d eiscoaged we gog t et oth isevgetboth s o acid tre m coent ittlor usivhanhao leatn s f . >>s?o alrght.ore.

>>m,knn point e low ane thing here is o makee rules rn and regations as t how e' ngt establisigy criria and ankiinfrastruure some 3bonllarand considare dee ral nsiders like tt they r sint cagn

[inanaf tis . maybe ee ittleto rational ideaf thgs haening. foeservoi anconservation and hat's politics. so - the same alies to public enge mean we can't possibly exct to not have to deal withthe rudene d everything else. >>i think hatcertain truealough i'm nosure

participants are incaple of dealing with that. they don't look kethey wou be stm rollered over by a ttle rouginteraction. maybe we'll see ater. we had one more over he and then i'm going o to thnext topic. >> homedoug wallace and i'm happy to be a little bit impolite. speaking of federal leadershi and one of the things that gets me is subsidies forethano we ha to hlp legislation understand dead ends in negative impacts to generate true solutio that actual reduce the cbon ootprint >>thank you. i hink we can bidge to

atoint and i was goingto ask jeff o comment on regulatory issues and hw they employ bead ome of our issu. >> tnk you, emily. one topic think o with regulatory aspects. we're trying to do what we call tegratedregional water planning menl meant but it's difficuland reig we're trying do it on the water aspect and inoduce, ser, water and flood ontrol and e don'do that ery well. most of t is split boundaries. i'm lucky because i have a regional agencand mine over liesa whole host of flood control reas ad water basin

manager's and sewer rojec and we're tryincoordinate with aof them on inteated projects and we have no input in land use her than commenting wch is a whole host f ohecities and counes. so, e're not very well coordinated in tms of our planning and thatis a tremenus draw back and it's good effort we' rying get togeer in ter of water resours but we're at a very early staplemi

his anbngreto o untand ome o f avo niusr tãmeins u

trtwere agirtnkf relatoedcl whi ver wfyu hink heyo thfurer pmt ll d

istothat ifrome lnar. gateedo fi

coereae. i hineaaswith he eing atoas h talked to hibarat a when the k w acwas d h had toarda xphe s werdiert nownd e hnules nd 'rw tk ck in a place like hat. in a saralking about conservati

as demand hardening and instead talking about conservation as creating a new demand.

i was fascinated to talk with chuck clark yesterday and t chart of all hose predictions. a couple yea back a new one comes out that's radically different from the old one and this keeps happening. it never gets hard but just keeps changing. >> i would like to echo those last few thoughts on the floor. certainly our experience in e, uk, is you can't move forward at al if you face challenges in an integrated way, without engaging properly with he utility communist and gulators. it's absolutely essential. it's not natural for us in the, uk. we have spent a lot of time building tst beten the

agencies and companies bt when we achieved that it's been enormously helpful and it's achieved the feedback back into the legislation process because when you get a collective bodies working together, it's very easy to influence the legislation process. >> chuck, i'm going back to running the ofce and be a regulator and tell youwhat i hated. what i hated s when people came in ansaid they didn't like the rules and they wanted a performance based standard and they would say, we know what we wantto do and we're green and trust us. if someonecomes in and says we don't like the prescriptive standards and we run mols and can invest better to have a better return for theen

environment ifound the regulator pretty open to look at those. i think aswe look at regulatory engagement i think what we need to do with regulators is bring to them solutions. i spend more on training in my stf in a month than most spend on regulators in a year. i have much better resources than they have. we're taking them solutions and their very open to those as long as it has a positive benefit and we have the proof. >> thank you. >> i've got the answer. he

the potis o wateplni botwater servicesnder eurs, therube a carul examatn o h te gel tradand services udethe, atand local lan nfect ese iueanparticularly

la iacwhh s tught perhs tonot e efcted b e tr adgreent bt i hink it's essentialto exame te ipathe ability tobe fexible and invavend acyst ly don ank ou.e re heattlweagi govehata lt of resp d manageme nd rnal waiswasyst nwe do a lof othetngs wexct be ot of cao clatange we haveto antite spkingo ourcommea

has sked thth is aannual rert ae're to e imposi perfomres rsverepoinow psswee making, ad ogueecse e'll aveto

lktatgencies on he erwre ot get out needut also o hat ats pointon'tsee wtsa f clat ge. the menthis gin to go nfinitely, i dt kn itwll go fitely but f ose opwiaddreesa rate somdeas d pathyshat ele i'll sd re ormation it tte wte. rms of an nial, getti thd oscus and l.ikouong

o the lack of definite science makes i difficult for planners to move from planning to deciding on infrastructure and other things so i'm hoping there will be some dscussion about how to plan, even as we're collecting the data in a way that ges our investors

and our mayors, whoever it is - who's suppt we need to let us move ahead with choicethat may be important to get going on, but or which the science may not be exact - or maybe peter will tell me itis exact. on planning, though i want to ask peter to talk bout that a little bit. >> thank you. what i'd like to do is maybe offer five specific suggestions. maybe describing o case study that i think is informative but before i do the question from the guy that was loong for a difintive statement i want to offer the following. i mentioned this document yesterday, this is 197, the

american water works association on climate change water resources, it's four pages - not very long. the subtitle from ten years back is uote global warming is a fact and water resource managers nd to plan accordingly. end quote. that seems pretty clear to me. i like that. i'd be happto share his with anybody that wants to share that with their constituents. the five suggestions for planning. i originally wrote the and the first couple started know something - that's not the right way to start it so i'll change it. all new related wat infrastructure will be designed and built in climate water change over the life of the

project. if your buildingsomeing that will last 20 or 40 years or a hundd years you have to design and build it incorporating climate change. all projections of wer demand and - well it shall include the effects of cmate cange. all water management decision must take intoaccount the implications of energy and greenhouse gas emissions of those decisions. some of the comments earer about caps and credits. water agencies if they get credit or their reenhouse gas emissions, they will look for it. in san rancisco if your water agency can find the reductions

which admittedly will probably be thrgh energy something and get credit for it or maybe, i don't kn - even money somehow, that helps the process. existing water systems shall be tests underconditions of future climate changes. we had examples of this. test your systems under a different set of climate assumptions than the lasone is water agencies shall partner with other agencies and authoritys to seek combed solutions.

some legislative regulatory side of this. they passed a law acouple of years back passing a standard of the water efficiency of front loading washinmachines. because of the way the federal government looks at state standards, i order for them to do that we had to apply for the exption for federal to do is. and there is no federal standard. so we passed law, applied for the waiver, the lowest eect to go into jaary one. on december 28th, the department on a friday afternoon, of course, rejected the state o california

application for airs so our standard is not going into efct and i know that,g ito, is here but the eergy commission does have the ability to apply for a - an appeal - senior moment there. thank you. i hope they do so. but the water savis from the front loading washing machines are combined to make cost efficiency. if you look a the pricing structure of water often it's not cessarily cost effective but if you look at energy savings s well, they are hugely cost effective. so from their view maybe it

hard for them to push for that but for water and energy utility ogether there are net societal benefits. to the consumer and genhouse gas emissions that we don't even quantify. so combined egla tore ri and state and agencies coming to to identify solutio - even hose that we have not put into effectively as i think we could. >>thank you. i'm going to the floo >> i'd like to jump in as a comment from the floor? >> you may. >> the points peter made were very good ones. whether it's the planning or possible solutions, whether

it's trying to geland use departments of our various countys to pay attention under the regulatory or legislative aspect, somebody even mentioned taxes, tomake ough choices whether their solutions peter made or raising fees or taxes to support these efforts because some of these solutions - eventhough - in the long run will pay off, initially, they will mean some action, some heavy lifting by our oleagues and heavy lifting by our different elected leaders. to get that done, i believe it goes back to the point of public engage meant so, what i'd like to do right now is say, let's follow up on the comment that lester