This week: Yet another dam on the Yangtze in China, two very different opinions on the CVFPP (I agree more with the first post but the second article is still worth reading), an amazing live map of the wind in the U.S., and the cost of a disengaged employee.
Completion of the dam would turn the middle section of the Yangtze into a series of reservoirs, leaving "no space for fish", said environmentalist Ma Jun, who has been active for over two years in trying to prevent the dam.
"This is the last one, the last section in 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) along the Yangtze that was left for endangered or local fish species. This would be their last habitat," Ma told Reuters.
No plan is perfect, but this flood plan provides thoughtful and informed ideas to move the discussion forward realistically. This is a noteworthy accomplishment. In this complex problem with an even more complex array of stakeholders, incrementalism will be necessary, but incrementalism alone is doomed. Sacramento Valley flood management in the late 1800s and early 1900s had similar controversies, and ultimately illustrated the benefits of rising above incrementalism (Kelley 1989).
A troubled flood plan (Colusa Sun-Herald)
Like most who have agricultural interests and have been involved in the plan workshops, Ellis believes the environmental concerns are getting more priority than the ag interests.
Justin Fredrickson, an environmental policy analyst with the California Farm Bureau Federation, recently said that the plan does not even clearly state anywhere that life and property are the first priorities.
If anything, he told a gathering at the Colusa Farm Bureau last month, the ecological interests are on at least equal footing, if not a step up.
"It seems to me the new Flood Plan is more of an ecosystem restoration plan than a flood plan, which brings to the forefront the need for ‘landowner assurances’ so we in production agriculture have some resources when we find ourselves neighboring a restoration project," Ellis wrote to the state officials.
As I’ve said many times, we have spent so much time talking about the voice of the customer that we forgot about the voice of the employee. Of course what happened to Goldman is perhaps on the extreme end of the spectrum but it certainly proves to be a valuable example of why engaged employees are so important and what can happen with disengaged employees.