Reply #32: to be fair, we never had the infrastructure to handle a flood like this

[enki23]

it wasn't so much a matter of deterioration in this case as it is a conscious decision. when we make policy decisions on a cost-benefit basis, we tend not to give much weight to events which we only expect to occur every five hundred years. it probably wouldn't have been cost effective, if it were even possible in many cases, to build levees capable of withstanding a flood of this magnitude. we would probably be better served building a flexible emergency management infrastructure that can deal with rare occurrences like this one, while dealing more specifically with those occurrences which we could expect more often. like, well... like we already do. whether we do it well enough or not, i don't know. probably not, but that's a cost-benefit question, and it relies on some pretty subjective ideas about the value of things like human lives. and don't say "infinite," because we have finite resources. we could severely damage the quality of a million lives trying to save one, but most of us don't believe that would be reasonable. we know there is some sort of calculation there, even when we don't want to think about it.

one thing i do admit, the republicans in particular have done their damnedest (both intentionally and un-) to weaken *all* our public infrastructure. but that wouldn't have stopped this particular flood. i don't think that's a reasonable goal. it would merely have helped us save more people, clean up the flooded areas, and help victims overcome the damage to their lives and livelihoods much better than we can today.