because we have to learn the hand gauge because we don't want to sit around feeling unnerved when someone says sea levels can go 25 feet. that's not where leaders take others. we have to know what's real and in the range of possibility. so this report is the best primer on what is effective climate. secondly, we all here about the poles shrinking in antarctica, based on this you see they play a bigger roll with respect to water and reflection from the sun. there are things you need to know. we don't need fearful people. many of us are managers that make hard decisions in investments we need to be

empowered and knowledgeable. this looks at a state of the art of what's fake, real , fact or fiction about global warming. we have to make up indecisions, it may go 25 feet but some of us won't be here in 150 years. we have to know what's available to us in the next 25 years so you have to get in your mind the range of possibilities. finally the worst thing we can do and i'm a general manager of a water district, is to believe we are not going to have to build this investment because we could flip the switch and the trends we see will continue from ten to 20 years. you understand that? we're not going back to our customers and say we're going to do greenhouse emissions and do

things to stop it. first of all, we don't control the whole world, we can only do what we can do and that's a lot since five percent of the world produced most of the greenhouse e mibss but there's an economic move in japan and china and their moving forward but we can look back and say, tom i heard this morning say if it goes up a foot we have to and we're going to have to start educating the customers and loo

rings or hydraulic records. there's pretty scary stories inside the trees. who wants to take it? >> i think we've done a pretty substantial job with diversifying it in mind. theirwnpst, low moted in bay area if there's a drought on the bay area there's something with reflect to security issue asked. almost everything,maurine, i got resentment issues with him with rain and watershed.

this is not looking down the road if you think about what we're saying which is you look at 40 years but today is what's going to tap right in front of us so 76, 77 scenario is probably in everybody's planning. the state require as submitle every five or six years how your making your investments and planning for it. it's not look long and plan today. >> i think we're more concerned about drought scenarios than year to year water supply. we have had tree rings and decade shifts in with tear shifts and so the australians

have done a lot of work with the back to back droughts and they are now experiencing them so we're working with them on drought and run some risk consequence models to see what kind of investment does that mean. our problem is we get a hundred years of rain and then if you don't have long-term supply all the sudden you're in really a lot of trouble if you have not dealt with the drought consequences issues. >> portland is the same. we're supply limited the study does not suggest we have significant but they would come with intensive frequency but i think we would be interested in some of the direction chuck has suggested in our short record because it's very short. >> all right. i think this may

be the last question. >> thank you. i'm with sea well global. would you repeat the name for all of us. >> it's called a climate resource for water changes a primer for water planners. >> the first seminar in the leadership position. what i have not heard in general is new water supply and question is if de salinization is an issue and we look that sub sea water company our problem solve the problem how do you solve the environmental impact but what the impact to put it back in the ocean. what are the electrical costs. pipelinei