there were also negative impacts of the dams weren't necessarily equally shared by the two countries. So the United States had fairly significant adverse impacts on fish and salmon habitat and some losses of land. But in Canada, as a result of the three dams that were constructed, there was major flooding and dislocation of entire communities. So Canada, although they were ultimately compensated for it, did have sort of more significant negative impacts as a result of the treaties. So the case for modernization, the Columbia River Treaty has no expiration date, but 2024 is significant because it is the earliest of the terms of the treaty can be terminated. And so without renegotiation, also in addition to the termination provision without renegotiation, the flood control provisions will shift. So this presents an opportunity for the United States and Canada as well as other stakeholders on both sides of the border to reconsider the scope of the treaty and evaluate its effectiveness. And I think within a water diplomacy framework, the fact that this renegotiation process is baked into the initial agreement as a strength. We can talk about whether like the 60 year timeline is too long, but I think it is interesting that none of the original negotiators expected that the original agreement would last forever. But at the same time, this has also introduced some measure of conflict, I guess, because everyone wants the treaty to be updated in a way that reflects their priorities and values. So thinking about modernization