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 n

i meant to ask maurine, she described the - well, what i want to know is are they valuing the desalination, not one of them i've seen accounts for rising sea level example. it might be done for some but not all of them. are they be evaluated underhigher temperature scenarios. are the yield numbers being evaluated that. are the ones under existing scenarios and i'd like to know that and if the answer is, no, it ought to be. it will effect the economic decisions made and ultimately investments in part infrastructure. we may choose not to do many things differently, and accept a higher level of risk, but i would argue that if we're smart we will do things differently to reduce exposure for the future. >> just because it came out yesterday. the department of water resources has done a number of runs with reservoirs in inflows in the sierra area and it's 30 percent of inflows likely from today. the worst case is a reduction of 19 percent a big reduction. upstream at, fulsom, yesterday it was like ten billion dollars to build that reservoir and that's a great example for water managers to take w

. >> jean, you want to - i mean,maurine, i believe seattle wants to talk about that. >> chuck ought to handle that one. >> i really do. >> go for it. how about the second part of that question. the terrorist. >> an issue of homeland security we've all had to do assessments and make improvements so almost - i can't think of a major water utility that's been dealing with this. our approach has been one using technology primarily and they've invested heavily for us to use? lieu of some of the initial reproaches but i think the water industry as a whole has been a remarkable job and there's also and,isac, program where we can share with each other. >> you painted a great picture of a diversified important foal quo is that in part o protect against events as well. >> more related to high ydraulic issue but i think the effort the water agencies have made since 1911 have been markable and i think we're one of the

. >> jean, you want to - i mean,maurine, i believe seattle wants to talk about that. >> chuck ought to handle that one. >> i really do. >> go for it. how about the second part of that question. the terrorist. >> an issue of homeland security we've all had to do assessments and make improvements so almost - i can't think of a major water utility 's

we need to be imagining it now and we're not doing a particularly good job of that. ,maurine had a constitution. there are no silver bullets you have to have a comprehensive approach to this. the next conclusion is, we have to build diverse water management portfolios in every region of the state. i like the language. jarrod started with portfolio and used the term hedges and we're bringing a business risk management where you build a portfolio have hedge a sounds, and have contingency plans. you have to be prepared to respond to uncertain condition. the next item, is the statewide system that we have such a row bust statewide system has to be re-evaluated in terms of on raukss. how do we operate this in the face of what we have seen. we can't do it in what we have seen. that will require some reconfiguration. the final point and it's not the topic of this panel really. but as you do these and reconsider the reoperation of these we have to manage the greenhouse gases and the carbon footprint so we're fixing our contribution to the problem. we can't ignore our contribution to the greenhouse gase

. >> jean, you want to - i mean,maurine, i believe seattle wants to talk about that. >> chuck ought to handle that one. >> i really do. >> go for it. how about the second part of that question. the terrorist. >> an issue of homeland security we've all had to do assessments and make improvements so almost - i can't think of a major water utility that's been dealing with this. our approach has been one using technology primarily and they've invested heavily for us to use? lieu of some of the initial reproaches but i think the