 My name is Deb Glickson. I'm a study director with the National Academy's Water Science and Technology Board. I'll be serving as your moderator for today's webinar on future water priorities for the nation, directions for the US Geological Survey Water Mission, presented by Dr. George Harnberger and Dr. Ken Bradbury. I'd like to go over a few logistics before introducing them. George and Ken will speak for approximately 25 to 30 minutes, after which we'll engage them with your questions and comments until the close of the hour. To ask a question, you can use the chat feature. Please send your questions to the participant labeled Send Questions here. I'll be making a note of these questions as they're entered along the way, and we'll share them with George and Ken. Please realize we may not be able to get to all of the questions. If you have any technical issues, please use the chat feature and send a note to the participant labeled Technical Help. With that said, let me introduce George and Ken. George Harnberger, the chair of this committee, is a distinguished university professor of Vanderbilt University, where he is the director of the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and the Environment. He has a shared appointment as the Craig E. Philip Professor of Engineering and as a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences. His research is aimed at understanding complex water, energy, climate, interrelationships. Dr. Harnberger is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Association for Women in Science, and the Geological Society of America, and was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering in 1996. He holds a PhD in hydrology from Stanford University. Ken Bradbury is the Wisconsin State Geologist and the director of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey at the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Bradbury's recent research has focused on developing regional groundwater low models for groundwater and surface water management. Additional research interests include investigating the movement of viruses and groundwater systems, characterizing and simulating fractured aquifers, determining groundwater flow paths near water supply wells, well-hypertection, groundwater recharge and the regional hydrology of Wisconsin. Dr. Bradbury holds a PhD in hydrogeology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Thank you. George and Ken, we will begin now. Okay, thank you very much Deb and welcome everyone. Good afternoon or I guess I could say good morning depending upon where you're calling in. So as Deb said, this is our webinar on the report that was prepared for the US Geological Survey by a committee of the National Academies. Next, there we go. So just for those of you to refresh everyone's memories, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the National Academy of Science was founded in 1862, I believe. And basically it is to provide independent objective scientific advice to the nation. The advice is scientific but is aimed at informing decision-making and public policy. The academies convened panels and committees to gather volunteer experts to provide that advice. Not only to the federal government but states and the public and NGOs as well. Next, now the National Academies are not part of the federal government. They are not an advocacy or lobbying organization. They are not consultants to for-profit entities and in general, we don't conduct primary research. There are a few rare exceptions where a study requires some primary research but in general, we don't do such things. Next. So just to warm everyone up, I think we all know this but we understand that water is really, well, I mean, it continues to be in the news all the time. It's certainly important for a whole range of things including development and ecosystem sustainability and we're very well aware that we are very happy in a Goldilocks situation where we have just enough water but if we have too much or too little we face crisis often as we were worrying last year about Cape Town in South Africa and of course, we just had the disastrous Hurricane Florence a few weeks ago and are now concerned of course about a hurricane hitting the Panhandle of Florida. Next. So National Academy committees are charged through a statement of task. It guides the work, it in some sense limits the work, focuses the work is a better way to put it and our statement of task from the U.S. Geological Survey Water Mission Area was to address the most compelling national water resource and science needs during the next several decades. So we basically were looking at a crystal ball kind of exercise because we wanted to identify the highest priority water science and resources challenges over the next 25 years and the item three was then to provide recommendations on the strategic water science and research opportunities for the water mission area that would address these highest priority national challenges. We also of course interacted with the USGS in several ways and provided a high level summary of the current water science and research portfolio as well. Next. So we had a rather wide range, committee with wide ranging expertise. You see the names here. I'm George Hornberger. I chaired the committee and Ken Bradbury is on this webinar with me. But Yo-Chin from the University of Delaware, Ellen Galinsky, Peter Glick, Robert Mace, Ann Nolan, who's now University of Nevada at Reno, Roger Patterson, Ying-Fan Reinfelder, Jen Tank and Howard Weeder. All were full participants in this study and were really terrific people with whom to work. Next. So our approach, the committee met four times. We basically began this exercise just a little over a year ago. We held four in-person meetings. Three of them were to gather information, to hear from people, to interact with people. One was primarily to come to consensus on our report and finish the writing. We also had in between the in-person meetings, we had several presentation and webinars, discussions and we also had discussions with federal, state and local agencies and NGOs. The presentations and webinars covered such things as sensor technologies, what we might expect in the future, big data needs, data analytics, computational advances and so forth. We also gathered information from water science, center directors and state geologists through questionnaires. And the committee really read the literature broadly to gain background on relevant studies. We basically, we had a lot of discussion identified the important challenges and then we went on to think about the research questions that could address those challenges. And finally, we identified a subset of those questions that were particularly relevant for USGS strategic directions. Next. So I'm gonna turn it over to Ken now. Okay, thank you. Thank you, George and welcome everybody. So of course, when you're asked to think about the next 25 years, it's really quite a task and our committee had had some really far reaching and interesting discussions and arguments about this. But the challenges that we came up with that we think are the most important are these. First of all, understanding the role of water in the earth system. And by this we mean the kind of the big picture. How does water interact with earth processes from erosion and deposition to climate change to carbon cycling to the role in landscape evolution and geomorphology to biogeochemical cycling. Water is involved in all of these processes in the big picture of the earth's past and present and future and in earth history. So that's an important continuing science question. The second challenge is quantifying the water cycle. How much water do we have? Where is it? What state is it in? Is it in the atmosphere? Is it in snow and ice in the high mountains? Is it in rivers, is it lakes? Is it in groundwater? Is it in the deep crust? And how is it moving between these different reservoirs? The third is developing integrated models of scientists and practitioners use models all the time, of course, but in the past many of these models have been focused on a single aspect of the water cycle. The groundwater system, the surface water system, the soil system or the atmosphere. We believe that in the next quarter century it's going to be a need to integrate these models so that we can look at entire systems. So linking groundwater and surface water and atmospheric models, linking recharge with groundwater flow, linking and all in other words, just big linked integrated models that can handle the vast amount of data that we are collecting these days and we will be collecting in the future. The next priority challenge was quantifying changes in the social hydrologic system. What is that? Well, that is the relationship between people and the groundwater or the hydrologic system. We build dams, we make canals, we pump water, we do irrigation. All these things have feedbacks to the hydrogeology or the hydrology until I'm a hydrogeologist answer to the hydrologic system of the world. And as, and these are changes, how do these, are these feedbacks affecting climate change? For example, all these things are going to be an important challenge. The next is the simple securing, reliable and sustainable water supplies. We decided that there's one challenge that's going to be a continuing challenge. It's providing safe, clean drinking water for the world, for people, not only for drinking, but for industry, for agriculture and sustaining water resources for all these things. That's going to be an ongoing continuing challenge. And finally, understanding, predicting water related hazards. George mentioned hurricanes, we have floods, we have drought, we have landslides, all these things are related to water. How do we understand those and predict those in the future with better precision? That's an ongoing challenge. Next slide. So how do we prioritize these? The committee defined 10 questions related to these challenges and then developed a rubric to score and rank these questions because it wasn't immediately obvious how we should rank the questions. Next, so our rubric considered several criteria. The scientific importance of a question, the societal need, and then the relevance to the USGS mission, understanding that perhaps all of these questions aren't necessarily relevant to the water mission area, and then relevance to USGS partners. And so you can see that we have criteria. If you look at the right of this slide with these relevance societal need and the societal need might be global, national, regional or local relevance to the USGS mission of observing, understanding, predicting or delivering information and relevance to partners, other parts of the USGS, federal, state and local agencies, tribal agencies, industry, NGOs and the private sector. And so for each of these criteria, we developed a scoring system as shown here. I won't go through all through that and ranked a number of questions. And I have to say that this really worked pretty well. And following this, after we followed this rubric, we found that there was really a great deal of consensus on the committee and some clear breakpoints between the ranking. Next. So the question's most relevant to the USGS and you'll see on this and the next slide, we came up with 10 questions. And they really did break down as the top five and the second five. And when we say these are the most relevant to USGS, I would characterize that as these are the questions where the USGS can or should meet. Okay, so these are the questions where the USGS really can be a leader and have a lot to contribute. So these are, first, what is the quality and quantity of the atmospheric surface and subsurface water and how do these spatially, these vary spatially and temporally? Again, back to the question of how much water do we have? Where is it? How is it moving and what state is it in? How is it moving between these states and reservoirs? This of course is some of the mission that the USGS has done for years and we are staying here to keep doing it and do it better. Second, how do human activities affect water quality and quality? As I mentioned a minute ago, there are these relationships between hydrology and the activities we do as societies. These are quite intertwined and the USGS can have a leading role in understanding these feedbacks. Third, how can water accounting be done more efficiently, effectively and comprehensively to provide data for water availability and use? This is a continuing challenge. The USGS has a long history of course of accounting for water, measuring water and measuring water use. It can be a little limited by the fact that in the United States, various states do water accounting in different ways. We think that there's a need for a more integrated national way of accounting for water so that all of the sources and sinks and uses of water are really accounted for. Number four, how does changing climate effect water quality, quantity and reliability as well as water related hazards and extreme events? Another area where the USGS can lead because the USGS has experienced and expertise and skill in all these areas and it's an important question. And finally, number five, how can long-term water related risk management be improved? I mean, the emphasis here is long-term. How can we think long-term to understand how the nation can prepare and be respond to these water related risks? Next slide. So then we have the five additional questions. These are still important questions that the USGS can be involved in, but the committee, I think if I could characterize the difference between the first and second series of questions that these second questions are areas where the USGS might not necessarily be the leader. USGS can certainly be involved and should be involved. There may be other sectors in the academic world, the commercial world or other government agencies that might also be involved in these questions. So the first is how does the hydrologic cycle respond to changes in the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere through the Earth's history and future? And how do these responses feedback and accelerate or dampen the changes in atmosphere, lithosphere and biosphere? A big question related to climate change, Earth's history and the Earth's future that many, many different organizations could certainly weigh in on here. Second, on question seven, how can short-term forecasting for climate, hydrology, water quality and associated social systems be improved? Well, again, a big broad question that may involve other federal agencies besides the USGS may involve many academics, but again, a very broad and important question. Third, how do institutions and governance and institutional resilience impact the quality and quality of water? Here, we know that if you think of Flint, Michigan or the water shortages in Cape Town, South Africa, we know that governance and institutional resilience do affect the quality and quality of water people have. And so this is an important area of research and work. Some of it may be outside the purview of the USGS, however. Number nine, how can the understanding of the connections between water-related hazards and human health be improved? There have been very great advances in our understanding of how water resources and human health are related, but here we're getting into medical science and other sciences, again, that may be outside the USGS purview, so the USGS should be involved here, but may not be the leader. And finally, how can competing uses for water resources be managed to sustain healthy communities and ecosystems in a changing world? Again, a very broad question where the USGS has much to contribute. Next slide. One of the things our committee really delved into and found quite fascinating was the question of emerging technologies, realizing that with the bases in technology in the hydrologic world, we are obtaining data and measuring things more rapidly and greater precision and over greater areas than ever before. And in the next quarter century, we think that data, particularly with respect to new rapidly and deployable sensors, will make this even greater impact. So we're gonna have a more affordable, a wide array of different sources of data from previously inaccessible locations that may be possible, for example, to look at stream flow from headwaters to clear down a watershed even measuring from space, for example, rather than being constrained by where people can install stream data and so forth. There'll be fit for purpose, temporal and spatial resolution of these sensors. There'll be new parameters being measured and this is all going to require and it is requiring today systems that can collect, assess, store, process and share data in near real time with vast amounts of data. So these are new technical challenges. We think that the sensors, sensor technology is rapidly changing. We can't predict where it's going to go. There are still problems, not all the problems have been solved yet, but there'll be big advances there. Along with that, with that go the challenge of managing this data, managing big data and data integration and understanding how we can use these vast amounts of new data, how we can make sense of that, how we can change that into information through scientific understanding, improve models, interdisciplinary modeling and using that finally for decision-making under uncertainty. Next slide. And here George, I think we're going back to you. Okay, thank you Ken. I wanna re-emphasize that we put numbers on the questions that Ken just went through, but don't read them to be in priority order or they're simply numbered for convenience. At any rate, one of the things that the Committee of the National Academies do is after making assessments, make recommendations and our set of recommendations is to the water mission area of the USGS. And they relate to the question. So what you saw was the first question had to do with the quality and quantity of water and temporal and spatial variation. Recommendation 1.1 was to enhance data collection. And we thought that looking forward there was probably going to be more opportunities to use citizen science and also to make all of the data accessible through web-based tools. We think that it's really important the Committee discussed this, that interoperability software tools working with other agencies to make sure that the data formats and protocols and platforms were all coordinated. And that really goes to recommendation 1.2 because it will require coordination with agencies and organizations on data delivery. The next research question was how do human activities affect water quantity and quality? Our recommendation 2.1 was to increase the focus for USGS WMA to increase the focus on relationships between human activities and water. And we in particular think that WMA should priority is a careful synthesis of observations coupled natural human systems. Next, third question that we think that WMA can play in which WMA can play a leadership role is on water accounting. And as Ken mentioned, we all know that USGS has been doing water accounting. And we also know that the national water census is to basically enhance that. We think that continued development of a robust water accounting system, it will be really important. And that collaboration with agencies and organization on these water data standards and categories of use. A lot of these data require close collaboration with state agencies as well as other federal agencies. And very likely water accounting because of a lack of certain types of data, there will have to be a development of substitutes, possibly for example, using satellite remote sensing to estimate things like consumptive use of water by agriculture. The fourth question, how does changing climate affect water quality, quantity and reliability? We think that it will be really critical that the monitoring networks can really continue to provide adequate information to assess these changing conditions as we experience them. Next, the fifth question, how can long-term water related risk management be improved? We think that here the USGS WMA should focus on long-term prediction and risk assessment of extreme water conditions. We know that short-term basically down to minute level forecasts are really important, but we think that there will be an increased need to focus on these long-term assessments, risk assessments as we face extreme conditions in the future. We had recommendations that really cut across the questions and we list these as additional recommendations. And again, these are not in any rank order and the additional recommendations we don't view as any less important. It's just that they're listed at the end because we think that they don't fit neatly under one specific question, but rather cut across all. Recommendation six was to develop multi-scale integrated dynamic models for the full water cycle. And this goes in a direction that the USGS, I think has been pointed for many years. They've been leaders in development of models for various parts of the hydrological cycle, but the development of multi-scale and integrated models will really become important over the next several decades. Recommendation seven was it's pretty clear that collaboration within and outside the USGS will gain an importance. For example, the USGS itself has the water mission area, but there's also an ecosystems mission area and clearly water integrates with ecosystems and many other USGS mission areas as well. And finally, as we think about the changes from, oh, a whole range of things, the new sensors, the new capabilities, the tremendous increase in data, new models, we really see looking forward, the USGS will need a workforce that is nimble and ready to take on these new water challenges. Next, and so thank you for attention and you can participate through the chat feature as Deb mentioned. George and Ken, thank you both so much. This is great, we're gonna move on to questions now. As it says on the screen, you can use the chat feature to send your questions to the participant labeled send questions here. We're gonna try to get to as many questions as possible. Let's see, let me begin with, to what extent was the viability of freshwater aquatic ecosystems considered? It was definitely part of the committee's consideration. If you look at the committee list, we have a lot of people who are engaged in science at various levels and are well aware of both the requirements to maintain protect ecosystems and of course, the close connections with water. So I think that we had many, many discussions about those needs as well. Thank you. The next question is, I see the word quality a lot, but there isn't substantive guidance in that direction. Does the committee place a value on quality, a stronghold of the water mission area? If so, what is their guidance? Ken, it's your turn. Well, certainly the committee, but we had many discussions about that. I think there's quality is wrapped up in all of these questions really, that maybe we use the word quantity a little bit more often, but I think each of these, I guess the guidance I think the committee intended was that quality is a part of each of these questions and each of these recommendations that when we talk about integrated modeling or data acquisition or any of these things, all of these is definitely part of that as well. Great, the next question is, did you look at the relationships between emerging technologies and existing laws or regulations? I'll take that Ken because it's easy. The answer is we certainly did not have time to do any kind of extensive dive into laws and regulations. We certainly are aware of certain restrictions, but we didn't really build any detailed analysis into our deliberations. Okay, the next question, was there a discussion on the protection of heritage landscape features in relation to protection and restoration of, for example, rivers? This is Ken. Correct me if I'm wrong, George, we did not have many discussions about protection of specific features other than evaluation of features like that would be as part of these other recommendations that I know we did not spend much time on that. Okay, the next question we have is, what are crosses borders? Do we have adequate coordination with neighboring countries such as Canada? Great question. Howard Weeder was on the committee and was in Canada, was a professor in Canada at the time. And we really did have some discussions about transboundary issues. We recognized that the USGS does have a role in such things as the Great Lakes. So that was certainly in the back of our mind. We didn't bring it to the forefront as something specifically to call out. But as Ken said, there are a lot of things that can be read into the recommendations that pertain to transboundary issues as well as other issues. Thanks. Another question. If one considers a flat funding future, which recommendations take priority? So I will take that. Thank you, George. National Academy committees really stick to their statement of task. And wandering across to think about how one would organize fiscal resources was not part of our charge. Certainly if we had been asked that question, the committee would have grappled with it. But we really weren't asked the question and therefore we didn't go there. Ken, I think this one's for you. Do we have the geological mapping that will be required to quantify groundwater and to facilitate integrated surface water and groundwater modeling? Well, thank you, Deb. The, probably been asked by one of my fellow state geologists possibly. The committee didn't grapple with that question specifically, but we did talk quite a bit about the need for cross-program coordination within the USGS and collaboration with outside agencies such as geological surveys, such as universities and so forth. In particular, I think the report does mention the need for the water mission area to be coordinated with other programs like the geologic mapping programs at the USGS. So the committee did not answer that specific question for whoever asked it, but I think there is, we certainly had discussions about those sorts of needs. Thank you. Our next question is, what sustainability and reuse of water resources discussed? Yes, certainly. I mean, the, I think the, one of the challenges that we identified was, I think as Ken described, ensuring adequacy of water resources broadly. And that is all tied in with sustainability. As far as water reuse, we certainly recognize that there's currently a lot of water reuse that's going on either by plan or by default. And I think that it was recognized that the USGS in the recommendations that we made, for example, in integrated modeling would have to take that into account. We didn't discuss, because we didn't think it was the USGS charged to look at in any detail about the technical issues surrounding water reuse. Thanks. The next question is, did the committee discuss emerging contaminants challenges like PFAS? Yes, yes, we did. We discussed PFOS and biological contaminants, many, many, many things. And yeah, there was a pretty robust discussion about those things. And I think there could, I think our recommendations again, broadly cover those. Let's see, the next question. In addition to academic feedback, what was the percentage of input sought from private sector or from the water resource agencies? Good question. I think that we probably had more feedback from agencies, probably not quite so much the private sector, but overall more than we had from the academic field. Primarily, I think because we were engaging with sort of main users of, main collaborators, if you will, with the USGS. And the USGS has a very robust program, the cooperative program where they interact with state agencies and NGOs as well. So we talked to an awful lot of those people and got feedback. And of course the state geologist, we had a questionnaire and yes, they can be considered academics, but they also have responsibilities that sort of fall outside that traditional academic responsibilities as well. Great, we still have several questions left. So feel free to keep sending comments. The next question is, what are the differences between these recommendations and what the USGS is currently doing? Has it highlighted new regions of study, for example? This is Ken, that's a great question. I think that we actually grapple with that quite a bit and sort of our consensus is that the USGS is already doing many of these things and our recommendations are to keep doing them and expand in certain areas. Don't think and correct me if I'm wrong, George, that we came up with any broad new areas of research or investigation that the USGS needs to begin. Rather, it's a focus and renewal on the things that they're doing already and maybe a little tweaking. Yeah, probably if anything, it really was more of a emphasizing certain things more. If anything, I think the committee would probably say perhaps an expansion, a significant expansion looking at coupled natural human systems, including the human feedbacks. Switching topics a little bit. With regards to hazard mitigation, will the USGS identify vulnerable structures and work with local and state entities to address the need to reduce insured losses? So neither Ken nor I can speak for the USGS or what they will do. I think that as one goes forward in identifying risks and in doing things like looking at decision-making and under uncertainty and providing information, it would certainly make sense for the USGS too engage with people over exactly these issues. Now, the USGS isn't going to go in and make decisions on how to do things like harden infrastructure, but certainly they should work with people who are interested in those things to provide the information needed. Thank you. How did the committee perceive the current state of the national water model? I think we see the national water model as a great step forward, but not the end step. It's sort of a work in progress. It's an example of the kind of integrated modeling that needs to continue in the future, but it's certainly not the ultimate model. George, anything else to add to that? Well, I mean, I suppose that it ties back, we had some discussions that ties back to the question previously on geologic mapping, because if we're going to have a national water model, certainly it will have to include the subsurface. And there's a lot of information that needs to be collected to do that appropriately. Great. How much input did you get from EPA or from other users of long-term USGS contaminants data? We certainly, I guess, I think it was in maybe either our first or second meeting, we heard from representatives from several of the federal agencies that really interact with and rely an awful lot on USGS data. And this included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency. And so we certainly did hear from these people and heard their views on what they saw as priorities for the US geological survey over the next 25 years. And so that information was all built into the committee's deliberations. Great, thank you. We have a few more questions. Did the committee prioritize emerging technologies research, like using new sensors over existing programs like adding more stream flow gauges? No, I don't think it's all part of the portfolio. So no, we did not try to prioritize nor would we try to direct the USGS in that way. But we're pointing out that there are going to be opportunities with new sensors that may make the way the USGS does this work change in the future. And I think that's the important thing to understand that just because something has been done one way for many years, it may not always be done the same way as we have new technologies and new sensors to enable us to do it more broadly or cheaply or more accurately or with greater data acquisition. So we didn't try to prioritize that way. Thanks, going back to the question of water quality. Sustainability would include availability of clean water for aquatic plants and animals as well. Is this included in the big picture USGS priority question? Oh, absolutely. It's certainly not just water quantity that relates to healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Clearly there are water quality interactions as well. The committee of course recognized that there are relationships between the two. And so it's not really separating out quality here and quantity there. One has to look at the entire picture. But yes, we're certainly well aware that it's not just water for human use but to actually maintain healthy ecosystems. This is a large part of the information, the data and the modeling that we anticipate the USGS water mission area will do in the future to again provide information for people who have to make decisions and to sustain ecosystems. Thank you. Another question for you. How do the findings and recommendations differ from those of previous academies reports on USGS water related activities? Well, I think, George, you wanna take that? Sure, I'll give it a try. There have been of course, probably as the person who asked the question knows, there have been numerous reports looking at both the USGS broadly and even other agencies to the extent that the water resources challenges that we identified are not unique and new going forward, but rather that we saw as having probably enhanced importance in the future and therefore would require new energies and new ways to focus energies of the USGS. So I think, I mean, I can't just recall every detailed recommendation that had been made to the USGS and past reports, but I do think that the recommendations in this report do have a flavor of looking pretty broadly forward to look at, for example, one of the recommendations is to focus on long-term risk assessment rather than just what's going to happen over the next three months. And also the idea that to keep an eye on having a nimble workforce that is going to be able to take advantage of a lot of the new advances that will occur. So a lot of the recommendations because the challenges are the same do have a certain overlap with previous recommendations, but I think they also have a new flavor, if you will. Thank you. How prominent were discussions on agricultural practices in relation to levels of nitrate and other contaminants in groundwater? We certainly had those discussions and we had several groundwater people on the committee so we had those discussions. They were more prominent than anything else, they were certainly in the mix. And again, as we've mentioned before, it's all part of the overriding quantity and quality concerns. I think one of the things people that read this report need to remember is that this is a very broad charge so we couldn't focus on any particular contaminant or even any particular sector too much. But the idea, I think the committee's hope is that these broad recommendations are encompassing things like nitrate and agricultural practices as part of the things that the USGS needs to be thinking about. I think this is an appropriate follow-up to that question. Economic demand is often a driver of water quality impairments, particularly for agricultural commodities. Was that considered by the committee? I would say not explicitly. That is, we didn't really think about how different economic drivers might affect outcomes, rather we focused on what the USGS water mission area might be doing that could at least inform any decisions that people would make relative to economics. So no, we did not take that into account explicitly. I'm gonna toss another hard one your way. Any sense on the level of funding that might be needed to address these recommendations? We didn't do any economic analysis and certainly not that one. No, so again, the committee really stuck to the statement of task and the statement of task did not ask us for opinions. No, by the way, would the committee have been in a very good position to give detailed advice on funding levels needed? That would require a lot of reflection and knowledge about what things cost very broadly to even begin to attempt that. So no, we did not do that. This is Ken, can I just add something? We haven't mentioned it, but in the report, if you all order or download the report, there is an appendix about the water mission area that has some information on the budget and workforce and really the outward view of what the water mission area does. And I think that might be interesting for people who may not understand the water mission area or haven't read that. Thank you. Technologies such as airborne electromagnetics are transforming groundwater investigations in some countries. Was there an emphasis placed on this technology in the report? No, not on any specific geophysical methods other than there are certainly mentioned that new geophysical methods like electromagnetics are being developed and being used and can be exploited in the future and that the USGS needs to be aware of those. But we did not recommend any specific technologies. Great, I think we've got two or three more questions and then we'll wrap it up. The next question is, was there a discussion about the relationships between local to continental scale hydrological and terrestrial system models and global scale earth system slash climate models? Yes, we had extensive discussions and basically I think that embedded within our concept of integrated models, we really incorporated those ideas. We did have some discussions and recognized that the USGS is the focus and the focus in our statement of task was on the US per se, that is national. But we had discussions, we recognized that there are a lot of issues that simply can't be done without considering a global context. And so ultimately we didn't include in the highest priority for the USGS the way that the USGS could play the leadership role is can discuss anything to do with global modeling because we think that there are other agencies and other individuals and groups of individuals that would probably be leading that. But we recognize that the USGS will continue to have a role to play in that. Thank you. So I'm gonna combine two questions. Do you think that we have a sufficient baseline of fundamental quality and quantity that we can abandon traditional data collection in favor of lower quality data such as citizen type data sets? Otherwise known as is the gold standard obsolete? We had quite a bit of discussion about what's called the gold standard. We did not, and I don't think anybody on the committee ever suggested that we would abandon the gold standard or the traditional way of collecting data. However, there was a lot of thought to how do we incorporate other data? Citizen, the citizen science concept which we think is quite important, quite a new development. And how do we make it possible for the data that's perhaps not of the gold standard to be used by people incorporated into studies? So we did have quite a bit of discussion about that. We did not recommend abandoning the gold standard but we do speak to using the gold standard along with other types of data through perhaps some kind of data coding so that all data sets can be used together and weighted appropriately. Thank you, and for our last question, in responding to needs, what balance do we need in relation to the USGS role relative to the role of the states or of other actors, for example? The, there certainly is a balance needed. We, the committee particularly discussed this within the context of the really, as I said, what I call the robust cooperative program where the USGS really interacts very much with states and with other actors. And this is gonna continue to be important in the future and I think that the trick will be to really try to get to a position where the important questions do get addressed even if the important questions cross let's say state boundaries and yet may not be a fully national issue to address at a high priority. So we think that the collaboration of the USGS with, particularly with states but with other players as well, there are a lot of non-governmental agencies that really depend on the USGS and we think that that will continue to be important in the future, very important. So we're approaching the end of the hour. I wanted to thank George and Ken again for their discussion of the future water priorities report. I wanted to thank the committee members, many of whom are on the webinar with us for all of their hard work during this time. And I wanted to thank each of you for your engagement on the webinar. The presentation and the audio recording from today's webinar will be posted on the Water Science and Technology Board website within the next week or two. The final slide here provides some information on how to access the report. And if you have any further questions, please contact me, Deb Glickson. I'll be happy to forward your question to the appropriate person. Thank you again for all of your engagement and goodbye.