 All right, folks, let's get started. I'm going to go real slow here with the introduction so people can settle in. Once again, I think you'll see that, like the first two presenters, we've just got a solid panel here with our last speaker. Professor Jay Famuetti is a hydrologist and a professor of Earth System Science and of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He is on leave from teaching through 2016, probably longer, to serve as senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. In 2013, he was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the Santa Ana region of the California State Water Boards. His research using NASA satellites to track down dwindling global freshwater availability has garnered international attention. And as you'll surely see, he's a skilled communicator and lecturer who's writing, government advising, speaking events, and media appearances are transforming how we look at water both at home and abroad. All you got to do is Google this individual and you'll see that he has appeared as a featured expert and critically acclaimed water documentary, last call at the OASIS and has been covered by, and among other outlets, New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Economist, as well as by 60 minutes Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow. He is a regular contributor to National Geographic, writing currents in The Huffington Post. He is currently working on a book on groundwater depletion and immersion threats to the global water security. Please help me in welcoming Jay Familletti. Thank you so much. It's great to be here and great to share the stage with Jay and Felicia. Hopefully we'll give you some different perspectives on some of the critical problems that we've been facing. So I don't have many salmon jokes that I don't have any talking salmon. I think that if we're gonna use the sandwich analogy, if Jay's on top, he's like the surface water top of the bun, right? And then Felicia is like the peanut butter and jelly that gives us like the substance, right? Today I'm really gonna talk about the bottom. I'm on the bottom, I'm talking about groundwater, okay? Now it's ironic because I'll be talking mostly about work that we do using satellites. So as some of you know, we've been using a gravity-based satellite, which I'll talk about today, to get a big picture view of what's going on with our groundwater resources. And it's not just in California, it's really around the world. So you can get a flavor, although I think in this particular slide, the color's not great, but you can get a flavor of where I'm gonna go with the color scheme there going from the blue, meaning a lot of water in 2006 or so, and then get it progressively drier throughout the drought period. So I will start off by talking about defining water security. We have a lot of different ways to define that, and I go with a pretty straightforward definition, but we'll loop around at the end of the talk and see how it applies to California. Then we'll talk about what some of the satellites are telling us about. Water availability will focus on California, but then I'll show a few slides that zoom out and look at the rest of the United States and the rest of the globe and what's happening in many of our aquifers. And then what the implications are and try to tie back into some of the policy issues, some issues that we really haven't talked about that much, and I think you'll see a lot of overlap with what both Jay and Felicia have been talking about. Okay, so I'll start off by this definition of water security. And I use one, I mean, there are many. State Department has one, and U.S. Geological Survey has one, a lot of people are defining water security. I wrote a proposal a couple of years ago, and I just wrote down my own definition, which goes something like this, water security. I define it as if a region or a government can provide a reliable supply of potable water, both now and into the future, for that region to meet all of its demands for the various uses, and those various uses can be agriculture, it should be environment. That's my one salmon joke, so I put that one in for you, okay? I just had the bear in there before, so I went this morning and found a bear in a stream eating a salmon. And so if salmon could talk, that salmon would be saying, holy crap. So we have our varying needs, right? And we have to grow food, we have to provide water for the environment, and we have to be stewards, and we have to have water for people. These are some of our neighbors in Porterville, who've been sort of following through the cracks, as well as for economic growth and energy production. And so this is not, as Felicia said, this is not a sort of us versus them, in fact, I will admit that while she was speaking, I was eating almonds, okay? I'll share that with you. So anyway, now the other definitions are important too, because they deal with some of the things that Jay was talking about, and Felicia was talking about. So how are we gonna be dealing with these extremes? How are we gonna be managing water? And Jay's point about going from very dry conditions to very wet conditions shows up very well in our data, and I'll show that to you. So these are challenges that are part of, you know, water management is part of water security. And there's the terrorism threat now too, that we have to talk about. So in the State Department definition, there's discussion of protecting water supplies against terrorist threats. So it's a different world that we live in, now more than ever, had to get that out there. And so that's all part of our thinking when it comes to water security. So what are the satellites telling us about water availability? So those of you who've heard me speak before know that this particular satellite mission, which is called GRACE, the Sense for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, has really transformed the way that we look at freshwater availability at large scales. It was launched in 2002, excuse me, just a second while I reorient myself. So it was launched in 2002. It's composed of these two satellites that are not very big. They're each about the size of maybe a couple of those, one and a half of those tables and maybe double the width and one and a half the length. So they're not particularly big. They fly up at 400 kilometers and they're separated by about 200 kilometers. And I like to say that they act like a scale in the sky that helps us understand changes in total water storage, meaning all of the snow and the surface water and the soil moisture and the groundwater together. So it gives us a very holistic look at what's going on. It helps us understand things that are happening at monthly and longer time scales in over large regions, 150,000 square kilometers and greater. So why do we say that it acts like a scale in the sky? This is really the key. So most satellites, when we think about satellites, we think about that street cleaner or whatever it is that's right. We think about satellites that are up in the sky sort of looking at the surface, taking pictures or sensing electromagnetic radiation or bouncing radar beams off the surface, but grace is different and that it's sensing mass changes in the following way. Those two satellites, which again are not very big, orbit around, they follow each other around the poles. And as they fly over a region that has gained water weight, has gained water mass like the Sierras this winter, right? A lot of snow, a lot of extra mass, the region has gained weight, it's gained water weight. That region exerts a greater gravitational tug on the satellites as they orbit over and the satellites get pulled on just a little bit towards the surface as they orbit over the Sierras. So the first one comes in and gets pulled down, second one comes in and gets pulled down, okay? Likewise, when they fly over a region, so that's the same thing that really, if you think about it, I won't go into it here because I haven't quite worked out the analogy, but it's basically the same way a scale works. But when those satellites then fly over a place that's lost water weight like the Central Valley during the last four or five years and actually last century or so, places that lose water weight exert less of a gravitational tug on the satellites and so they float a little bit higher in their orbit as they pass over that region. So the primary measurement that's being made is a measurement of the position of the satellites and by mapping out those positions of the satellites as the orbit around takes about a month to make a complete picture globally. So by keeping track of the position of the satellites, we can map out the regions of the Earth that are gaining or losing water mass on a monthly basis at this resolution of about 150,000 square kilometers, which is about the size of the Sacramento, Simaquin and Tulare Basin. So I'll show you some of those images. It's allowed us to see some things that I think are eye-openers. And the accuracy is one and a half centimeters, which means that the water storage change would have to be sort of the equivalent of one and a half centimeters spread over this area of 150,000 square kilometers, which is pretty incredible when you think about the fact that these satellites are 400 kilometers up in space and they're monitoring changes of a centimeter. Okay, oh yeah, so the satellite was launched in 2002 and it was meant to be a five-year mission. And well, it's 2017, so it's been going for 15 years, and so that's been incredible. Now the batteries are running down. We're only collecting about nine months of data per year for the last couple of years, but help is on the way in terms of what we call a grace follow-on, which we'll launch at the end of the year, a grace follow-on or grace FO. It's the same mission, it's not gonna get us any better resolution than what I just described to you. We call it, in NASA speak, it's called the Climate Continuation Mission, and the justification was these measurements of things like the ice sheets and the groundwater storage changes and ocean mass changes that lead to sea level rise are just too important to stop. So that will be launched at the end of 2017 or early 2018. So we just had our 15th anniversary or 15th year birthday party for Grace and had some celebrations, and so it actually was launched in 2002 on St. Patrick's Day. So we had a hell of a party over at JPL. And so these are some of the, or this was one graphic that was released. So 15 years of grace, two satellites, 137 miles apart, two, whatever, billion, 2.3, 2.4 billion miles traveled. Ice loss measured, 3400 gigatons. So one of the prime achievements of the Grace mission has been monitoring the ice mass losses, right? The melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet which are contributing about three millimeters a year to sea level rise. So 3400 gigatons. A gigaton is a cubic kilometer from Greenland and 1500 from Antarctica. And I converted that to a sea level rise, equivalent of 13.75 millimeters of sea level rise just from these two ice sheets just in the last 15 years. For those of you who don't know, the ice sheet melting is actually accelerating because they're getting to a phase where there's more brittle fracture and rapid fracture and some of the outlet glaciers. So that's not good news. And so I was actually, I was pissed when the ice sheet picture came out and they didn't have a groundwater one. So I made one myself and this is it. So same stuff at the top. The groundwater completion measured 300 trillion gallons of water from the mid-latitude aquifers which I named here and I'll show you in some of the graphics a little bit later. And so if that's not bad enough, they also contribute to sea level rise. And so they've contributed to about three more millimeters of sea level rise. Of course, then we've got the alpine glaciers that are contributing to sea level rise. So we're able to quantify this stuff now in ways that are better than we have previously. Okay, I wanna show you what some of the data look like and I'm going to, I don't like this particular animation that I have so I'm just gonna be very bold. And because I'm a bold person and I'm gonna move this because I also can't see it from down there. But I'm gonna go out of PowerPoint. When I put my preferred animation into PowerPoint, it didn't really run well and I think it's, here it is. I think it's because the resolution is pretty high. So here it is. And so it's not that we sit around and watch animations all day. Some of us look for pictures of talking fish. And... But this is an animation that's gonna show the ups and downs of water storage in California. Basically, over seasonal time scale, started in 2002, right up until the present. So we're gonna look at, really is an animation of this yellow line. And so this is 2002 and then things get a little wetter, 2004, 2005. The first phase of our drought, 2006 to 2010. Little recovery around 2010. Then like the last four or five years had been really bad. And then some of this recovery. So let's take a look at what that looks like. I hope it looks good. Okay, so we're getting wetter now, 2006. First phase of the drought, starting to get a little red, a little bit scary. 2010, 2011, or a little mini El Nino. Here's the epic drought, right? And so, bang, that's... Okay, so that was, that's what I wanted to convey to you. This is a different animation. I'll skip that, but it was that period there in 2015. I'll show you another still image of that. That I think really expresses the situation, the rough situation that we were in. Okay, so here's the time series. So this is the time series of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Tulare Lake Basin shown. It's outlined over there. You can see it in the upper, you can see it in the upper right. And Central Valley is shown in blue. So what are we really looking at? We're looking at the ups and downs of total water storage from grace on a monthly basis. Going back to 2002, right up until January of this year. So wet season, dry season, right? Winter, here's the growing season. Then we get into the fall. This is by November. So really we're looking at sort of peaks in March and troughs in November. So right, we've got that uphill climb there up to 2006, first phase of the drought, little mini El Nino, and then the real plummet that happened over the last few years and then the recovery. So we're getting information that we've never had before. These are some outtakes from that animation. So looking at the dry seasons, getting drier through the years. Here's the, this is the sort of crescendo that I tried to show you in that other animation. So this was around the summer of 2015, going into the fall. So that's probably, I think when things were at their worst and Felicia was talking about panic and that's what was happening. So we can see some other things too. We can start to quantify with numbers in millions of acre feet or cubic kilometers or whatever your favorite units are. How much water California has been losing or gaining in these different periods. So that period from 2011 to 2015, we were losing about 15 to 20 cubic kilometers of water per year, about two thirds of which were from groundwater. We could really look over that period of 2006, going back to 2006 and say that the drought was really a 10 year, nine or 10 year drought. And 2010, 2011 was just a sort of little blip. Really, from 2002 to through about the end of 2015, we've been losing water. And then we've got this little uphill here recovery, which is important for a couple of reasons. And so Jay talked about it, Felicia talked about it. It sort of gets to, in this timeframe from here to here, we've gone from basically the driest ever, right? The lowest ever water storage to probably the greatest ever water storage, okay? So that points to, we can quantify some of these things, we can check them against some of the other numbers to make sure they make sense. We can also understand, is this gonna help us with groundwater replenishment or not? And the answer is probably no. Is the drought over? Well, yeah, the drought's probably over. But what we have to come to terms with is the fact that we actually use more water than is available to us on an annual renewable basis. So we use it to grow food. Again, okay, this is not us versus them, I eat salmon too, by the way. I was sitting over there eating my almonds. So we just have to come to terms with how we're using our water in California and how we wanna allocate it. And scientists like myself and Jay, I think the burden is on us to provide better tools, to give to decision makers, to give them science-based options. So there's a message here in this time series because what I expect is basically just another, just like we see a drop here and a drop here. This is gonna flop over and my guess is we're gonna see another continued downward trend here in the data. And so luckily we have this other satellite, the grace follow on mission coming along to help us understand that. And the reason I say that is because of the groundwater, okay? And so when Jay said we only dropped whatever 30% of our water supply or something like that or maybe there's only 30% less. I'm not sure you were including groundwater in there. And so from my, and we can talk about it in the panel. And so from my perspective, the reason we didn't have, well, I know, I mean, and we all know the reason that we didn't have much of an economic impact on agricultural productivity is because we use groundwater, right? We're statewide using two thirds of the state water supply was coming from groundwater during the drought period. So basically we're stealing money from the bank, right? And using it to fuel agriculture. So, you know, that food production that we do in California exceeds, right? Our water availability. So what we really face is chronic water scarcity. From a security perspective, we don't really have enough water to do all the things that we wanna do. What we do for now, but we're showing the signs of the sort of house of cards, meaning the subsidence and the falling water table which I'll show you and the depleting streams. So groundwater, as many of you know, but some people don't. So don't be offended as I read this slide to you. Groundwater is the water that's stored underground in aquifers in these blue layers here that are soil or rock units. It is the primary water source for about a third of the global population. It provides almost half of the water for irrigation. And in many cases is not renewable, especially in these deeper layers. Those ones that are close to the surface can be recharged although we typically use more than the replenishment rate. And the ones that are deeper are just, you know, just take a lot longer to recharge like thousands and tens of thousands of years. So we've been burning through this groundwater. As you can see from this chart that combines USGS data shown in red and our grace estimate of groundwater depletion in green goes back to 1962. The colors in the background represent whether we have a wet period. And I need to update the chart and put in a nice dark blue line here. So wet period, the tans, the darker tan are dry periods or droughts. And the colors in between are moderately wet to moderately dry. So the message of this slide is at least twofold. One of course is the continued trend, right? Continued downward trend. So average water table depth in the central valley is somewhere around 2,500 feet, right? This is the problem, right? Because the wells, thousands of wells are going dry and it costs $250,000 to drill a well that's 2,500 feet deep and not everybody, most people can't afford that. And there's a wait now that's over a year long. So we're headed towards the bottom. Of course we know that there's subsidence which I'll show you in some of the next slides. But the other one sort of has to do with this very wet period and the overall replenishment. I mean what we see here is very clear. By the way, the full story here is double this figure. So there's the other half of this chart which really goes back to 1932 and it's the same thing to the 1930s. So we use a lot during dry periods and we only get modest recovery during wet periods, even the wettest periods, okay? Big drop during dry periods, little recovery, big drop, okay? So that's our history. Will the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act change that? We'll talk about that a little bit later. So we've got a problem here and it's been exposed. We knew it, the satellite data helped us understand it a little bit more. The data that I'm gonna show you now are not graced data, they're radar data. And we're gonna talk about subsidence for a little bit. So here's this famous Joe Poll and USGS scientist picture that Felicia showed. He's standing next to a telephone pole in the San Joaquin Valley with a telephone pole that has the 1923 sign at the top and the 1977 sign at the bottom and that's where the ground was in 1923 versus 1977 when the picture was taken. So there's subsidence there that's happening at about a foot per year. I'd like to compare subsidence to the deflation of a tire, right? You let the air of the tire, bicycle tire, car tire, the tire flattens out. You let the water out of some aquifers, in particular those that have clay minerals. Clay minerals are flat. When you take out that water that's pushing them apart, they flatten out, they stack up in the ground subsides. So of course there's damage to infrastructure that may be lying on top of that and a lot of that storage is really unrecoverable. So we talk about recharging and replenishing an artificial managed recharge. We're losing a lot of storage and it is happening at some of the fastest rates ever. I'm gonna show you this little region here shown in the box. And so these are radar images. The top one is showing the cumulative subsidence. How much the ground dropped from 2007 to 2011. So really sort of the first phase of the recent droughts. And the blue colors there correspond to a couple of inches per year, up to about six to eight inches per year. But then we get to 2014. Now we're sort of in the throws, right? Peak drought. This is the growing season of 2014. And we see that those subsidence rates jump up to a foot or more per year, foot and a half per year in some places. Updates. This is from my colleague Tom Farr, by the way. So the updates to this report, which came out in January 2016 and January 2017, showed in these regions subsidence in some of the most rapid spots, there's some of the spots shown in red, was up to a meter per year, okay? So about a quarter of the Central Valley has clay minerals, it's susceptible to this. Okay, so here's Joe. And we're gonna Photoshop him and take him from 1977 to 2015 or so, okay? So he's gone from there to here, all right? So this is what we're dealing with by having not really managed our ground water. You know, Felicia also talked about panic. And I don't know if any of you have seen this, but, and Jay, I thought your comment was a great one. You know, how do you control the behavior of 39 million people with their hands on the faucet, right? Or the spigot or whatever. And so it's a real social science problem, but you know, this is what typically happens. It rains and things are cool, right? And whatever, it hasn't rained in a while, it's drought and yeah, we kind of become aware of it. So we get concerned and then we just kind of freak out. And that's where we were in 2015, at the end of 2015, okay? And then it started raining. And you could see that in that grace figure that I showed you, the drought, you know, the lowest point was at the end of 2015 and then 2016 went up and 2017 went up. And so we've forgotten a lot of this stuff and we can't. And it's the complacency versus the other thing, panic. Was it panic and complacency? Panic and complacency, right? Because we can't do drought planning in a crisis, right? We know this is coming. We're here telling everybody we're messaging up and down the state. So this is an issue and you know, I do a lot of, Tommy mentioned, you know, I do a fair amount of writing and so this is one that I just wrote for the LA Times. Basically the same message, the things that I'm talking about today. We face chronic waters, everything that I'm talking about today, you can read in this op-ed. We use more water than is available to us on an annual renewable basis. We make up the difference in groundwater. The groundwater is disappearing. It won't be there forever. We're showing the signs. That's the same op-ed that I write every year, by the way. That's the secret, okay? The only thing that changes is the date and some of the numbers. Okay, so let's move away from California. We'll come back to it. I just want to show you that, you know, we're not alone here. It's not like we're anomalous in any sense. So Colorado River Basin, basically the same deal. We did a study a couple of years ago. We looked at our Grace Time series from about 2005 to 2013 or so. Again, wet season, dry season, wet season, dry season for the whole basin, but there's a trend. Where's that trend coming from? Is it coming from the water that we're taking out of our reservoirs? What's the role of groundwater here? Is it a problem in the Colorado River Basin too? And so that's what we see here in this lower figure. So we did some research to split apart what was happening in this time period with the surface water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, that's shown in red, and groundwater, right? Which is shown in blue. And, you know, as you know, we manage our surface water heavily and all the interbasin agreements in the Colorado River Basin are about surface water. There's nothing about groundwater, right? And so the groundwater is disappearing at a rate of about six or seven to one. So while we're very focused on the surface water, the groundwater is quietly disappearing, still hasn't appeared in any interbasin discussions. This is a big issue. Let's look now at the United States. The blue, these are trends, okay? These are trends in water storage over the whole Grace period. Blue is getting wetter, red is getting drier. So we see a couple of things. Upper half of the country is getting wetter, lower half is getting drier. And we've got these hotspots. That's the Central Valley. This is the Southern Ogallala. These are our two big food producing regions, right? These are the Alaskan glaciers melting. Okay, so this is a problem, right? Because this is where we grow the bulk of our food. It is not a problem that is just happening in the United States. Now this is our global map. So I took that US map, same US map, but now we're looking globally. Again, red is losing and blue is gaining over the lifetime of Grace, which started in 2002, up to the present. Biggest losers, Greenland and Antarctica. After that, the glaciers, Alaska, Patagonia, and just about all these other red spots are the world's major aquifers, okay? Which are also coincided with our major food producing regions. They're all, over half of the world's major aquifers are past sustainability tipping points. It's not just the Central Valley. And we know that we've done a lot of work on this. We've taken this map, we've mapped it to the maps of aquifers and done stress tests and stress studies and all that. And so this is a paper that came out in 2015 that showed that over half of the world's major aquifers are past sustainability tipping points. And those red and yellow colors are the ones that are being depleted. There is a global change component to this. And it goes like this. And that diagram I showed you of the US fits right into this picture. So climate models suggest that the wet areas will get wetter, wet areas of the tropics and the high latitudes in the Arctic. So climate models suggest that this is gonna happen and that the dry areas will get drier. Okay, here's the IPCC models. We see this every time a new IPCC report comes out. Changes in precipitation by the end of the century. Blue is more precipitation, red is less precipitation. And I used to ask, oh, maybe we're seeing it now. And then we finally wrote the paper where we could say, oh, we're seeing it now. So this is a plot of all the red areas getting drier. And that's after we pull out the groundwater depletion. So this is just the background. And here's the wet areas getting wetter. Okay, so what are the implications? So that's, you know, I don't have to say anything. I got a freebie here, right? Yeah. Okay, chronic water scarcity, right? It's not a drought. So the point there, we have to get into our thinking that droughts come and go, wet seasons come and go, but we just use more water than is available. So it's a persistent state that the drought sort of brings attention to. And, you know, we use most of our water to grow food. It's important for all of us to grasp that there's really no end in sight for this. Sigma, you know, not withstanding, which we can talk about. What are use in our cities may be sustainable. I think that that's true. I think that with, and, you know, the portfolio stuff, just think back to Jay's and Felicia's slides about the portfolios, and, you know, in particular things like sewage recycling and desalination and pricing and, you know, on and on, I think are great. And we showed with our conservation that cities can be fine, even in very tough times. But agriculture, not so much because we're pulling that water out of groundwater. So there are many solutions for metropolitan regions but fewer for agriculture. So, right, here's the portfolio, right? Conservation, efficiency, pricing, innovation. Either we move water to California or we move agriculture out of the state. And that's already happening, right? And so if farms are moving to Idaho and to South Dakota and to Florida and, you know, acres are being felled. We do have the new groundwater legislation, which I'll talk about in a second. But again, it's not just California food production, but, you know, study in California has made me personally understand what's going on around the rest of the world. So it's been a very important case study that food production due to water scarcity is gonna be a really, really major global problem. Another one that we don't talk about very much, given that California grows food for the nation, you know, it might be time for some help from the rest of the nation, right? We do it just by using our groundwater, right? We're paying the price for that agricultural productivity, but mostly California water. But yet this food, right? I mean, we ship this food all over the world. So it's just food for thought. Come on, that was pretty good. Okay, Sigma is a landmark piece of legislation, but I think sustainability is a misnomer in the sense that classic resource sustainability means you don't mind, you don't use more than is replenished, okay? But we do that and the proof is in the drop in groundwater. So really what we may be talking about with Sigma and other states are doing this, so it's not like a crazy comment. Really what we may be talking about is managed depletion, right? If we wanna keep agriculture at today's scale, conversely we may be talking about shrinking agriculture to meet our sustainability goals, but again, it's not sustainability in the classic sense, unless we wanna ditch agriculture. So this is, and this is something that Jay's talked about, the shift away from an agricultural economy. It's just the accounting. Don't shoot me, by the way. Oh no, you won't shoot me because you're the salmon people. And so Sigma is also an opportunity to embrace conjunctive joint management of surface and groundwater together. And this is a chart that I've never published yet, but I've just showed it in talks. And it shows our grace estimate of groundwater storage changes shine in black. And the colors, the red and the blue are the surface water allocations, right? On an annual basis, starting about 2002, 2003, right? So allocations in the Central Valley Project and the California Aqueduct. And so this is a lot of surface water availability, 80% allocation, 90%, 100%. And this was the first phase of the drought and then this is the more recent 2010, 2011, up to 2013 or so. So it's pretty darn clear that when surface water becomes available, we use less groundwater. Groundwater recovers. That's what that block line is showing us. That's the groundwater versus the surface water. When surface water availability decreases, those bars are shrinking, going down to 0%. Then we just hit the groundwater super hard, okay? So this is not rocket science, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that we're actually doing a great job managing water because all we're doing is shifting from the managed part to the unmanaged part. Does that make sense? I hope so. Okay, so the swing from the driest ever to the wettest ever points to really, really incredible challenges with water management. And just like Felicia, what Felicia was talking about, I just wanna have the perfect amount of water. That's like the Goldilocks, right? We want it to be just, right? What the Goldilocks, right? Delivery of water. So we have this, it's very, very complicated to protect against flooding while saving as much water as we possibly can, right? To help us with resiliency during drought. So do we need more storage? Maybe, I don't know. More conservation and efficiency? Absolutely, okay? So everything is on the table. Climate change, by the way, is just not our friend. And I'm working now in an agency where it's not gonna be long before they tell me I can't say climate change. So we're just gonna say that and pissed about 50 times right now. I'm pissed, pissed, pissed, pissed about, well, I can't talk about climate change. It is not our friend, right? We're gonna have so less precipitation overall, right? More of that precipitation falling as rain, which means that we don't get to store it, right? The mountains act like an extra statewide reservoir system that holds millions of acre feet for us. So when we don't have that, we don't have the capacity to store, even if it rained the same amount, we don't have the capacity to store that water. And so by definition, our water supply because of climate change will shrink. So we need to get on it. And so here's a note to me and to other researchers that might be in the room besides Jay, the research community really needs to contribute. I mean, we do a lot of this stuff, but we need to engage a broader swath of our community to get engaged in this problem. This could be one of my last slides. Can NASA help? Well, I hope so. That could be out of a job. No, so we have an immense, so this is the plug part of the talk. We have immense capabilities. People don't realize that the investment of NASA in water is probably greater than all the other agencies. I mean, it's billions of dollars on these satellites. And so it's probably greater than most other agencies. And we would, you know, we finally realized, oh, wouldn't it be nice if like, you know, water managers could actually use the data? So we have these immense capabilities for monitoring and modeling all aspects of the water cycle. But, you know, we do a pretty terrible job of distributing the data. They're inaccessible and, you know, there's no reward for us as scientists to do it. So, you know, people like myself have in headquarters, which is in Washington DC, certainly recognize now the importance of societal relevance. And, you know, we're sort of turned a corner where we know climate change is happening and we can see all these changes with the water cycle. And, okay, let's now make an effort. Now that we've shown that we've got these satellites that work, let's make an effort to get broader uptake by the community. So we launched an office called the Western Water Applications Office that's our logo over there on the right to try to match NASA capabilities to stake all their needs. However, our bandwidth at present is limited. So I don't wanna say to you, we can help you because there's only half a dozen of us and I only spend 25% of my time on this. But, what you can do is express your interest. Let me know if you think that, if you wanna learn more about this work, if you think that what I've talked about today can be of value to you because the more interest we can demonstrate at NASA headquarters, the more we can grow the program. So we need to hear from you and I just talked to some people this morning while I was finishing this slide and was late for my pickup. E-mailing my colleagues saying, hey, we need to have like an expression of interest form on our website so we can document the interest. Because we really do want to be able to be of assistance at the smaller scales at which water management decisions are actually made. And these are just some of the things that I showed you today when I didn't show you some of the aircraft measurements that my colleague Tom Painter makes when he flies around in his, it's called the Airborne Snow Observatory. So I will, I'll finish there. And I think that's my last slide. Yep, thank you. Let's take a few questions for Jay and then we'll get everybody up on stage. So questions right here in the front. So it depends on, so the short answer is we're working on that. And the longer answer is it depends on what kind of data that you're interested in. So we're not really that good at it now but we are really accelerating the development of a website. So within a year, yes. Right now, no. But in part depends on which specific satellite data. None of it's integrated. That's another thing we're doing with this office to put it all in one place. There are some satellite images like soil moisture stuff that you can get at small scale. So we can talk later. But the integrated sort of holistic picture is six to 12 months away. But we are in the trenches on that. Question over there. Yep. Yeah. The man was right for this. Yeah, yeah, well, so that's not a, first of all, it's not a great Greenland image when you flatten it, when you flatten out the map like that it, yeah, it doesn't look great. So the people that actually work, so I don't work on Greenland and Antarctica myself. So if you got slides from the real Greenland people, they would look different. But that being said, there is accumulation in the middle and most of the melting is occurring on the edges. Absolutely. It wasn't a research quality picture, but that is what's happening, probably maybe not as pronounced as what's in my slide. Yes. And from the small scales of local water districts to statewide and federal, it's received pretty well. I mean, I don't think I'm telling anybody anything that they don't know, just sort of pulling it together and putting some numbers on it and putting this sort of, putting it in a comprehensive context. So, you know, it's generally frightening. Actually happening. Oh, it's happening. Yeah, yeah. Now it's too far. It's too far down the, yeah, it's not. There are one satellite that is really on the blocks because of, so, you know, just a few seconds on politics, we expected to get a modest cut in our budget, not the cutting of NASA Earth Sciences, like we heard in the news. We expected to go from 19.3 to 19.1 billion total NASA, you know, including all the space stuff. But we actually got an increase. But one satellite that may not make it is a CO2 satellite. It's called OCO3. And I think everybody in that community saw that coming. They actually have one that's orbiting right now so they're not like dying or anything. But their future, you know, their grace follow on may just be a few years ahead. All right, let's thank Jay for his presentation.