the US government and the trials were in possession of an unprecedented amount of data about the water that was up for review. I got to interview a long-time travel attorney who started his career in the early 80s and retired last year. So his choice career was bookended basically by this negotiation. What he said was that fact-finding was a process of sharing data with the state to bring the state up to speed. And it's something that I think was interesting about the negotiations is that opposition, especially from legislators over the course of negotiations, was often ignorance because the, just the knowledge was so one-sided at the start of negotiations. Finally, it's important to note that the alternative to negotiations loomed over the negotiations. The tribes of the state, if they did not agree to a compact, the two sides would be forced to litigate each claim separately in the water court. That would have been very costly and taken many years. And it was valid fears on the part of the non-tribal water users that they would be at risk of losing their state-appropriated water rights because the tribes earlier priority dates. Even the tribes recognized that having to litigate their claims would be costly and burdensome. And just to give you a sense, these are just the off-reservation claims that you see here. The left are 97 rights that, of 2018 it changed a little bit after that. As of 2018