u/Fresh-Shopping-1899

Advisory extends downstream to Louise Hays Park and Kerrville-Schreiner Park; TCEQ and UGRA notified

The city of Kerrville's Public Works Department is warning residents and visitors to avoid contact with Town Creek and downstream sections of the Guadalupe River, following a sanitary sewer overflow discovered in the Town Creek area near Highway 27 and Water Street.

The city has notified the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Upper Guadalupe River Authority, and Public Works crews are actively assessing the situation. Flooding along Town Creek had delayed crews from safely reaching the site with necessary equipment; crews have since finished rebuilding an access ramp needed to get to the location.

As a precaution, the city is advising the public to stay out of Town Creek and out of the Guadalupe River downstream toward Louise Hays Park and Kerrville-Schreiner Park until further notice, citing a potential water quality issue.

The advisory comes as crews continue a broader survey of flood-affected areas that has been underway since Thursday, with particular focus on Town Creek. The city said some locations remain inaccessible or can't be fully evaluated yet because of high water, unsafe terrain and significant flood debris — meaning additional issues could still surface as access improves.

The city said it will continue monitoring conditions and provide updates as more information becomes available.

The defense’s position was essentially that plaintiffs were taking a series of separate events and portraying them as a coordinated pattern of misconduct, when each event had its own explanation.

1. Amended motion to compel arbitration

Defense counsel said they received the new CampMinder affidavit the same day they filed the amended motion. They argued they did not want to introduce new evidence immediately before the hearing and then fight over whether plaintiffs had enough time to respond.

They said they had reached out days earlier about moving the hearing. When that did not result in an agreement, they chose to file an amended motion rather than proceed with new evidence at the last minute.

Their position: the amended motion was intended to avoid surprise, not create delay.

2. May 13 hearing

Defense counsel said they expected substitute counsel to appear for Watts’s clients and believed lawyers were present in the courtroom for those parties.

According to the defense, they anticipated someone would stand up and announce representation, but that never happened.

The judge repeatedly challenged this explanation, noting that when she asked who represented those clients, nobody identified themselves.

3. DSHS licensing application

Defense counsel argued Camp Mystic’s license application intentionally excluded land covered by the temporary injunction.

They said the boundaries in the application were drawn so the camp was not seeking permission to conduct activities on the enjoined property.

Their position: the application was designed to respect the injunction, not circumvent it.

4. Statements to the Third Court of Appeals

The defense argued their appellate briefing was limited to matters contained in the appellate record.

Counsel said they were uncomfortable describing events that occurred off the record and therefore focused on what they believed could properly be presented to the appellate court.

Their position: they were trying to stay within the record, not mislead the court.

5. “Burn in hell” comment

Defense counsel acknowledged the remark and stated it was directed at opposing counsel rather than CiCi Steward.

They described it as a mistake, noted that an apology was attempted the next day, and said a formal apology was later issued.

Their position: it was an inappropriate comment, but not part of a larger effort to harass anyone.

6. Watts’s social media posts

The defense argued Watts was acting in his personal capacity and exercising First Amendment rights.

Counsel stated that one inaccurate post identified by plaintiffs was corrected after the mistake was discovered.

Their position: the posts were personal speech, not litigation misconduct.

Overall defense theme

Throughout the hearing, the defense argued that plaintiffs were connecting separate incidents into a narrative of bad faith. Defense counsel maintained that each incident had an independent explanation and that none of the actions were intended to disrespect the court, evade the injunction, or undermine the proceedings.

Morning hearing recap (arbitration portion)

Defense argument (first speaker)

>The defense opened by arguing that the key question is contract formation. They argued that parents signed participation agreements containing arbitration provisions and that Texas law allows parents to bind their minor children to those agreements.

>

>They argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs instead of the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA). The defense pointed to interstate-commerce connections such as CampMinder (Colorado), a Canadian payment processor, out-of-state campers, and international workers. They relied on FAA cases emphasizing the broad reach of interstate commerce.

>

>The defense also argued that Camp Mystic-related defendants can enforce the arbitration agreements even if they did not personally sign them. They relied on cases such as Rubiola and argued that the contract language, when read together with the release/indemnity provisions, shows that Camp Mystic entities, owners, officers, employees, and related parties were intended beneficiaries of the agreement.

>

>The defense further argued that many disputes about arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator rather than the court because the agreements incorporate AAA rules and contain broad arbitration language. They cited cases including TotalEnergies, Jody James, and related delegation cases.

>

>The defense then addressed waiver and argued they never gave up any right to arbitration. They argued that their litigation conduct was defensive, that discovery alone does not establish waiver, that venue motions are not inconsistent with arbitration, and that temporary-injunction proceedings do not amount to litigating the merits of the case.

>

Plaintiffs’ response (Post)

>Post began with procedural arguments.

>

>He argued that defendants improperly withdrew and refiled their arbitration motions after a specially set hearing had already been scheduled. He argued this violated the court’s scheduling orders and local rules and that the amended motions should be struck.

>

>He then argued waiver. He relied heavily on the modern waiver framework following Morgan and argued that defendants acted inconsistently with a right to arbitrate by filing answers, pursuing venue issues, engaging in discovery, making public statements about juries, and waiting months before seeking arbitration.

>

>Post also challenged the FAA interstate-commerce argument. He argued that these were fundamentally Texas transactions involving Texas parents, Texas children, Texas camp activities, Texas contracts, and Texas defendants. He argued that use of CampMinder or other third-party vendors was not enough by itself to transform the agreements into interstate-commerce transactions governed by the FAA.

>

>Post further argued that many defendants are non-signatories and are not clearly identified as parties entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement. He argued that the defense was improperly importing definitions from the release section into the arbitration section.

>

>He also argued that the counselor cases are different because those plaintiffs later became employees under separate employment agreements that reportedly contained no arbitration provisions. He argued those employment agreements superseded the earlier camper agreements.

>

Beckworth’s argument

>Beckworth began by stating that he was focusing on arbitration and reserving sanctions arguments for later, although he said some of the same facts overlap.

>

>He adopted the arguments made by Post and then focused primarily on waiver.

>

>He played a video of Cici Steward discussing the defendants’ effort to move the case into arbitration and a video of Representative Gomez expressing concern about the idea of moving the Camp Mystic litigation into arbitration.

>

>Beckworth argued that this case is uniquely inappropriate for arbitration because it involves issues of major public concern. He emphasized the public nature of the litigation and argued that arbitration would remove testimony and outcomes from public view.

>

>He then returned to the FAA issue and argued that the Steward family’s relationship with Camp Mystic was overwhelmingly Texas-based. He discussed Cile Steward’s tuition being paid for by Cici’s mother, who is a Texan, by a Texas bank, Texas addresses, and letters exchanged between Cile Steward and her family as examples of the intrastate nature of the relationship.

>

>The largest portion of Beckworth’s presentation focused on waiver.

>

>He argued that Camp Mystic chose public litigation when it served the camp’s interests and only later sought arbitration. To support that argument, he walked through a lengthy timeline:

>

>* Camp reopening efforts after the flood.

>* Communications sent to camp families.

>* The Steward family’s response.

>* Public statements regarding reopening.

>* PR and lobbying efforts.

>* Social-media activity.

>* Statements by attorneys discussing juries and trial.

>* The March TRO/TI hearings.

>* Post-hearing press releases and public messaging.

>* Licensing issues involving the 2026 camp season.

>

>Throughout this timeline, Beckworth repeatedly argued that defendants publicly embraced litigation, juries, trial themes, and merits-based arguments. He argued that this conduct was inconsistent with a genuine intent to arbitrate and instead reflected a deliberate litigation strategy.

>

>A significant part of Beckworth’s argument focused on motive and intent. He argued that various litigation, PR, licensing, and reopening efforts were connected and formed part of a broader strategy. Beckworth argued that the timeline supports those inferences, while the defense position is that those events are consistent with preserving arbitration rights. Ultimately, that issue is for the court to decide.

>

The hearing then broke for lunch while Beckworth was still presenting his waiver argument.

Although the hearing began as a dispute over arbitration agreements, much of the morning focused on waiver because if the court finds waiver, many of the other arbitration issues become irrelevant.

The newly released video is now available to view on YouTube. The film is 26 min long about the restoration and conservation efforts. I learned a good deal . Well done beautiful video about nature and stewardship efforts of healing the Guadalupe river.

“Dedicated to the families who carry the weight of unimaginable loss and to the volunteers who helped their fellow Texans in their greatest moment of need.”

Directed by Ben Masters