New flooding haunts Hill Country residents a year after historic disaster 44%

By Ayden Runnels5% Ellie Ashby4%

7/17/2026, 2:06:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.1% saturation with 337 hits. Analysis detected 1,873 faulty-reasoning hits from 841 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47% and a BS Rank of 44% (11,993 of 21,182 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.60% of the article peer group.

KERRVILLE  Soyla Reyna stood outside Calvary Temple Church, taking a momentary respite from hours of manning the flood displacement shelter at her home church in Kerrville on Thursday. 
“A lot of it was unbelievable,” she said as the rain outside the church patio began to let up. 
“People are devastated by the reoccurrence.” 
Over the course of the morning, Reyna had seen nearly 50 people come to Calvary Temple. 
They sought supplies and shelter after rapidly rising water swept away their homes and RVs, scenes reminiscent of the devastating flood that tore through the region a little over a year ago. 
“Both times, it’s been in the middle of the night. 
I think that is what devastates people. 
It's like I couldn't see, I couldn't, you know…” she said, breaking into a sigh as she turned her gaze down. 
For many Hill Country residents, Thursday’s flooding brought back the familiar levels of wreckage and trauma that they had suffered during and in the immediate aftermath of the July 2025 floods that killed 119 people in Kerr County. 
In many parts of the county and elsewhere, scenes were strikingly similar: fences lined with debris and personal effects, cars strewn in all directions, and water lines that hugged the bottoms of homes. 
The response by Hill Country community members echoed last year, too, as neighbors coalesced in one another’s homes to help begin cleanup and shelters welcomed those displaced with hot meals and clean clothes. 
Rain early Thursday pushed the Guadalupe River in Comfort to as much as 37 feet and the Pedernales River to 34 feet in Fredericksburg, according to river gauges. 
Near Kerrville last year, the Guadalupe River in Hunt spiked to a record-breaking 37.5 feet on July 4. 
In some parts of the region, water rose even higher than it did in 2025. 
Post-flood renovations to the Center Point Fire Department are all but destroyed after a new deluge tore through the building. 
And further north in Burmenthal, business owners watched low-water crossings along the Pedernales River disappear into crashing waters carrying trunks of trees in its wake. 
“This is the highest I've ever seen it in 32 years, and it's backing up into our place across the road. 
It's backing up into our creek. 
I've never seen it back up into there,” Burmenthal peach farmer Russell Studebaker said. 
Those who have lived along the rivers have been accustomed to flooding for decades, but the sudden overflow last year caught even longtime residents off-guard. 
Since then, residents sought solace in the idea that the river’s sudden swelling had been a once-in-a-century event  an apparent illusion shattered in the early hours of Thursday. 
“When it did it last year, we're like, ‘Oh my God, it's never happened before, ever, so maybe it won't happen again in our lifetime,’” said Sherri Steadham, who lives in Center Point within eyesight of the river. 
“And here we are, a year and a few days later.” 
Steadham was awoken at 5:15 a.m. by a neighbor and longtime friend whose home stands closer to the river  and had collected four inches of water. 
The water line stopped just short of Steadham’s own home, almost exactly where it did in 2025. 
The waters receded somewhat through the day, but Steadham and her neighbors still had to raise their voices to speak over the roar of the swollen river as it carried debris plucked from homes upstream. 
There were differences between the flooding in 2025 and on Thursday, including a much less sudden spike in rainfall. 
Steadham and her friends who awoke before her described a slow creep from the river to their homes, very different from the wall of water that took them by surprise a year before. 
Though the rate of flooding and the severity of human casualties have differed  at least two people have died, as of Thursday evening  watching the waters rise and taking calls from trapped residents reminded many first responders of the fear-stricken residents they saved from harrowing floodwaters last year. 
“When that rain’s hitting really hard, and you hear it pounding, you can see the look on their faces,” said Razor Dobbs, a volunteer firefighter at Center Point Fire Department who responded to last year’s flood. 
“You can see the look on their faces, this is it.” 
But the region was prepared. 
Unlike last year’s disaster alert failures by the local government, Maria Flemming, one of Steadham’s neighbors, described a steady stream of warnings from 1:30 a.m. 
Thursday to well after the worst of the flood had receded. 
First responders checked on her and the Steadhams in the morning, urging them  unsuccessfully  to evacuate. 
Dobbs was proud of how his team responded, a reflection of a year’s worth of preparation. 
“Last night, and the night before, we manned everything,” he said. 
“After last year, we got a lot of funding. 
We invested in the boats and the training, and we got rock solid.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.9%The Texas Tribune: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Ayden Runnels: 0.4%The Texas Tribune: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 23.7%Ayden Runnels: 3.0%The Texas Tribune: 2.9%Availability Heuristic23.7%This article: 10.8%Ayden Runnels: 0.5%The Texas Tribune: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 4.8%Ayden Runnels: 0.6%The Texas Tribune: 0.5%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 2.9%Ayden Runnels: 0.8%The Texas Tribune: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 1.3%Ayden Runnels: 2.4%The Texas Tribune: 5.0%Framing Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.4%The Texas Tribune: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.4%The Texas Tribune: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Ayden Runnels: 0.3%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.4%This article: 8.6%Ayden Runnels: 1.5%The Texas Tribune: 1.8%Optimism Bias8.6%This article: 4.8%Ayden Runnels: 1.2%The Texas Tribune: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 40.1%Ayden Runnels: 10.1%The Texas Tribune: 7.7%Negativity Bias40.1%This article: 3.4%Ayden Runnels: 0.8%The Texas Tribune: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.3%Ayden Runnels: 0.1%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.3%This article: 6.9%Ayden Runnels: 1.0%The Texas Tribune: 1.4%In-Group Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Ayden Runnels: 0.8%The Texas Tribune: 1.2%Halo Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.8%The Texas Tribune: 1.0%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 3.9%Ayden Runnels: 0.1%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.1%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 3.1%The Texas Tribune: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.4%The Texas Tribune: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.1%Ayden Runnels: 1.4%The Texas Tribune: 2.8%Hasty Generalization19.1%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.4%The Texas Tribune: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.8%Ayden Runnels: 2.8%The Texas Tribune: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion22.8%This article: 4.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.3%The Texas Tribune: 0.8%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 4.8%Ayden Runnels: 0.8%The Texas Tribune: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.9%The Texas Tribune: 1.7%Anecdotal21.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.8%Ayden Runnels: 0.5%The Texas Tribune: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.8%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.1%The Texas Tribune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Ayden Runnels: 0.3%The Texas Tribune: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 2.3%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 16.1%Ayden Runnels: 0.7%The Texas Tribune: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice16.1%This article: 0.7%Ayden Runnels: 1.3%The Texas Tribune: 1.0%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.0%The Texas Tribune: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ayden Runnels: 0.2%The Texas Tribune: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

841 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers32%attributed speech572writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageSoyla Reyna • 19 words • 100.0% coverageSoyla Reyna • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageSoyla Reyna • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSoyla Reyna • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSoyla Reyna • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Studebaker • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Studebaker • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRussell Studebaker • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageSherri Steadham • 38 words • 0.0% coverageSherri Steadham • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageRazor Dobbs • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRazor Dobbs • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageMaria Flemming • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMaria Flemming • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRazor Dobbs • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRazor Dobbs • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRazor Dobbs • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sherri Steadham

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words18% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.6 ptsWriter: 23.6%Sherri Steadham: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.