to involve only the most expert people to make the decisions or to engage the stakeholders affected by the decisions so there's support for whatever the decision is to go ahead with. Would it make more sense to look just narrowly at the water that you have responsibility for because you're within a political boundary? Or would it make more sense to look at the water system moving underground or above ground that affects the water that you have responsibility for? Because the answers to those three kinds of questions almost always lead to people saying broader, linked, more comprehensive, more participatory, more completely engaged, because it seems like a better way to manage water. Now, assume there's a dispute within that water management system, how would you expect it to be resolved? Well, if you had pulled in all of those actors and all of those interests and all of that knowledge and all of that authority to manage the water and there was a dispute within that, you'd probably have to engage all of those same elements in sorting out a dispute that emerged. It would be hard to say, oh, there's a dispute. Now, all of you were involved in the planning of this and the management of this, go away, and the three of us will solve this. It's not going to happen. So IWRM isn't a dispute resolution mechanism. IWRM isn't an approach to water management. And when disputes come up, it's all tangled up in the dispute resolution process because of what it took to do IWRM as the planning, as the management scheme. It's never