By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) repeatedly granted Camp Mystic’s appeals to remove buildings from its 100-year flood map, despite the camp operating in a dangerous flood plain. In 2011, FEMA designated the camp in a “Special Flood Hazard Area,” requiring flood insurance and tighter construction regulations. However, through multiple appeals, the agency amended the map, removing buildings from the hazard area in 2013, and again in 2019 and 2020, potentially allowing the camp to avoid insurance requirements or lower premiums. Despite the amendments, analysis showed both camp sites were at risk, with the Guadalupe site fully within the 100-year flood plain.
Read the original article here
FEMA removed dozens of Camp Mystic buildings from 100-year flood map before expansion, records show. This is a story that really gets to the heart of some concerning practices, and it’s worth unpacking.
In essence, here’s what happened: FEMA, in response to appeals from Camp Mystic, removed a significant number of buildings from the designated flood zone, effectively altering the official flood maps. Records show that these buildings, originally part of the older Camp Mystic Guadalupe, were later removed from the 100-year flood map. Further appeals led to the removal of more structures from Camp Mystic Cypress Lake, a sister site that expanded operations in 2020. Reports from campers indicate the damage experienced at the Guadalupe River camp, where “the flats” were inundated, in stark contrast to the Cypress Lake cabins which fared better.
Now, what does this all mean? Well, experts suggest that these appeals to FEMA weren’t just random acts. They likely stemmed from a desire to avoid costly flood insurance, lower existing premiums, or even pave the way for renovations and new construction under less stringent regulations. It’s a tactic used by property owners and communities to shield themselves from regulations, it seems, and this is definitely not a new phenomenon.
Think about it: these flood maps dictate insurance requirements and influence construction standards. So, when buildings are removed from these zones, it can have real financial implications. The camp owners, knowing their location was prone to flooding, seem to have taken advantage of this process.
The key takeaway here is that flood maps are, in essence, insurance risk maps. They don’t necessarily show *all* the areas that might flood, only those studied for insurance purposes. If other nearby flood sources aren’t on the map, it doesn’t mean they won’t flood. The recent flood, based on everything I am reading, seems to have been even more devastating than what the existing maps predicted.
It seems like the owners knew the dangers, but the warning systems weren’t maintained, and in this situation, the owners are ultimately responsible. It’s a tragic combination of negligence and cost-cutting, and it highlights how important it is to prioritize safety.
This situation raises some serious questions. How does FEMA approach these appeals? Is there enough scrutiny? Should there be more? Should there be more engineers involved in the process? There are lots of people in this space that question FEMA’s practices. More funding for the agency and better-informed decisions would go a long way in making sure this type of scenario doesn’t happen again.
It’s vital to recognize that this isn’t just about FEMA or even the camp owners. It’s about local government’s poor decisions. It’s a clear example of how regulations can be exploited when money is involved, and how essential those same regulations can be.
The unfortunate reality is that this situation begs the question: will the revised flood plain designations be respected, or will the process repeat itself in the future?
What’s concerning is the potential for this kind of situation to repeat itself elsewhere. What other areas are at risk, similarly exposed, with potentially flawed maps? This is the kind of situation that should give us pause. It’s a situation that, hopefully, underscores why we need to prioritize safety, regulation, and due diligence.
Ultimately, what’s needed is a focus on preventative measures: adequate funding for FEMA, a closer look at the appeal process, and an unwavering commitment to putting safety first. Without these measures, the risk of repeating these tragic events will continue to loom large. The fact that some people may even try to blame the regulatory agency that’s already underfunded is just plain wrong. The tragic loss of life and the potential for more disaster should be a wake-up call for everyone involved.