Guest commentary: An Inconvenient Truth: The Mysticism of Co-Equal Objectives

Guest BloggerToday, Maven welcomes guest blogger Robert Shibatani to the Notebook blog.

Robert Shibatani is a physical hydrologist and long-time consultant for the California water industry, and is Vice Chair of the Environmental & Water Resources Institute/ASCE Norcal Chapter, among other distinguished postions. He is the CEO of The SHIBATANI GROUP, Inc., an affiliated practice group of international water resource specialists based in Sacramento.

Shibatani“Drop in on any conversation involving California water resources management and you will likely hear the phrase co-equal objectives. It’s a popular phrase, one that is freely used in media sound bites and common throughout today’s many water policy documents. It is certainly not a new phrase with a wide appeal based on its representation as the backbone of how we manage or plan to manage our complex water resources system. But what does it really mean?

To answer these questions let’s first break it down, literally. In a simplistic dissection – the “co” prefix can denote duality; “equal” can imply tacit equivalency; and “objective” often refers to a goal or purpose. Reconfiguring the parts, we create something that has a dual equivalency in stated purpose. Sounds reasonable so far, right?

But therein lays the problem. … “

Continue reading Mr. Shibatani’s commentary here:  An Inconvenient Truth

 

One Response

  1. Chris Gulick

    “a dynamic balancing of objectives” rather than co equal goals ?
    Sure, why not.
    With a process driven by “scientific uncertainty” and voodoo math does it really matter what we call it ?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: