and not get discouraged we're going to get support on the presidential on both sides of the aisle whoever gets it will act on it and those are my comment as little more inclusive than that on the legislation side of that. >> yes? one more. all right. two more. >> jim, kennedy jinx consultant. i think from california stance point the low angle thing here is to make sure that the rules being written and regulations as to how we're going to establish eligibility criteria and ranking for infrastructure some 37 billion dollars and bonds being proposed is a real opportunity to make sure these considers are included. considers like that were they included in water bond, state water project we might have an outcome for this. >> thank you. one more. water assignment campaign. [inaudible] one part of this is politics. maybe we're a little too gentle, maybe you think of rational ideas of things happening. the 4 point 5 billion dollars for reservoirs and conservation and that's politics. so - the same applies to public engage meant. it's messy. we can't possibly expect to not have to deal with the rudeness and everything else. >> i think that's certainly true, although i'm not sure participants are incapable of dealing with that. they don't look like they would be steam rollered over by a little rough interaction. maybe we'll see later. we had one more over here and then i'm going on to the next topic. >> home doug wallace and i'm happy to be a little bit impolite. speaking of federal leadership and one of the things that gets me is subsidies for ethanol. we have to help legislation understand dead ends in negative impacts to generate true solutions that actually reduce the carbon footprint. >> thank you. i think we can bridge to regulatory fairly ease lu at that point and i was going to ask jeff to comment on regulatory issues and how they employ bead some of your issues. >> thank you, emily. one topic i think of with regulatory aspects. we're trying to do what we call integrated regional water planning menl meant but it's difficult and foreign. we're trying do it on the water aspect and introduce, sewer, water and flood control and we don't do that very well. most of it is split by boundaries. i'm lucky because i have a regional agency and mine over lies a whole host of flood control areas and water basin manager's and sewer projects and we're trying coordinate with all of them on integrated projects and we have no input in land use other than commenting which is a whole host of other cities and counties. so, we're not very well coordinated in terms of our planning and that is a tremendous draw back and it's a good effort we're trying get together in terms of water resources but we're at a very early staple and that perhaps ties back to legislation and it's local land use speculation and all of that on water supply and issues we have little coordination. it's very difficult. >> i think one of the most interesting things, as water management agencies we deal with tremendous amount of regulation coming from a lot of different places and it can be extraordinarily time consuming and sometimes, lead you into - some times in order to accomplish one regulation you might go out of compliance with another one, so in my mind having away to cut through this and bringing regulators together to understand some of these issues, and perhaps, really trying help instead of something that keeps us tied up every day and makes it difficult to step back and think about climate change issues is very important part of our being effective so the hope of this group is there's incite in ways of doing that. there will be a county or state, or city that's doing this effectively and we can take that's an a template to our own environment and a slow kate that. i would love to hear more from you about regulatory and legislative issues and how the legislative regulatory and planning issues tend to cluster together. so if you have things you've done that have been helpful or strategies you are thinking of trying, or things where you think regulators are impeding important climate issues you can speak now which i would very much appreciate or write to the website if you think about it a little further. is there anyone that can speak today? yes? >> hi i'm will travis and development commission or if you watch,cnn, i'm travis mills. but that's okay. as a regulator, i think it's important to listen to the rhetoric of cutting through regulations and streamlining them, i think it's important to remember those regulations were all put in place in reaction to some abuse. they are advancing veryly get mate enlightened public policy. what you may see as an imped meant is really a regulation put there to protect environmental resources. some people commented on my remarks yesterday that i talked entirely about the economy and nothing about the environment eventhough we're seen as an environmental agency. it seems to me just as this conference opened dialogue for water and environment, i think we should find our worst enemy and going and sitting down and seeing the common ground we have and then putting together a coalition of allies not normally working together and then going to the legislature to ask for oversight hearings to the laws that protect san francisco bay all the way to the laws that deal with water and air quality and so forth and looking for a systemic approach. the reason i suggest that, i found the last election did a fabulous job of making the san francisco fund to read. or fun to read. i would go to page two and see what goofy thing congress had done. so i think we have an opportunity here to work together, to work with our legislative leaders in a bipartisan fashion to address this problem of what we're facing in the future instead of all the regulations put in place to deal with problems of the past. >> yes? >> environmental water caucus. one of this things yesterday was an opportunity that needs to be highlightd the fact that there's a real resource in ground water. california is just one that does not regulate ground water. just gaps that need to be filled. >> i'm from the planning and conservation league. i was having breakfast with the etropolitan and he was telling a story as he talked to his board about issues and when the keep water act was passed and he had to go to the board and explain the rules were different now and we need to figure out how to work with the new rules and we're back in a place like that. he used the metaphor for a different story, but we're back in a similar problem with the global warming solutions act where the rules will substantially change and one of the primary components of that is looking very specifically at what are the emissions across the state? what are our baseline conditions? as we come up with messages for the public, i think one of the ways the public will - if they see we're really making a good faith effort and not just having a marketing campaign, so i think if water manager's along with others can coming to and urge new regulations that help us actually quantify our water use and savings in verifiable ways, the public will respond and say, it really looks like you all are making the effort and i can clearly see through the numbers that it's happening. and i think one of the primary components of that is moving past talking about conservation as demand hardening and instead talking about conservation as creating a new demand. i was fascinated to talk with chuck clark yesterday and the chart of all those predictions. a couple years 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 the, uk, is you can't move forward at all if you face challenges in an integrated way, without engaging properly with the utility communist and regulators. it's absolutely essential. it's not natural for us in the, uk. we have spent a lot of time building trust between the agencies and companies but 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 office and be a regulator and tell you what i hated. what i hated is when people came in and said they didn't like the rules and they wanted a performance based standard and they would say, we know what we want to do and we're green and trust us. if someone comes in and says we don't like the prescriptive standards and we run models and can invest better to have a better return for theen environment i found the regulator pretty open to look at those. i think as we 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 staff 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. >> thank goodness. >> - which is the words that nobody wants to hear? taxes and caps. we've seen this play out in our local general plan and it seems really clear to everybody involved in general updates there needs to be metrics and numbers like here's the baseline for water use per capita and here's the are for per capita waist line and we need to cap this and start reducing. those kinds of metrics and numbers, are evidence to everybody. - but we don't have the leadership now, to say here's what's necessary. the same is true for taxes. we need a carbon tax and fees on higher energy. we've got to start changing that behavior in order to start reducing emissions. those are the two sledge hammers, right now - nobody wants to go there, but i think we do. >> thank you. >> i'm with the alliance for democracy. nancy price. there's a lot of eagerness and legislative planning tools, but i one thing that concerns me greatly is the federal government has committed faith and communitys to a free trade regime that's inflexible and not innovative. i think with the positions of water planning - both water services and water resources, there must be a careful examination of how the general trade and services under the, w.t.o., will greatly effect state and local planning on these issues and particularly, land impact which is thought perhaps to not be effected by the other trade agreements, but i think it's essential to examine the impact on the ability to to be flexible and innovative and act in timely ways that the trade agreements actually don't allow. >> thank you. one more, yes? >> hi i'm with king county many the seattle area. we're not a water supplier but a regional government that has a lot of responsibilities with flood management and regional waist water system and we do a lot of other things we expect to be a lot of changes due to climate change we have to anticipate. speaking on your comment about a template, the county council has asked us to develop an annual climate plan the first of which is news today and it maybe delayed by a week or two is what i've heard. what we've done, is put together an intraservice group to identify impact to all the different activities we engage in that range across planning, permitting, regulatory, as well as something like requiring access like purchasing hybrid buses and transportations systems. i think this is an annual report and we're going to be imposing performance measures on ourselves and reporting how much progress we're making, and it will, i think result in dialogue because we'll have to talk to state agencies on the issues chuck talked about, where we're not getting the support or freedom to do what we need to do, but it will also generate discussions in the county and staff that probably at this point, don't see what the impacts are of climate change. for the moment, this is going to go on indefinitely, i don't know if it will go on indefinitely but of course people will address issues and generate some ideas and pathways that i think people have not thought of before. i'll send more information about it to the website. in terms of an initial, getting the discussion going, and thinking of impacts and how to address them, that's one thing to think about. >> thank you. i think ideas like that about natural forums for engaging some of these discussions are very helpful. i'd like to move now to planning issues. we've talked a fair amount about those yesterday and i thought there were lots of really rich opportunities, because this is where, i think the lack of definite science makes it difficult for planners to move from planning to deciding on infrastructure and other things so i'm hoping there will be some discussion about how to plan, even as we're collecting the data in a way that gives our investors and our mayors, whoever it is - who's support we need to let us move ahead with choices that may be important to get going on, but for which the science may not be exact - or maybe peter will tell me it is exact. on planning, though i want to ask peter to talk about that a little bit. >> thank you. what i'd like to do is maybe offer five specific suggestions. maybe describing one case study that i think is informative but before i do the question from the guy that was looking for a difintive statement i want to offer the following. i mentioned this document yesterday, this is 1997, the american water works association on climate change water resources, it's four pages - not very long. the subtitle from ten years back is quote global warming is a fact and water resource managers need to plan accordingly. end quote. that seems pretty clear to me. i like that. i'd be happy to share this with anybody that wants to share that with their constituents. the five suggestions for planning. i originally wrote these and the first couple started know something - that's not the right way to start it so i'll change it. all new related water infrastructure will be designed and built in climate water change over the life of the project. if your building something that will last 20 or 40 years or a hundred years you have to design and build it incorporating climate change. all projections of water demand and - well it shall include the effects of climate change. all water management decisions must take into account the implications of energy and greenhouse gas emissions of those decisions. some of the comments earlier about caps and credits. water agencies if they get credit for their greenhouse gas emissions, they will look for it. in san francisco if your water agency can find the reductions which admittedly will probably be through energy something and get credit for it or maybe, i don't know - 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 last one is water agencies shall partner with other agencies and authoritys to seek combined solutions. some times the best solutions are not purely water solutions but a combination of water and energy solutions or waist water and transportation solutions and so on and we heard about this. but it should be fundamental and this leads to my quick case study. the state of california passed some legislative regulatory side of this. they passed a law a couple of years back passing a standard of the water efficiency of front loading washing machines. because of the way the federal government looks at state standards, in order for them to do that we had to apply for the exemption for federal to do this. and there is no federal standard. so we passed law, applied for the waiver, the lowest effect to go into january one. on december 28th, the department on a friday afternoon, of course, rejected the state of california application for waivers so our standard is not going into effect and i know that,g ito, is here but the energy commission does have the ability to apply for a - an appeal - senior moment there. thank you. i hope they do so. but the water savings from the front loading washing machines are combined to make cost efficiency. if you look at the pricing structure of water often it's not necessarily cost effective but if you look at energy savings as well, they are hugely cost effective. so from their view maybe it's hard for them to push for that but for water and energy utility together there are net societal benefits. to the consumer and greenhouse gas emissions that we don't even quantify. so combined egg la tore ri and state and agencies coming to to identify solutions - even those that we have not put into effectively as i think we could. >> thank you. i'm going to the floor. >> 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 get land use departments of our various countys to pay attention under the regulatory or legislative aspect, somebody even mentioned taxes, to make tough choices whether their solutions peter made or raising fees or taxes to support these efforts because some of these solutions - eventhough - in the