you get 15 minutes warning for a tornado, you're doing really fucking well. No one is evacuating "days before weather arrives." Your entire contribution to this thread has been pure, unadulterated, bullshit. 

No, it is go to lower ground or even under ground per @Texas Fight

as long as you crouch on the floor with your hands over your head under your desk in flash flood you'll be fine, even in your basement.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...