The sound of construction machinery now fills the air in the Bumble Bee Hills neighborhood of Kerr County, a tranquil subdivision where the draw of the Guadalupe River has long attracted residents. For Kylie Nidever, 35, the noise is a jarring reminder of the July 4 flood—one of the deadliest disasters in Texas history. While her own home remained untouched, Nidever watches with a mixture of confusion and dread as her neighbors enthusiastically rebuild on the same ground that recently claimed so many lives.
“Is somebody going to come in and stop us?” Nidever asks. “If it happens again and it’s worse next time, people will die in this neighborhood.”
The disaster was not merely an act of nature, but the result of a decades-long policy vacuum. An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune reveals that for nearly 60 years, Texas lawmakers have repeatedly rejected legislation that could have banned development in the state’s most dangerous flood-prone areas or forced buildings to be constructed at safer elevations. The cost of this inaction is measured in human lives: the majority of the 137 people confirmed dead across five counties in the July 4 tragedy were staying in places identified by the federal government as high-risk for flooding.
Texas now has more buildings in flood-prone areas—at least 650,000 structures—than any other state except Florida. Despite this vulnerability, Texas trails at least 29 other states in adopting development standards that require structures to be built higher in flood-prone zones. For many, the tragedy was not unpreventable, but rather “shaped by policy choices” made over decades, according to Michael Slattery, director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at Texas Christian University.
A Legacy of Lost Opportunities
The failure to protect residents is not a recent lapse but a systemic pattern. Newsrooms reviewed nearly 60 years of legislative history, identifying over five dozen flood safety bills that were rejected or watered down before they could become law. These measures ranged from banning all human habitation in “floodways”—the areas flanking rivers where the most violent flooding occurs—to requiring higher building elevations.
The human toll of these failures is starkly visible on a single half-mile stretch of the Guadalupe River, where at least 27 people died during the July 4 weekend. Sixteen of those victims were in homes located within the regulatory floodway. Among them were Beth and Hutch Bryan, and Martha Crawford, who was swept away while her husband, Dan, clung to a tree and eventually a metal roof for survival.
“I’m never going to understand this,” says Dan Crawford, 63, who now visits the site of his wife’s death, where three white crosses mark the spot where the Bryans stayed.
| Year | Proposed Protection | Legislative Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1973 | Ban all human structures in floodways | Rejected/Watered down due to cost |
| 1989 | Ban youth camps in flood-prone areas | Rejected |
| 1993 | Mandate enrollment in NFIP with higher elevation rules | Tabled to preserve local control |
| 1999 | Require adoption of federal minimum standards | Passed, but no state agency assigned to enforce |
Property Rights vs. Public Safety
The primary obstacle to these protections has been a deeply ingrained political philosophy prioritizing landowners’ rights over state-mandated safety regulations. Some lawmakers have argued that residents in rural areas should have the freedom to evaluate their own risks.
Republican Rep. Wes Virdell, who represents Kerr County, noted at a post-flood hearing that rural areas “enjoy the freedom to take our risk and build as we would like to.” This ethos has left a fragmented safety landscape where the decision to implement higher building codes is left to individual cities and counties—many of which lack the political will or administrative capacity to enact them.
This approach stands in contrast to other states. New Jersey has blocked new home development in floodways since 1975. Nebraska and Wisconsin implemented bans on habitable structures in floodways and required extra building height by 1986. In Texas, the result is a “reactionary” rather than “visionary” legislature, according to former state representative Robert Puente.
The Cycle of Rebuilding in Danger Zones
Despite the devastation, the lack of state mandates means the same rules that allowed dangerous construction in the 1960s and 70s are allowing it today. In Kerr County, more than 100 residents have already been permitted to rebuild or renovate in flood-prone areas.
For residents like 82-year-old Joan Connor, the decision to stay is emotional and financial. Having paid off her home in Bumble Bee Hills, Connor and her husband survived the last flood by clinging to the roof supports of their pergola. Despite the muck that filled her house, Connor has since moved back in.
“We’re not going anywhere,” Connor says. “We don’t think a thing like that will happen again in our lifetime.”
However, scientists warn that the risk is only increasing. Climate change is making heavy storms—previously considered “once-in-a-lifetime” events—more frequent and more severe. While Gov. Greg Abbott has funded mitigation projects to lessen storm impacts, his office, along with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dustin Burrows, has not committed to stricter statewide building rules.
The only significant change following the July 4 disaster was a ban on youth camps in flood-prone areas, a move passed only after intense lobbying by grieving parents following the deaths of 25 children and two counselors at Camp Mystic.
Note: If you or a loved one have been affected by a natural disaster and are experiencing emotional distress, support is available through the SAMHSA Disaster Distress Helpline at 1-800-985-5990.
The Texas Legislature has formed two new committees to continue investigating the July 4 disaster. The next critical checkpoint will be the upcoming joint hearings, which have thus far focused primarily on the tragedy at Camp Mystic, though flood experts continue to push for a broader mandate on statewide building elevations before the next legislative session.
We want to hear from you. Should state governments have the power to ban building in high-risk flood zones, or should property rights prevail? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
