Just a question to ponder. At some point this discussion is all about money.
Could the dam have been built "better"? Sure. At what price?
It's easy to armchair quarterback this 40 years later. At the time this dam was being built I'm sure it was millions over budget and people were screaming and ranting to stop the pointless expenditures.
The Sierra Club and other organizations stated that there was a need to do certain things - like concrete over the entire top/pathway of the emergency spillway. I'm sure that would have only added another $25mm (*in 1967 dollars) to the project. That's money the state really didn't have at the time.
At some point, we have all been faced with the money vs. quality aspect of things. Maybe it was personally (*could have installed the better grade vinyl windows...) or professionally (*maybe hired a better worker). No matter, at some point, it's a balancing act.
Today, the issue is the mismanagement of letting the water get so high that the spillway needed to be used. That's certainly worth discussion. We had means to mitigate risk and that wasn't done. That's still the answer I want to hear about. Maybe I missed the answer...so if someone has it I'd like to know.
The rest of this...blaming the past and armchair quarterbacking things...isn't really helping the case of the present. A Sikh mosque opening their doors to people for shelter, that's a worthy thing. People coming together in a time of need is worthy of discussion.
Let's not squander a moment to bring a divided state (*and country) together. This disaster is a chance to bring us together.
Consider taking a moment to inventory your home...and think "if the dam does break, I can give the following to the people in loss".
