
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


Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Political censors have cynically hijacked vital child protections
Britons woke up last week to discover that their firehose of digital smut had been strangled, albeit temporarily for consenting adults. Undeniably, the introduction of age verification regulations does mark a huge change in our relationship with the internet, hitherto a pornographic free-for-all. It may feel like a shock to find a third party inserting itself between you and a website, apparently demanding to know who you are, but it shouldn't be a surprise: it's eight years since the UK Government published its online harms green paper under Theresa May, and The Telegraph launched its Duty of Care campaign the following year. After much wrangling, the result was the 2023 Online Safety Act. In March, the first part of went into effect, placing new obligations on platforms to remove content that is legal, but harmful to children: suicide advice, eating disorders or dangerous stunt challenges. The second phase went into force last week, requiring age checks for pornography sites. 'Companies have effectively been treating all users as if they're adults, leaving children potentially exposed to porn and other types of harmful content,' wrote Melanie Dawes, Ofcom's chief executive, in January. The UK is not an outlier in its desire to keep children safe, either. Texas and three other US states require age verification for adult material, and so will Australia. But critics of the law have warned of consequences for free expression from the start, and over-zealous interpretations quickly became apparent. X, previously Twitter, has already put material behind the age gate, with Benjamin Jones, director of case management at the Free Speech Union – of which I am a member – identifying a number of posts which were worryingly censored for unverified users. Some supported calls for single-sex spaces for women. One by Wuhan lab researcher Billy Bostickson (a pseudonym) fell foul too; it was part of a thread on the use of bamboo RNA in vaccines. Several posts in a thread discussing Richard the Lionheart were gated, which merely contained a reference to the crusades. Most troublingly, a post linking to a live stream of police arrests at a demonstration at a migrant hotel in Leeds was also taken down. All these bans appear to have been the work of an over-zealous algorithm. Some saw this coming. Baroness Claire Fox has written of her dismay at realising how outnumbered speech advocates were when she was in a room as the only free speech advocate, alongside dozens of groups all requesting some clause or addition. 'Only two of us [peers] consistently opposed the bill – myself and Lord Daniel Moylan. I was shocked that so many from the free speech camp of peers were silent,' Fox tells me. 'It became a Christmas tree bill with lots of other things put in it,' said Kemi Badenoch as she campaigned for the Conservative leadership last year. She also predicted 'it will go after people who aren't doing anything wrong'. That hasn't quite happened yet, but long overdue moves to enforce accountability on giant, transnational platforms, and better protect children unfortunately coincided with a renewed desire to control political speech. The good state must take an active role in removing inflammatory speech, the United Nations declared in its 2021 paper Our Common Agenda. It re-emphasised the point last year. William Perrin, one of the architects of Ofcom's approach to regulating online platforms, who was not involved in drafting the legislation, recently posted a paper for the think tank Demos called Epistemic Security 2029: Protecting the UK's information supply chains and strengthening discourse for the next political era. It explicitly calls for the policing of social media platforms. One gets the sense that as long as populists are rising, the impulse to censor will be irresistible to their political opponents. By controlling our discourse, they can control democracy. 'We have an establishment that is innately hostile to Free Speech,' Jones of the Free Speech Union tells me. There is very much wrong with this. Against a backdrop of widespread concern about street crime, shoplifting and rampant fraud, the energy devoted by police to what we say online is confounding, from enthusiasm for the category of 'non-crime hate incidents' to the creation of a special monitoring unit. The implicit idea seems to be that if we stop talking about something the underlying problem will go away. With Britain a tinderbox, and a long summer ahead, this seems a brave moment to test the proposition. It is understandable why age verification and clumsy algorithms sow suspicion of the system itself. In reality, however, online anonymity was always illusory. Your broadband operator has always known who you are and which sites you visit. So has the shady VPN provider. Google collected your pornography browsing history even while you were browsing in 'incognito' mode, for which it was sued, agreeing later to delete billions of records in a settlement. What our alarm reflects is a wholesale loss of trust in the Government. Ofcom points to polling showing the Online Safety Act is widely supported. It is highly regrettable that a bien-pensant blob has cynically hijacked child protection law to ensure it has a media landscape more in keeping with its views. But there's plenty of blame to go around. One lesson of the Online Safety Act is that free-speech advocates also needed a plausible child protection plan. They never came up with one – and were duly steamrollered. The consequences for Britain may be profound.


BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Devon warning over police call scam as victim loses £14k
Police are warning residents about a phone scam where fraudsters pose as police officers after victims were scammed out of thousands of and Cornwall Police said 12 reports, in the space of a fortnight, had been made from across Devon, with one elderly victim swindled out of £14, to the force, people have been called by scammers as they are "assisting with an investigation". They are then asked to withdraw significant funds from cash were targeted in Exeter, Exmouth, Sidbury, Plymouth, Bradninch and Heybrook Bay between 2 and 18 July. Sgt Tona Pooley said: "Victims are never to blame. "These fraudsters can be very persuading and demanding, which unfortunately in this case, has led to some people being scammed out of thousands of pounds."If you have been a victim of this scam or to one similar, please report it to the police or to Action Fraud. "Your information is vital in helping us identify the people who are behind this."


The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Issuing prison officers with Tasers won't make them safer
If you have read anything on the prison system over the past few years, you will have noticed a few common themes: overcrowding, understaffing, reoffending, crumbling infrastructure, and abject conditions. Our prisons are increasingly places of despair – full of drugs, drones, self-harm, violence and deaths. The recent annual report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons lay testament to the extent of the crisis gripping the prison system. And the government knows this. Its own research sets out that people living in overcrowded cells were 19 per cent more likely to be involved in assault incidents – and 67 out of the 121 adult male prisons in this country are overcrowded. In the context of rising violence across the prison estate, what is the government's solution? To recruit and train more prison officers? To address overcrowding by reducing capacity in particularly troubled jails and across the system? To invest in infrastructure? To increase education and training budgets to give prisoners access to the means to turn their lives around? No. While we wait for bolder action to fix the broken prison system, the government's response is to trumpet the fact that Tasers will now be used behind bars. The introduction of Tasers has been linked to horrific incidents involving attacks on staff at Frankland and Belmarsh – although it is far from clear that access to these weapons would have prevented either incident taking place. Staff in adult male prisons already have access to batons and PAVA spray, which we know undermine positive relationships between staff and those in their care. The escalating use of force brings with it a multitude of concerns. Inspection reports have consistently revealed inappropriate use of force, including against people threatening to self-harm; problems with lack of staff training; inadequate use of body-worn cameras; and disproportionate use of force against people from Black, Black/British, and Muslim backgrounds. While Tasers are being piloted in a limited manner – just the 'operational response and resilience unit' will be authorised to use them – the fear must be that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Indeed, speaking to journalists about Tasers, the secretary of state for justice, Shabana Mahmood, remarked: 'This is very much the beginning'. It seems that the rollout of further weapons in prisons has been foretold. And that would track; two months ago, the secretary of state approved of the use of PAVA spray – an otherwise illegal chemical incapacitant – in prisons holding children, despite evidence that it won't reduce violence and will be disproportionately used against Black and minority ethnic children, Muslim children and children with disabilities. Last week, the Howard League issued legal proceedings to challenge this decision. Almost every week, I visit prisons across the country and speak to people being held in and working in dreadful conditions. Many of this country's jails are filthy, overrun simultaneously with drones and rats. People eat – and go to the toilet – in cramped cells with poor ventilation. There are more than 22,000 people sharing a cell intended for a single person. Facilities have become dilapidated as the maintenance backlog has grown. Restricted regimes, often due to staff shortages, mean that people have little to do but stay locked in their cells. I speak to prison governors doing their very best to keep the people in their care safe, though they are often uncomfortable with the job they are doing, feeling powerless to attract the resources they need to run a better jail. They all want fewer people in their prison, higher staff confidence and capability, and more time to spend with prisoners to help turn their lives around. But there is no money for any of that. And so, prisoners are held in ghastly conditions, and when this leads to unrest and violence, the government is sanctioning yet more use of force against them. There is no question that the government is facing a crisis in its prisons. But this will not be solved with easy, reactionary policies. What is needed is political courage to explain the problems honestly to the public – as Keir Starmer started to do last July – and long-term investment in evidence-based policy that addresses the roots of the overcrowding and reoffending in our prison system. Violence will not be stemmed by more violence. The government must look at its own evidence and acknowledge that, rather than adding to the pressure in our overstretched jails, the best response to rising levels of violence is to reduce the prison population and offer productive and positive regimes for people in custody. We will be waiting until September for legislation to deliver changes proposed in David Gauke's sentencing review, which will hopefully ease some of this pressure. But otherwise, the government's plan seems to be to build more prisons, and weaponise them at pace. Which feels a long way from the promise of the prime minister's first press conference last July.