This one will be fairly tough. In many ways, the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate. I have posted previous responses on this. Yet, if one were to play devil's advocate on how things were appropriate, the most compelling argument is that the federal government did act when it was the high level of damage and endangerment to its citizens were apparent. There was action, and while the debate rages on as to what can be done to prevent future inaction, the reality is that the government did act and provide some level of relief when it was warranted. Another rationale behind the federal government response being appropriate was that individuals, such as the head of FEMA, did resign when it was apparent that the response was not entirely adequate.
While there will always be people who believe that the government response to the hurricane Katrina was not adequate. to describe the government response as inappropriate would be perhaps unjustified.
In any major natural disaster like the hurricane Katrina the loss to life and property, as well other hardship and misery caused to the people is so great that whatever is done to limit the loss or to provide relief subsequently appears to be inadequate.
However a fair assessment of the adequacy of federal government should be based on what was reasonably possible in that situation rather than just on the basis of what was desirable. Such an assessment will definitely point out some areas where the performance was inadequate, however in other ares the performance may be considered excellent.