The tragedy of the floods in Veracruz and Hidalgo is not merely a meteorological phenomenon, but the dramatic and predictable consequence of decades of frivolity and governmental negligence at the local level. While the waters of the overflowing rivers swept away homes and lives, the initial response in both states seemed to drown in inaction or, worse still, in disorganization, revealing a dehumanized face of public administration that prioritizes image over the lives of its most vulnerable citizens.
In regions like the Otomí-Tepehua Sierra in Hidalgo or the northern part of Veracruz, the toll of 72 dead and 48 missing (a figure that the emergency forces us to constantly update) not only questions the climate, but also the management of the territory. Where did the budgets for dredging go? Why was uncontrolled urbanization allowed in high-risk areas? The absence of effective alert protocols and the slow mobilization of Civil Protection and humanitarian aid in the critical first hours testify that, for certain local governments, prevention remains an expense rather than an investment.
This crisis has highlighted the lack of a genuine risk management culture, replaced by a reactive response and the political opportunism that President Sheinbaum herself has criticized. However, the criticism must extend beyond the media. It is the current administration, at both the state and municipal levels, that must be held accountable for the lack of coordination and pre-disaster negligence, factors that transformed an extreme natural event into a social catastrophe of vast proportions.
The President’s Role: Federal Intervention as a Last Resort
In this landscape of local collapse, President Claudia Sheinbaum emerges with a leading and centralizing role in addressing the emergency. Her visits to the affected areas (Poza Rica, Huauchinango, etc.), the immediate activation of the DN-III-E and Navy plans, and the commitment to allocate 19 billion pesos and “all necessary funds” for relief efforts have been a lifeline for thousands of victims.
Sheinbaum is effectively assuming the responsibility of ensuring that “no one will be left without assistance.” This federal intervention, while necessary and urgent to assist the most vulnerable, exposes and underscores the institutional weakness and ineffectiveness of local governments. The complaints from people on the ground, directed at the president regarding the inefficiency of their governors and mayors, serve as a powerful political barometer.
The president has managed to channel the “power of the Mexican State” for direct assistance—from the housing census for reconstruction to the restoration of basic services—demonstrating an operational capacity that contrasted sharply with the local confusion. While this grants her political capital in the face of disaster, it also compels her to engage in profound self-criticism regarding the quality of personnel and risk management at the lower levels of government within her own coalition.
The lessons of Veracruz, Puebla, and Hidalgo are brutal: political priorities and budgetary stinginess have a human cost and should not be silenced under the pretext of not “looking for culprits.” Attention to the most vulnerable cannot depend on last-minute intervention from the Federal Government. It is imperative that reconstruction not only repairs material damage but also restructures the response and prevention capacity of every corner of the country, so that the next extreme rainfall does not find us, once again, unprepared and negligent.
