 So, I've got a question here which has come in for Jared. So, Jared, if you're ready to answer that, that would be great. Sure. Given the good outlook for the season, do you imagine allocations will rise fairly rapidly this year? And I presume by this year that's looking at 20, 21, 40 years. Yeah. So, it's a very good question and it's all dependent on exactly how much rainfall and inflows that you get. So, what is clear that we need to recover the volume of water sitting in storage. Like if you look back at where we went to this year, we had, I think about storages in 2019-20, peaked at around about 4,100 gigalitres and around that time was when we got to 100% allocation. So you've got to have quite reasonable volumes of water flowing into the storages this year. Just because we look at the rainfall outlook and we're going, well, 70 to 80% chance of exceeding median rainfall, that doesn't directly translate to median inflows either. So, we need to recognise that some areas of the catchments, albeit they are wetting up, still require some reasonable rainfall before you get them really primed for future inflows and storages. But certainly if you had a really wet conditions, allocations can improve quite quickly. I've got a second one here for you, Jared, as well, if I can, seeing as you're on the mic. Sure. Why has the water flow through the Barma Choke been reduced from what it was in the late 1980s and 90s is the question, and as a follow-on statement, I thought the water flow was around 2,000 mL per day, now seems to be around 8 to 10,000 mL per day. Okay. Yep. So with the Barma Choke, so that's a natural constriction in the River Murray. So that's around the Barma Miller Forest area for people that may not know where the Barma Choke is, and what has happened over time is there's been a gradual reduction to the capacity through the choke. Going back probably, you know, 20 to 30 years ago, the capacity was more like around about 12,000 megs a day, 11 and a half, 12,000 megs a day in that range. But what has been clear over time that that capacity has been eroded now. Some of the recent survey work done up there has certainly shown quite large deposits of silt and sand within the Barma Choke, which is reducing the capacity of the Barma Choke to deliver volumes of water, which you could have delivered 20 to 30 years ago. So that's one issue which is certainly being actively looked at by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and how flows through the Barma Choke can be managed. And there's options being investigated to improve the capacity of the choke. So there's been put in place this year to, importantly for people to note, to transfer water around the choke due to that reducing capacity at the Barma Choke. Thanks, Jared. I've got a question here on the desalination plan. I don't know, Dan Jordan, if this is one for you. So the question is, is the desalination plan in Adelaide forecast to be running at 100% capacity indefinitely given the low forecast inflows? Yeah, thanks, Rod. It was probably too soon to give a strong statement on that point. It really depends on how water availability improves across here and when it improves. But in general terms, any decision, I guess, on whether to run the plan on is a commercial one for SA Water, operating within the framework set up under the River Murray Water Allocation Plan. So given SA Water has access to multiple sources for Adelaide, including desal, the current WAP already sets out a process whereby, I guess, Adelaide has had a cut of 50 gigs in dry years. And the benefit to irrigators from this cut is basically realized when Entitled reaches 850 gigs and a full 8 percentage point of benefit is realized as Entitled reaches 900 gigalitres in a year. So anything above that kind of a cut to Adelaide and boost to irrigators is really a political call for government outside of the WAP process. Noting that, I guess, last year people would know that the government reached agreement with the Commonwealth Government around the so-called Water for Flutter program, which released water on the back of detail production in 1920. And that particular agreement is being reviewed as we speak, and we should have an incomplete review process in the coming months. So in some ways that will also be a factor in how the Adelaide plan is deployed and for what purpose in the year ahead. Okay, thanks very much, Dan. I've had a question on the slides come in saying can we make them any bigger? Some of them are a little hard to read. So I think I can respond to that one. If it is possible on your screen, I understand if you click on the slides to make them a bit bigger. But we will also be making the webinar available probably sometime mid next week, I think, at this stage. And in doing that, we'll endeavour to make sure that everything is able to be large enough to be seen on the screen. I've had another question come in around water brokers. And what is the AWBA? So I'm probably best placed to field that one at this stage. So the Australian Water Brokers Association and many of the water brokers members or affiliate members of the Water Brokers Association. And they have some really good codes of practice and the like to ensure that brokers are doing the right thing by you as a market participant. So I always fall in the camp of encouraging you to work with AWBA member brokers because I know that they're subject to their code of practice. I've got another question here that I think is one for you, Jared. And what is the volume of water that the environmental water holder is taking from storage at this point in time? So that's a very good question. And it's a question we often get. So the environmental water holders, they obviously hold the same class of entitlements that other people hold. So in South Australia, it's class three. They hold Victorian, Murray, Higher Liability Water Share and Simli and Nisa. So environmental water holders, they will always look at carrying over certain amounts of water in between years, but they have certainly delivered quite reasonable volumes of water. This year I don't have those exact numbers in front of me, but certainly with the information that we provide out, we can work with the environmental water holders and get some information from them around how much water they have leased this year and how much they're looking at carrying over into the following year. They certainly put a lot of information already out there in the public domain. I know on the Chew for the Environmental Water Office website they have portfolio statements available on their website that shows how much water they have used so far. So I don't have the exact numbers on me, but I'll be happy to help facilitate getting that information for people. Fantastic. Thanks, Jared. This is great. There's a lot of questions coming in. So thank you guys for raising these questions, trying to work our way through as many of them as they pop up on the screen in front of me as we go. Two-part question. I'll take the first half of it, and maybe someone from Perse could help me out with the other half of it, maybe Kim. So why is the price of water skyrocketing is the first part of it. And then the second part is what support is available for small growers that have been impacted by drought and these high prices? Well, look, as I've just talked through in the presentation, what happened in 1920 was actually very similar to what we witnessed in the Millennium drought. We've constrained allocation availability across the southern basin. Basically, we saw prices go up as it moved up price points for different crop types. And fortunately, at the back end of this year, with some renewed optimism around water availability and soil moisture levels, the market has backed away. But undoubtedly, it does make it difficult for people because it's very hard to budget on the sort of prices that have been witnessed in the market. But I would encourage people to be thinking about that way for next water year unless there's a real turn in terms of water availability. If I can then maybe Kim Walton, sorry, Walton, are you in a position to respond to the second half of that question? Yeah, thanks, Rod. There's a range of support and initiative measures available to help people through dry conditions and drought administered by Perza. The services are available on our website, which is one of the resources that you can access through this webinar, and encourage people to follow that through. Also, you can access all of our services through our drought hotline, which is 1-800-931-314. The support available ranges from family and business support, which a lot of people in the Riverland would be familiar with as recently as the support offered through the recent hail storm back in November. There's health and well-being, farm advice, also the Royal Financial Counseling Service that's well known to a lot of people in the region. There's other community support and financial assistance measures, so there's a range of them available at the moment, and again, I'd encourage anybody to access the resources available in this webinar or contact our drought hotline through 1-800-931-314 or send us an email and we'll provide that information. So thanks. No problems. Thank you, Kim. So I've got another one here. When... I think this is going to huge in your presentation. When referencing your allocation probability table for FY20, how did we get 100% allocations in SA under dry inflows? Yep. So, yeah, it's a very good question. So when we put out some of the early forecasts it was showing there was, you know, under that very dry sequence we might get to, you know, there was a 90% chance of getting the most 80% allocation. So it's important to note that the way in which the water availability assistance work, there's a lot of conservatism built into that, which that conservatism reduces the risk of potentially going backwards. So we go back to 2006, 2007, where we had inflows that were about 50% of the previous lowest minimum inflow on record. We started that year on... 60% went back to 60%. So we build that conservatism in to ensure that we are moving forward. Now, some of those numbers are, you know, worse than what has ever been translated in terms of historical observations. So there's very, very conservative numbers. Now, as you get, you know, as the rainfall starts to occur we saw the inflows in the early part of last year being July, August and September start to improve. And then, so that obviously improved water resource availability. We have other inputs like snowy hydro inflows into him. They start off with a really conservative number. Those inflows then ramp up over time. Also, the NDBA sets aside a budget for transmission losses. So a specific volume of water is set aside to cover off on the monthly transmission losses now. Some months where you get reasonable rainfall over a widespread link of the river Murray system that rainfall offsets that part of that loss requirement for that month. So then the Murray-Darling Basin Authority can advise us that we have had an improvement due to direct rainfall on the river offsetting losses. So that's why I said this stuff is quite complex. It's not just about exactly what flows into storage. It's also about when the rain, you know, hits the river basically from him downwards to the South Australian border. You can get net gains due to lower evaporation and lower transmission losses due to that direct rainfall on the river. But again, we're putting out these very conservative forecasts. They get updated each month and will provide, as we did last year, quite comprehensive information each month about how everything is tracking. So again, you need to realise those forecasts will change each month as water availability improves. Thanks, Rod. But just Garrod, picking up on that point. So you are inherently erring on the conservative side in this so that irrigators and other water users can plan on that basis, I take it. That's correct. So part of the feedback from industry in the past has been they never want to go backwards. So to be in that situation of never having to go backwards, like what happened in 2006 or 2007, we are being quite conservative by nature. So again, that's one of the factors that people need to keep in the back of your mind. Very conservative forecast, worst case scenario type, inflows which are built into the assessment. So when you get improved rainfall conditions, you get the improved inflow conditions. Some months you'll have those lower losses, snowy hydra can push more water out at periods of time. So you sort of add all of those factors into the mix and then we end up with improved water availability. So at the start of the year, always very conservative numbers and we'd be happy to, you know, put a... when we put out these forecasts, put like a tracking line in there as well so people can see how the actual improvements are tracking against those scenarios and that gives people, you know, I guess further insight into what scenario they may want to implement their planning around. Perfect. Thanks, Jared. In the context of those announcements on available allocation, I've got a question here around, are you going to be putting out sort of simple fact sheets as well as the more comprehensive information? So what's it going to look like on the 15th of April? Yeah, absolutely. So we will be putting out... an announcement around the minimum opening allocation on the 15th of April. We'll also be putting out water availability statements similar to what we have done in 2019-20 until we've reached that 100% allocation. We're also working on a number of frequently asked question documents here internally where more information will be put together and where that information will be made available. And again, we'll have some contact details there. So if people don't quite understand what we're saying in those FAQs or have further questions, again, people are encouraged to get in contact with us and pick our brains. I've got a few questions that look like they're coming through in relation to the carryover policy. So some questions around other rules changing. I have decisions being made in terms of carryover and spill implications of it and the like. I wonder if... is that Jared or you in a position to talk to what's happening in that space or is that... Dan and I might... Yeah, Dan and I might do a tag team. Yeah, thanks, Rod. Look, I guess just the quick answer on that one is that I guess the entering board has consulted on a proposal to change or modify the current carryover policy. That's still under formal consideration by the government and we'll have an answer for that for next week. At the same time, we'll make our first allegation announcement. So we've engaged in history around that question and the proposal that people would probably know this already was to basically modify the current policy so that if the 100% limit was reached in terms of the sum of allocations in carryover and under current rules, any voting above that is lost. There would be scope potentially if that rule change is made and agreed to in the coming week to have that lost forward are carried over into a following year if that year was also a dry year in which carryover was triggered. So that particular decision is still under consideration by government and we'll have an answer for that for next week. We'll make the announcement on the 15th. Thanks, Dan and Jarrod, did you want to add to that? Yeah, Dan's pretty much covered everything. So in terms of carryover for next year, there was a question here around isn't carryover additional to your 100% allocation being announced. And that's not mine. Any? Yeah, so basically the answer is no. Under the current rules, it's very clear that 100% is the limit and even the policy it was consulted on by the board in the last sort of several months maintained that limit. So at no time can anyone have more than 100% under the current or proposed rules. That's a very simple reason. I guess people would know that the state has a long-term obligation under the original CAP and now the Basin Plan to manage irrigation utilization at 90% or below. So the current conservative approach to managing allocations can carryover is trying to maintain irrigation use under that 90% limit. That's why industry wanted us to bring in 100% CAP when what was consulted on in previous years. So both under the current policy and the proposed policy, that limit is maintained. And any move away from that limit would effectively put everyone's reliability for allocations at risk because we'd get closer and closer to breaching that 90% usage limit. Thanks, Dan. That's great. And for mine a clear explanation as to where it's at and there was obviously a few questions coming in on that from across the participants in the webinar. Thank you.