By Doug Stallard
I have canoed and camped along the upper Guadalupe River in Texas, albeit not in several years nor ever in the rain. It is a beautiful area and the water is refreshing, particularly in the summer. The river is lined with many trees, which spread along the river valley. Their welcome shade adds to the refreshment I’ve experienced while out on the river. This is a beautiful area for recreation and relaxation.
When I looked up into the trees along the river, it was easy to observe large pieces of debris in the branches, 20–30 feet above the river bank. For me, the debris inspired feelings of awe and respect — I was sure glad I wasn’t on the river when that debris got stuck up there. The warning was clear: This river could be a very dangerous place in heavy rain.
The upper Guadalupe has flooded multiple times in the last 50 years, and two of the worst events were in 1978 and 1987. The 2015 flood on the nearby Blanco River provided another tragic, chilling example of what can happen along Hill Country rivers in a heavy rain, when it swept over 350 homes away in the town of Wimberly. So, all the adults within the river valley on July 4 should have been aware, at least conceptually, of the potential danger that accompanies heavy rain. What they could not have known was whether that night would bring modest flooding or a historic flood. Unfortunately, it brought the latter.
Since the July 4 flood, there has been much finger pointing and clamor for an early-warning system along the river (including in Tangle), with many emphasizing that Kerr County, the state of Texas, or the federal government ought to provide such a system. Such a system has been compared to the tornado-warning siren systems employed in many communities in the Midwest and other parts of the country. In my opinion, this focus is misplaced and the comparison is faulty, particularly with respect to public responsibility. Instead of an early-warning system, the government’s plan going forward should be to prevent permanent structures and temporary facilities, like RV parks, from being built in the flood plain.
The county, state, or federal government should not develop an early-warning system on the Guadalupe River for a number of reasons.
1. An early-warning system for a narrow river flood plain is NOT analogous to a tornado-warning system.
First, the location of the flooding is well defined by the river valley and small in comparison to the area where tornados may somewhat randomly appear during a tornado warning. Although the July 4 floodwaters exceeded FEMA’s “100 year” flood plain, this flood provides a new, better baseline going forward until better flood maps are developed.
Second, a tornado-warning system benefits entire communities, because anyone in a wide area could potentially be hit. The river early-warning system primarily benefits the property owners along the river. There is one small state park along the upper Guadalupe (and, if I remember correctly, its camp sites are all out of the flood plain). Everything else is private property. Why should tax payers fund and maintain a system for the benefit of a small group of property owners who participate in risky behavior, like building in a flood plain? If the property owners want to fund and maintain such a system, more power to them.
Third, it is not feasible to exclude development everywhere a tornado could potentially strike, thus the need for a warning system to communicate when the danger is imminent. It is quite feasible to exclude development within the flood zone of the upper Guadalupe River. It’s just that Texans have a strong resistance to the government telling them what they can or cannot do with their property — and the relative ease with which officials at all levels have provided exceptions for building within the flood plain.
2. An early-warning system for the flood plain only encourages risky behavior (e.g., building in the flood plain or residents staying within the flood plain) and provides a false sense of security because people rely on it to “save” them from their own poor judgement.
3. An early-warning system is not 100% reliable and may not provide warning early enough for people to abandon everything and flee uphill, in the rain, to safety — ideally without having to pass through the floodwaters (as many July 4 survivors had to).
