it was never meant to be a dispute resolution strategy or mechanism, but it's tangled up with efforts at dispute resolution because it's kind of hard to shrink any of the dimensions, the parties, the interests, the scope of the problem, the institutional powers for purposes of resolving a dispute that's come up within the IWRM process. Are there models, I mean, could you, could you differentiate and say the, you know, the initial, as you said, any, you know, anyone who thinks through the three questions you asked is going to move out and say, you know, broader, more inclusive, greater scope for this. Could you differentiate and say, okay, the initial water management consider, like, you know, negotiations will kind of exist on this macro level and incorporate kind of many different kind of facets of of the economy and kind of secondary tertiary effects of water management. But then you say after that, you basically incorporate dispute resolution processes that are hyperlocal that are specific  specific to kind of the area where the resolution or where the dispute is taking place and don't require, you know, completely remapping all of the old terra. That historically, that's what the law and regulation have in fact done. Gotcha. Right? We have a system of water rights that has nothing to do with IWRM. I'm just take California or take Western United States. IWRM, you plan that water in a certain way, but you can't in a system that's defined senior water rights where people who got there first, got the water