Changing management styles

My sister says I need an editor :) I guess she thinks that my rants and raves are disjointed and hard to follow. This coming from a lawyer. So I'll try to be more concise, although I'm sure it really doesn't matter too much, as I don't think many people read this.
So, onto today's rant.
I'm sure many have heard about the flooding this past year along the Mississippi & Missouri River valleys. Most are willing to blame the Army Corps of Engineers, I mean, they ARE the ones that originally put in the dams and they are the ones that decided when and how much water would be released when the flooding got to certain levels. So, I guess they are good enough to blame. Once the vast amount of water was released upstream, dikes and levees downstream were overrun, and some even broken by the excess water that came spilling down the river. And now the damage will cost over $2 Billion to fix. ouch.
With the building of dams & levees as flood control, developers have come in and built millions of homes on floodplains. With that development has come the destruction of MILLIONS of acres of wetlands. Over 50% of the wetlands that were originally found in the US have been destroyed. In some areas in the Midwest, almost all wetlands have been destroyed. And in case you didn't know, wetlands have many functions: sponge, filter, nursery, climate control, among others. So, people have bought the houses that have been built on the flood plains. Ummm, hmmm, that really doesn't seem very smart to me. Some may think my next sentiment harsh, but it's how I fell. If you build your house on a floodplain, don't come crying for money when it gets flooded. Are you stupid?! Of course it's going to flood, you built it right in the middle of a FLOODPLAIN!!! What the hell do you think that means? So, I feel sorry for those that have had their houses flooded or swept away by the floods, but, COME ON, what the hell did you expect?! If you can see the river from your deck and you aren't 35 feet above it, guess what, chances are, one of these days your house will be under water.
Has anyone ever been to the Grand Canyon? yeah, just SEEEEEE the power of the water out there! That is what water can do. You can't control water, at least not permanently, it will let you think you can control it, but you're seriously mistaken if you think you can. So all those levees and dikes and dams that have been used to try and control the water that is flowing down stream, they are really just a band-aid. In the long term, they won't do much good.
So, back to the ACOE and the $2 billion damage after the summer flooding. And tying it into the function of wetlands. Areas that still have large amounts of wetlands have better flood control. Ground that hasn't been drained for agriculture or homes is more likely to absorb more water. If there are fields or pavement, the water runs off. If more water runs off, it means more water in the rivers, which means more flooding is likely. Another benefit of wetlands is that it is a carbon sink. This means the plants that are found there absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. And when wetlands are destroyed greenhouse gases, which includes methane, are released into the air. So, not only is the function of the wetlands reduced, what they did hold is released. So the destruction multiplies the problem.
In 2007 the Council for Environmental Quality was tasked with rewriting the guidelines for flood control carried out by the ACOE. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1983 and flood control at that time was all about the money. Money from agriculture from drained wetlands and money from water, trapped behind a dam,  that was sold to cities for people living on the floodplains. With the current climate change problem and the increase in flooding and droughts the guidelines need a serious overhaul.  The original draft of the updated guidelines in 2007 was rejected by the National Academy of Science and it was sent back to the drawing board in 2009. The new updated guidelines are to include climate change and environmental impacts along with financial gain when determining the validity of a project. The new guidelines would include creating or restoring wetlands, and other nonstructural methods of flood control.  So, there are still no updated guidelines, and Congress is at it again. grrrrr. Those idiots have attached a paragraph to the omnibus legislation limiting the use of funds for "new start" programs. And since the new guidelines would be considered a "new start" no funding will be used to create wetlands along the river, it will just be used to fund the fixing of the dikes, dams and levees. that were destroyed this year. in the flood. Okay, so let me get this straight. The dams, dikes & levees didn't work in controlling the flood and were in fact destroyed by said flood....... and we know that the number of floods will increase due to climate change....... annnnnndddddd we want to rebuild the same structures that didn't work the first time? I remember hearing somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
One of the senators actually stated that the use of funds for habitat restoration would be a mismanagement of funds. He's from Missouri, so I'm sure he's upset that his summer home got flooded. But COME ON!!! Obviously what we have been doing ISN'T working!! Why would someone put the brakes on something that would work better? Oh, wait, let me guess, his campaign money comes from the developers that put their developments in the flood plain or from the agriculture coop that wants the land for corn.
Can we PLEASE have a Congress that doesn't have a hidden agenda?! I'd love to have a Congress that has the best interest of this country at heart, not the best interest of their damn pockets!