and laid out substantively agreements they might reach, the same way that Bruno described local officials on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, initiating their own conversations, trying to come up with what they'd like to see as jointly beneficial elements of a future supplementary agreement, which then became the basis of what the US government negotiated. I think the same thing could happen. And I think it's, I think the two big differences between then and now are that there were enormous number of positive benefits to be shared in the beginning. Yeah. And so they were getting together, I agree that everyone who pointed out they start with friendly relationships matters, but when the actual negotiators sat down, okay, how much flood control are you going to give me? Well, how much money are you going to give me? And that was the negotiation. Whereas now it's okay, what restrictions are we going to impose? What dams are we going to take down? Who's going to build the new flood control systems if you take down existing dams to make salmon migration possible? It's not all about allocating gains. That's one big difference. The second is, nobody had those concerns about salmon and climate and other natural resource questions and ecological concerns, the way we do now. And that's not represented well in the entities. And but the concerns are there, but the entities can't really negotiate them very well. So I think if you if you look at what's what's different in big ways between then and now