There are many different ways to look at this, as there are conditions where history has taught us a lesson.
You can look at it from an engineering stanpoint, feasibility for mitigation, risk assessment, risk reduction and so on.
There are obviously areas where the potential always exists, the frequency of events are more, and those that are almost anomalies, say 500 yr events.
I would agree that if you build a place like New Orleans, there is significant risk. Is there a way to engineer a way to reduce or mitigate it, is it feasible, and all the other questions one should ask, before something substantial is built. In this case, it exists, it happened, and though some can be highly critical, can it be mitigated reasonably, at high expense, beyond being feasible, and after all of that how much better will it be to solve the problem, which mind you is naturally occurring and on a scale some people cannot even comprehend. If then, for example a place is still built with high expense and you can't say with confidence that what has been done, won't be compromised unless its beyond a 500 year event or similar, someone has to make the decision to do it, continue, rebuild or abandon. Its hard to say what the right decision will be, to rebuild and have continued catastrophic events, certainly makes no sense with the high cost of lives lost, high cost of resources applied just to get people out of danger, not to mention the overall cost of the damage done. I do not like seeing any taxpayer money wasted on anything, and maybe there are some that are just blatant, others that are extremely complicated to rationally decide what the best course of action is, at some point though, a decision must be rendered based on fact, data, history, conditions and changes that occur over time.
If you know that a different kind of construction will mitigate the risk, or the locations chosen will do the same, then its not so hard to know what the right thing is to do. This is not always the case.
We saw in this area, unthinkable damage from 10" of rain in a short period of time, 8-12 hours or so, and most of it was from raging water spilling over long established waterways, that was likely a 500 year event. The damage was incredible, but some changes can be made, some homes are built on the edge of embankments that over time or in certain conditions will be compromised, it does not make sense to build in those areas. If you are in a flood plain near one of these creeks, rivers or even coastal floodplains, can you raise your home high enough, can you mitigate what a 500 year event will cause, or is it foolish to think that you can overcome what natural occurrences will do ?
Sometimes I think where places are built may truly be foolish, others may be a mistake only when a 500 year event happens, in either case, I can't condemn (in my opinion) people for doing these things unless its just utterly and blatantly obvious foolishness.
Think about those sink holes, I mean we can look into the earth a bit with technology, but who would ever see something like that coming ? Then to condemn someone for missing something like that.... well you get what I am trying to say. Its a provocative question, a good one at that, we just hope people can make the right decisions and not make the same foolish mistakes repeatedly.
In my opinion, I'll never live below a dam, and with all the engineering, the redundancy in safety margins and all of that, I know that the potential is always going to be there and I may not have the benefit of warning. Additionally, with all the miserable terrorist types out there now, and those who for some reason just want to harm others, how do I know someone will not make the conscious decision to compromise or damage one of these structures to cause harm to people? Like I said, the potential is always going to be there, so I chose to eliminate that potential, by using my best defense, not to be there.
I've lived on the ocean, I have seen what it can do, I have been evacuated numerous times, I loved the place where I lived and the enjoyment of the area, but it comes at a high risk, expense and the potential is always there, in that case, you either built as safe as you can, buy into the other associated risks, know that you could get wiped out or endure significant hardship, or you decide to move to safer ground. A society of people living or planning to live in these areas must know these things, you live on the ocean, with all the erosion, all the weather events, so you can enjoy the majority of the better times these things do not happen, there is likely a high cost to be paid for it, the problem is, that cost is borne by those who may disagree, so each has a side to take, but there is a point where common sense and feasibility need to set a precedent as to where the line is between both sides. There is a lot to weigh the scale on the side of the frequency of these events and the benefits of enjoying living in these places, but by the same token, one cannot ever remove the potential of catastrophe, which then appears to be utter foolishness to have built in a coastal area. Is that just the cost of using these places to reside, place industry, and so on, or is it just safer to realize that nothing should be built in these areas. If the latter is the case, then where is it better to move to, at what cost and what are the impacts of all of that. There are so many conditions, variables and so on, its never going to be easy to make the best decision, each and every time. At this point, how do you move large populations, cities, industry, at what cost, what rationale is it based on. The whole thing gives me a headache thinking about it LOL !!!!
Fukashima reactors near the ocean in Japan, to me seems foolish given what happened, but I do not know any of the facts, just what we all saw after an unbelievable event. SO many examples, given history, like I said, its a very provocative question for people to ask themselves.
