
The long road to tragedy at the Texas girls camp where floods claimed 27 lives
But perhaps no bigger clue can be found than the account of an otherwise unremarkable and sparsely attended meeting of Kerr county commissioners in March 2018.
Members waited with anticipation for news of an application they submitted the previous year for a grant from the state of Texas to help pay for a comprehensive new flood warning system along the Guadalupe.
The county's unreliable old network of gauges and sensors, installed following flooding in 1987 that killed 10 children trying to flee a waterside church camp, had been inactive since 1999. Commissioners were chasing a $1m slice of federal funding made newly available to the state after a succession of flood disasters, including Hurricane Harvey in August 2017.
Now-retired commissioner Tom Moser brought bad news, noting 'about eight different counties' were selected, but 'they didn't select us,' according to minutes of the meeting still viewable online.
Tom Pollard, the county judge at the time, was incredulous.
'They prioritized us lower?' he asked, the county's many low-lying and therefore vulnerable youth summer camps immediately adjacent to the Guadalupe uppermost in his mind.
'They did,' Moser replied solemnly.
Without that funding from the state, the project foundered. No widespread gauge system was ever set up that would have given early warning of a life-threatening torrent of water further up the river; no sirens ever installed that would have warned Camp Mystic residents that their lives were in peril and they needed to get out immediately.
The investigation will look at other missteps and lost opportunities along the way that might have brought a different outcome at the 99-year-old Christian-themed, all-girls camp that served as a joyous rite of passage for generations of young Texans.
Prominent among them will be this week's revelation that the camp owner and director Dick Eastland, who lost his own life trying to ferry a group of his youngest campers to safety as the river rose towards a peak height of 37.5ft, waited more than an hour to issue an evacuation order after receiving a severe flood warning on his phone at 1.14am on 4 July.
Yet it is to the eternal regret of Moser, a former senior Nasa engineer who had studied flood monitoring and alert systems installed in other nearby counties, that money was never found or spent, either then or later, to replace or upgrade a broken mechanism born from a near-identical tragedy for the sole purpose of saving lives in the future.
'Not having the funds to accomplish it was not very satisfying to me but we tried,' Moser told NPR. 'That's all we could do. We didn't have the resources in the county operating budget to do that.'
Moser, who did not return a message from the Guardian seeking further comment, had advocated for sirens, a proposal dropped from the state grant application when it became clear some residents and commissioners opposed them.
'If sirens were there, clearly people would have known about it. Would it have saved everybody? I don't think so. This was an event that's probably one chance in a million,' he told the radio network.
At Camp Mystic, like elsewhere in the county, residents were reliant on an outdated and patchwork early warning system of alerts. Some were from the National Weather Service (NWS), which Eastland's family concedes he did receive. Other messages came from local authorities, some sent only after an inexplicable delay, which others along the Guadalupe's banks say they did not see in any case.
Inside the camp, with water rising fast, especially around dormitories closest to the river where the youngest campers, mostly aged eight and nine, were sleeping, there was chaos. Many of the teenage counselors left in charge of the dormitories were left to make instant life-or-death decisions on their own, having lost contact with adult supervisors.
According to two counselors interviewed in the days following the disaster, campers were not allowed to bring mobile phones, and the counselors were made to surrender theirs, leaving them cut off from any emergency alerts.
Eastland, who had run the camp with his family since the 1980s and was a past director of the Upper Guadalupe River Authority that pressed for the original warning and alert system, was familiar with the danger of flash flooding from heavy rain.
'I'm sure there will be other drownings,' Eastland told the Austin American-Statesman in 1990, reported by CNN. 'People don't heed the warnings.'
In a Washington Post report that contained harrowing first-hand testimony from girls who were there, parents of some who were rescued from Camp Mystic said it was Eastland and his staff who ignored warnings on the morning of the disaster.
Also under scrutiny will be why Eastland made, and was granted, repeated applications to remove dozens of Camp Mystic buildings from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 100-year flood map, which allowed the camp to operate and expand in a known risk area.
A review by the Associated Press found that 15 of at least 30 exempted buildings were at the Camp Mystic Guadalupe site where most, if not all of the campers and counselors lost their lives.
Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications at First Street, a climate risk assessment and modelling company, said the dormitories were in a known flood zone, which records show had been swamped numerous times in the camp's near century of existence.
'People that ran the camp had the ability to understand that the risk was close by, the risk was in the area, and maybe adapt the buildings. And there was no action there,' he said.
'In fact there were letters of map amendments that were submitted instead.'
But Porter said it was hard to place blame on any single person or entity: 'A lot of that is just our overall risk psyche and understanding of what risk looks like, our expectation that these really rare events aren't going to affect us and they're not going to be as bad as we think they're going to be.
'The way we treat climate risk and flood risk in the country is really that, you know, if it happens, it'll be something we'll be able to rebuild, recover, and then it won't happen again for 100 years.'
The Guardian was unable to reach anybody at Camp Mystic for comment.
Donna Gable Hatch, a writer and former staff editor at the Kerrville Daily Times, said she believed lives would have been saved at Camp Mystic with an early warning system, but city and county officials were not responsible for its absence.
'If the funds had been made available in a timely and adequate manner, this catastrophe might have unfolded differently. But too often, those at the helm of small towns must wait for permission, wait for funding, wait for bureaucracy to catch up to reality,' she wrote in a guest editorial for her former employer.
'To accuse local leaders of negligence is to completely misunderstand who they are and what this place means. In Kerr county, heartbreak isn't abstract. It has a name. A face. It's a neighbor, a classmate, a church member or a childhood friend.
'The truth will come out. In time, we'll trace the chain of failure back to where it truly began – not in Kerrville, but in the halls of distant agencies who failed to act with the urgency that rural lives deserved.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Promise of ‘a little rebate' suddenly becomes Trump's latest gimmick to distract Americans from the Epstein fallout
In the months after the 2024 presidential election — and understanding what happened with Latino voters and why they shifted to Donald Trump — I called a Democratic operative in Webb County, right in the heart of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. She told told me that when asking why one voter would back the once and future president, put simply, the voter told them in Spanish, 'I voted for Trump because he's going to give me money.' Famously, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump signed an economic rescue package that included a $1,200 check. Moreover, Trump sent letters telling people he was the person responsible for it. For many working-class families, the stimulus checks were a lifeline and Trump's approval rating slightly ticked up after sending out the checks, even as he would proceed to make careless mistakes that caused unnecessary deaths in the midst of the pandemic. That conversation came to mind when on Friday, Trump suddenly floated the idea of sending out 'a little rebate' to Americans. 'We're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt, but we're thinking about a rebate,' he told a reporter before boarding Marine One on his way to a five-day trip to Scotland. 'We're thinking about a rebate because we have so much money coming in from tariffs, that a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.' Unsurprisingly, Trump's comments come when voters are souring on the president. On Friday, as he departed, he vehemently denied that he visited the late pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein's island. During that same gaggle, he said that he could pardon Epstein's enabler and occasional girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Fewer than 30 percent of independents approve of him, according to a new Gallup poll and he has an overall approval rating of 37 percent. His approval among men, a central part of his 2024 victory, now sits below 50 percent. And no matter how much he tries to deflect, blame the Democrats for ' the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM,' he has been unable to escape the stench of it. This week, House Speaker Mike Johnson had to dismiss the chamber a day early for the summer recess to prevent enough MAGA Republicans from teaming up with the Democrats to sign a discharge petition to force a vote to release the Epstein files. Even some of Trump's most devoted supporters like Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined with Democrats in a subcommittee to subpoena the Department of Justice to hand over documents related to Epstein. In the Senate, Democrats smell blood in the water, as Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona attempted to force the release of files related to Epstein. Both men obviously see themselves as potential Oval Office occupants and see this as an opportunity to gain points with the base and the American public. Manosphere podcasters like Theo Von and Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh who played a key role with non-college educated sports-loving dudes breaking for Trump are turning on Trump. But this will likely not happen for a number of reasons. For one, the stimulus checks in 2020 came during a once-in-a-century pandemic that required people to stay home and therefore lose their jobs. The checks made sure people had enough to meet their basic needs while keeping demand steady enough. Pumping money into the economy now when unemployment is relatively low — and Trump frequently touts how 'hot' the country is right now — would do nothing but overheat the economy, drive up demand and cause inflation to spike, the very formula that killed killed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' White House runs and allowed Trump to return to Washington. This is to say nothing of his desite for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which could drive up inflation and his 'reciprocal tariffs.' None of that matters though, Trump is trying to rekindle the same tricks that helped him in the past. It's the same rationale for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's saying that Barack Obama staged a 'coup' and his rage against Joe Biden's autopen. Trump is in a position of his own creation and trying to dig himself out with the old tricks. But this time it might not work. Even now, some people might take his stimulus checks and then still not like him. After all, that happened in 2020.


The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sentence before verdict: Trump's attack on Obama is straight out of Alice in Wonderland
Almost every American knows that in our legal system, people accused of crimes are presumed innocent. The burden is on the government to overcome that presumption and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those simple but powerful maxims were once a source of national pride. They distinguished the United States from countries where government officials and political leaders branded the opponents guilty before they were charged with a crime or brought to trial. In Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, the Alice-in-Wonderland world of 'sentence first-verdict afterwards' came to life in infamous show trials. Those trials lacked all the requisites of fairness. Evidence was manufactured to demonstrate the guilt of the regime's enemies. Show trials told the story the government wanted told and were designed to signal that anyone, innocent or not, could be convicted of a crime against the state. So far, at least, this country has avoided Stalinesque show trials. But the logic of the show trial was very much on display this week in the Oval Office. In a now-familiar scene, during a meeting with the Philippines president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Donald Trump went off script. He turned a reporter's question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal into an occasion to say that former president Barack Obama had committed 'treason' by interfering in the 2016 presidential election. 'He's guilty,' Trump asserted, 'This was treason. This was every word you can think of.' Speaking after the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president said: 'Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton.' Republican congressmen and senators, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who investigated allegations of Obama's involvement five years ago, found nothing to support them. But none of that mattered to the president on Tuesday. As Trump put it: 'Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.' Not hiding his motives, Trump said: 'It's time to start after what they did to me.' Guilt first. Charges, trials and other legal niceties come later. This is American justice, Donald Trump-style. He wants no part of the long and storied tradition in which presidents kept an arms-length relationship with the justice department and did not interfere with its decisions about whether and whom to prosecute for crimes. What Trump said about Obama is, the New York Times notes, 'a stark example of his campaign of retribution against an ever-growing list of enemies that has little analogue in American history'. Putting one of his predecessors on trial also would take some of the sting out of Trump's own dubious distinction of being the only former president to have been convicted of a felony. Some may be tempted to write off the president's latest Oval Office pronouncements as an unhinged rant or only an effort to distract attention from Trump's Epstein troubles. But that would be a mistake. A recent article by the neuroscientist Tali Sharot and the law professor Cass Sunstein helps explain why. That article is titled: 'Will We Habituate to the Decline of Democracy?' Sharot and Sunstein argue that America is on the cusp of a dangerous moment in its political history. They say that we can understand why by turning to neuroscience, not to political science. Neuroscience teaches us that 'people are less likely to respond to or even notice gradual changes. That is largely due to habituation, which is the brain's tendency to react less and less to things that are constant or that change slowly.' In politics, 'when democratic norms are violated repeatedly, people begin to adjust. The first time a president refuses to concede an election, it's a crisis. The second time, it's a controversy. By the third time, it may be just another headline. Each new breach of democratic principles … politicizing the justice system … feels less outrageous than the last.' Americans must resist that tendency. To do so, Sharot and Sunstein argue, we need 'to see things not in light of the deterioration of recent years but in light of our best historical practices, our highest ideals, and our highest aspirations'. In the realm of respect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, we can trace those practices, ideals and aspirations back to 1770, when John Adams, a patriot, practicing lawyer and later the second president of the United States, agreed to defend British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Adams did so because he believed that everyone, no matter how reprehensible their act, was entitled to a defense. That principle meant that people needed to learn to withhold judgment, to respect evidence and to hear both sides of a story before making up their minds. That was a valuable lesson for those who would later want to lead our constitutional republic, as well as for its citizens. The trial of the British soldiers turned out, as the author Christopher Klein writes, to be 'the first time reasonable doubt had ever been used as a standard'. Fast forward to 1940, and the memorable speech of the attorney general, Robert Jackson, to a gathering of United States attorneys. What he said about their role might also be said about the president's assertions about Obama. Jackson observed that US attorneys had 'more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America'. A prosecutor, he explained, 'can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations … The prosecutor can order arrests … and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.' Sound familiar? The president is not a prosecutor, but since he has returned to power, President Trump has behaved and encouraged those in the justice department to ignore Jackson's warnings that a prosecutor should focus on 'cases that need to be prosecuted' rather than 'people that he thinks he should get'. Targeting people, not crimes, means that the people prosecuted will be those who are 'unpopular with the predominant or governing group' or are 'attached to the wrong political views, or [are] personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself'. Jackson restated a long-cherished American ideal, namely that those with the power to ruin lives and reputations should seek 'truth and not victims' and serve 'the law and not factional purposes'. Since then, presidents of both parties, in even the most controversial cases and those involving allies or opponents, have heeded Jackson's warnings. They have said nothing about pending cases, let alone announcing that it's time 'to go after' people. But no more. The justice department seems ready and willing to do the president's bidding, even though there is no evidence that President Obama did anything wrong in regard to the 2016 election. In addition, he may have immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did in his official capacity. Trump's attack on the 'traitorous' Obama may be predictable. But it should not be acceptable to any of us. Sharot and Sunstein get it right when they say, 'To avoid habituating ourselves to the torrent of President Trump's assaults on democracy and the rule of law, we need to keep our best practices, ideals, and aspirations firmly in view what we've done.' We need 'to compare what is happening today not to what happened yesterday or the day before, but to what we hope will happen tomorrow'. To get to that world, it is important to recall the words of John Adams and Robert Jackson and work to give them life again. Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty


Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Humiliation for 'drunk driving' Texas lawmaker as she's filmed appearing before court in LEG IRONS
A Texas councilwoman was arrested on Thursday night for driving while intoxicated after clubbing in downtown San Antonio. Ivalis Meza Gonzalez, 43, was elected to become San Antonio City Council District Eight councilwoman in the June 6 runoff. Now, less than two months later, she is in jail for drunk driving, KSAT reports. Security footage shows the humiliating moment the lawmaker had to stand up before a booking agent while being weighed down by leg irons on her ankles. According to an arrest warrant, a San Antonio police officer pulled Gonzalez's vehicle over for a traffic stop after she was seen driving at a slower speed than other vehicles on the road. She was allegedly unable to remain in a single lane along I-10 at Hildebrand Road. When the officer asked if she had been drinking, Gonzalez denied consuming alcohol, the warrant says. However, Gonzalez did admit that she was coming from Centre Club - a ritzy social club located in 'the prestigious' Weston Centre in San Antonio. Memberships are estimated to cost $175 per month, depending on various factors. During a sobriety test, the warrant said that Gonzalez had 'watery, glossy eyes' and had a 'moderate odor of intoxicants.' Security footage shows the humiliating moment (pictured here) the lawmaker had to stand up before a booking agent while being weighed down by leg irons on her ankles San Antonio police officers claimed Gonzalez was also slurring her words. The officers said Gonzalez failed every component of the sobriety test, reporting six of six clues present during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, seven of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test, including taking 22 steps instead of the instructed nine, and two of four clues on the one-leg stand test, NEWS4SA reported. After being put in custody, an officer asked Gonzalez for a sample of her breath or blood, but she refused. Officers were then compelled to seek a warrant, on the grounds that the lawmaker was attempting to conceal evidence of intoxication. Court records say Gonzalez was booked into the Bexar County jail on a $1,000 bond on Friday morning. According to Gonzalez's LinkedIn, she studied at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and then got her law degree from St. Mary's University. Prior to becoming the councilwoman for District Eight, she was the Chief of Staff for Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who served as San Antonio's mayor until 2025 and has since been replaced by Gina Ortiz Jones. Gonzalez is the third San Antonio City Council member to be arrested for driving while intoxicated in the past three years. On November 6, 2022, Clayton Perry, then the District 10 Councilman, was arrested after allegedly drinking 14 drinks in a four-hour period at a North Side bar. He then drove into another car at an intersection, fled the scene and was found later in his backyard. Then, on December 29, 2023, the current District 10 Councilman Marc Whyte was pulled over by San Antonio police after, they said, he was speeding and didn't properly signal a lane change. Whyte admitted to having consumed three alcoholic beverages, and was arrested after taking field sobriety tests. He was arrested on a DWI charge and later pleaded guilty to a non-DWI charge.