we never had in the United States a system of water fees based on ability to pay until last year when Philadelphia passed the first municipal law saying that they wanted to move in a different direction and have people pay for some portion of their water relative to their ability to pay. And you can imagine the legal battle that's now ongoing about whether that's okay or not. But all of that stems from the idea that water is a commodity and we should have to buy and sell it. And Australia, when it saw that it was running out of water, fresh water, and had all terrible forest fires and other difficulties, bought, as a government, all the water rights in one state back from the owners at a prevailing price per hectare. And then it paid back the money by selling back the water rights, but on a different basis to people to try to have greater equity in the availability of water. So it built a whole system based on water as an economic good in order to address a common need where if we thought of water as a natural resource and as a common resource, pricing wouldn't be the focus. And we've tried to make a market out of everything in the Western capitalist countries. And so now we have problems of water being unavailable to different groups of people. And I worry that IWRM is about maximizing water as an economic good. That's one of the seven principles or whatever that you had listed. What is an economic good? And there are several of the principles I understand completely where they came from. But when I look in practice