and then nobody can tell them what to do with it and they can waste it they can do anything they want. It's completely contrary to the ideas of IWRM and until relatively recently the whole water law around the world is not connected to water management. The rules of water law come down almost in the way Aaron you're describing. It's just how can I localize this and situated in the way we deal with other property rights? And that's how we'll handle the dispute. But it doesn't fit with what we imagine is the broader scope and the need to take account of more interests and the desire to look at the interconnectedness of things and the need to look ahead, not back at who had what rights, but forward in terms of who has what needs. And yet we're stuck with it. So again, IWRM is a water management approach. It's easy to see how it evolved. And it seems perfectly logical. And it doesn't offer an obvious or easy way of handling disputes over water within systems that are managed by IWRM. And if you just try to solve this water disputes in a purely legal fashion that determines who has what senior rights and hey, that's it, it's property. But that doesn't take account of water as a shared human resource or as a human right. And now how do we solve disputes over the allocation of water? We can't use the property rights law. we need something else. Yeah, that makes sense. And Amish, how do you react to what I just said? Yeah, I, so in terms of a relation with IWRM and water diplomacy, I see that IWRM says, according to IWRM principle or dimensions