Amidst the tragic details of the Texas disaster, one fact stood out; Camp Mystic was not accredited by the American Camp Association (ACA). I became familiar with the ACA years ago when preparing to send my then 12-year-old daughter to a ski race camp.
Although she was responsible and independent, I was nervous about entrusting her care to others, especially after the terrible loss of our son due to what we believed was a lack of care by his school. The camp was run by a coach and his wife, who my husband and I knew, and they assured us the camp, among other precautions, was ACA accredited. My research into the organization’s high standards further impressed me.
Reviewing that camp recently, I found that among their requirements are, “The camp should provide training and rehearsal for staff, campers, and rental groups regarding responding to natural disasters and other foreseeable emergencies,” and “Staff members should be trained and have rehearsed their roles in the event of lost, missing, or runaway persons.”
In stark contrast, Texas state law requires only that licensed camps have an “emergency plan,” and that, “Campers shall be instructed as to their actions in the event of fire, disaster, or the need to evacuate. These procedures shall be reviewed by the staff with specific assignments made to each staff member and counselor.”
Whether the ACA’s more specific requirements and frequent inspections would have prevented or reduced the tragic loss of life at Camp Mystic is unknown, though impending lawsuits may provide some answers.
These are common themes today, especially in the current administration in Washington, as it seeks to dismantle so many agencies which were created to protect us—safeguarding our environment, schools, food, finances, workplaces, and international relationships. While oversight of these agencies is crucial to minimize fraud and waste (a role Inspector General offices, also facing elimination, were designed to fill), I worry that insufficient consideration is given to why these agencies were created and what, if anything, will replace their vital missions.
It’s disheartening that tragedies like the Texas floods, the Palisades fires, and the Florida condominium collapse are often necessary reminders of these regulations and laws. The agencies enforcing them exist for our benefit, not to impede economic growth.
While regulations can sometimes seem burdensome, precautions like the ACA’s accreditation standards also contribute to safety. Unfortunately, when such precautions are voluntary, economic theory teaches us that there are powerful forces preventing their adoption. Our capitalist economy, built on self-interest, teaches that companies and individuals aiming to maximize profits will also strive for efficiency and cost minimization, leading to better products and services at lower prices. However, while higher profits benefit owners and shareholders, and lower prices benefit consumers, there can be collateral harm to others, known as “externalities.”
Pollution is a prime example. If a company mines or burns coal without investing in safety measures or pollution controls, it may increase profits. Yet, this comes at the higher cost of injuries, illnesses, or even death for mine workers and nearby residents. In a completely unregulated economy, competing companies would have no incentive to operate cleaner or safer. Instead, they may try to further reduce such costs, leading to a “race to the bottom.”
Government regulations requiring safety or environmental precautions effectively shift some of these “externalities” into internal costs for owners. Since these regulations apply to competitors as well, they cannot gain an advantage. The result is reduced harm to workers and the environment, and, while individual net profits might be smaller, they remain competitive. An additional benefit is the encouragement of innovation and investment in safer, less polluting, and more cost-effective methods, such as alternative fuels.
Similar concerns apply to institutions caring for children, such as schools, camps, and daycares. Relying on voluntary methods might yield higher profits for owners and lower upfront tuition or fees for consumers, but it introduces unknown health and safety risks.
While the cost of future events such as flood or fire is not readily available to individual consumers, licensing agencies or groups like the ACA can better predict them based on years of experience with many institutions. By requiring safety and health precautions, regulators effectively internalize the “externalities” of potential future losses.
Bringing this discussion back to the realm of law, it’s often argued that lawsuits based on tort law also function to encourage individuals and companies to invest in health and safety precautions they might otherwise overlook. I hope the next time you’re tempted to fume about the cost of insurance or government-mandated precautions, you’ll consider the families in Texas who suffered losses that might have been prevented by stricter regulations.
Author’s note: Thank you to readers who’ve shared feedback on New Boston Legal. I appreciate every comment, whether positive or negative, and welcome suggestions or requests about future topics.
