 Thank you all for coming back in now. I'm holding my breath. Did we all lose our steam and What do we have enough coffee? We can keep the conversation going. I guess we'll find out by by seeing show of hands What kind of questions did we come up with while we're out there? We've got our panel back here and we really want to be in a position to Not necessarily stand up here and say here are the answers because we don't have the answers We can give you all tools we can give you the benefit of our research We can give you guys what's happening down at URI, but as I said in answer to a question early this afternoon this morning You're the frontline defense out there Land use is a local prerogative and like it or not. Unfortunately, you guys are on the front line So how can we help you out? So ask away. We've got some great Lawsons, yes, ma'am That I've looked into that somewhat moving forward with my research and some of it spelled out by statutory obligations maintaining a road the highway is controlled by the statute and to abandon that you have to hold a public hearing So on so forth and what's interesting about that is in the cases that exist so far the duty to notify the parties that have had standing to challenge Town is Holding up road infrastructure have been people that up on the section of road Hasn't yet been case law looking at a section of road That's necessary for people downstream to gain access to the house So that's still an area that hasn't been developed in the case law before The flooding took place because the backfilling of the storm drain, and I'm curious about Jenny that seems to write up your ally because that's an affirmative duty once you build it There's more than one picture that showed cars under water, so you know clearly that's that's a problem So is your question if your storm drain is making the problem worse? Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly the situation that I was getting at in my presentation that if you had never built the storm drain there You could maybe argue this is you know more an act of God something beyond the city's control But once you build the storm drain if it's making the flooding worse And I think there's a much stronger argument for a plaintiff to say the city needed to do something to Expand the system or do something else to try to ameliorate the flooding So your question about it being ten million dollars or whatever cost it would be I think that gets to the breach question You know where you have to start to think about what are your resources? What else might that ten million go to are there other things you could do that are more cost effective? And what kind of damage would you be preventing by spending the ten million if you're going to prevent way more damage than that Then maybe it's you know, you should do it. So it is very fact specific I don't have I can't obviously predict how a specific case would turn out But I think all of those factors would be relevant And yeah to the extent that you can do things that are cheaper It wouldn't necessarily mean expanding the storm system itself right if there are more indirect ways you can prevent the flooding Through I think in the Chicago case. They said there should have been sandbags put in place when they knew the storm was coming You know there are other things, but it's a good question. I mean those are exactly the things you should be thinking about Or maybe perhaps I can make sure Yeah, I mean my question is all right we're doing this all the time every new subdivision so we're getting drainage easements and Nowadays they're likely to be flowing into swales rather than storm drains But either way we're getting drainage easements that allow us to drain our roads onto your private property And that's what they're for for their purpose of draining the water and we don't specify Not more than so many gallons per minute or something. We just have an open-ended drainage easement So if the weather is getting worse and the flooding is getting worse and we're draining more water Is there really any municipal liability if we have an easement to give us a as long as we don't tie in more Roadway to it as long as it's just God that's bringing more water if it's just more climate that way Why would there be liability for the town? Because I think the town by creating that storm drain in the first place has created a dangerous condition Despite the fact that that condition didn't exist when the town first built the storm drain It's now becoming a dangerous condition because of increased precipitation and flood conditions in general So I think based on what I've seen both in Rhode Island and elsewhere the way the waivers of immunity are written in the way the statutes define Duty easily be read into that it doesn't say that there's a dangerous condition at the time The infrastructure was built says there's a dangerous condition that the city knows about created and failed to warn or remedy Right, so even if that condition was created later I mean this happens like with sidewalks. There's a crack in the sidewalk It wasn't built that way in first place it happened later, but I'm not talking about a failure in design I'm not talking about right, you know I understand if we've got the storm drain and it gets clogged up and it backs up or if it cracks and Stuff like that, but let's say it's functioning just fine. It's just carrying more water Then it It's handling it was built to oversized capacity anyway, so it's still handling it It's just flowing more water Right, but it's channeling more water into a place and it's causing property damage because of that Sure, this this swale which used to only have water in it This swale which used to be the tension pond ends up becoming a retention pond because there's so much water I Mean I think that's look at the st. Bernard parish case right they built this canal to be 500 meters it became 1500 and it's channeling way more water Right, I mean it's somewhat analogous to what you're saying I think that the city the Army Corps of Engineers the federal government didn't cause the storm They didn't cut nobody maybe even you could argue they shouldn't have predicted it But that channel that canal caused the water to go where it did the water was going to come anyway But it the liability came from the failure to maintain The canal at the designated width So like in your analogy with the drainage thing if we had a swell and the swell got much bigger than right Our liability is we failed to maintain our drainage thing But Yeah, I Think it's a risk. Yeah, it's not black and white It's definitely it depends on the facts It depends on all of these things how much how much has precipitation increased since you built it How much is the capacity is it properly maintained all of that? But I think that's definitely something that would open you up to some risk of liability Yeah, it seems it seems to me that what we're seeing here And I've heard it this morning. I heard this afternoon is what I think someone said it best a few minutes ago What used to be an act of God which was a complete shield is now becoming a active government perhaps because of sea level rise and because of all this information we have and does that whole idea of Forsee ability Raised to the level of an affirmative duty We don't have seen any courts have said that yet And I know there's a lot of folks out there to saying their cities and towns are recalcitrant or whatever We don't they don't want to hear about telling people know they don't want to hear about tearing houses down They don't want to hear about regulations that are not going to allow building it after a storm but if the courts are going in this direction and Dries he's heard from John and other speakers. We're seeing that if it becomes an affirmative duty Where you all we all your municipalities your frontline folks have to start taking into consideration? That sea level is rising and you have to do something about that and if not you're going to be liable Then then you could something's gonna have to be done and that's why we here We want to share with you our ideas But you what you need to give us the feedback so we can implement it what Mike there's a woman up here I had a question hand up before you To answer your question the experts yes called the beach stamp team And that's what they've been trying to do for a couple of years now and with this outreach to cities and towns this meeting included We're trying to do that. We're trying to educate you folks We're trying to say we've got this wealth of knowledge and now with the lawyers you guys Voicing your opinions and chiming in as to how you'd like to use some of this information to best defend a potential cause of action in the future Maybe we can come up with some kind of technical Assistance program or some kind of legislative package that'll give you the leg of the legal support that you need So don't doesn't have to fly all these experts out They still have to fly them out Mike There's a difference between taking and tort and you know when I hear about this case out of Louisiana St. Bernard Parish versus and the Miff or Mizz Riv go project and I hear about Clearing to maintain and channeling the borders. Oh, that's negligence. It is okay That's not taking stuff and we you know, I don't know anything But what troubles me about that case Is it so much that the judge might hold it there's liabilities? But that the judge would hold it for speaking He's that completely obliterates the distinction which must be there between taking and If there is liability on the government there, I think it's a terrible stretch against it. It should be Under a tort theory that the government somehow neglected its duty say well, what there is a big Bible I think it makes it too big Number one is a practical difference under tort. Yeah, you're tort claims that You know, you have no interest now. I know All kinds of you know, technical Person but But the second thing is that it really creates a Vagueness to the whole taking stock such as some soon old work Absolutely, if you fall on the sidewalk because the city hasn't maintained the sidewalk because it's a crack and you know Is that an invasion of property Or it's a tort, you know, it's like a water wax or anything like that and if you happen to tear your overcoat Which is property in the course of falling the cycle is that all of a sudden conversion If that's the case, then you've just constitutionalized Every possible claim that there might be against the government and that's a very dangerous thing I think that's a very stupid observation for several points one To that is what I was going to talk about if I got to my slideshow and basically what happened here is that The best say for not parish district court case John down there took your guidance from the United States Supreme Court in the Arkansas case And if you read this five prong test the US Supreme Court promulgated in the Arkansas case, you'll see that smacks of a Constitutional talk if you will it's stable just but it's under the guidance of a taking and that's where The sacred line about a Washington decided to go with the same so a lot of that can't be blamed upon The district court doesn't go on but a lot of it goes to the Supreme Court You're not the only person who holds that opinion for sure. I think John ecchia very it's ever Yeah, oh, I have no idea. I've only seen it in right. I think he worked with us appellate He wrote on his blog the same thing basically that you just said and you know It's only one or two cases that have done this We don't know they may appeal and lose right this could be the end, but yeah, I agree with you a hundred percent It's blurring that line definitely It did have the notion of the flow Which is the right to flood the land of another which was a recognized common law We have an interest in property that you were arguing But a guy ripped his overcoat. We're CPO And I would say that one time event with Canal channels of waters and apples victims, you know, that's more like I mean, I don't know if I would draw the distinction about it being a one-time event I think though St. Farn, St. Bernard Parish did go a lot further than Arkansas fishing game because Arkansas fishing game basically held that Temporary flooding caused by a government right up there. Yeah That the temporary flooding is not Categorially exempt from taking analysis, right? But I think in that case it was a more affirmative government action with Right, but I would say even if they just flooded it once still it's the government saying we're opening this dam Whereas in St. Bernard Parish there wasn't a moment at which the government did something and caused the flooding So I agree with you that and I think it's questionable Can I just add on the Arkansas case too because that case just said that Those allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and that the court was not going to reach these other issues of foreseeability of The length of period of time and it just it threw those out there But it just said for purposes of a motion to dismiss and and and Justice Ginsburg wrote that decision said I want to be perfectly clear this is all we're doing here today and and you know Actually spent a whole lot of time that decision saying don't take things in a decision out of context And it says something the number one rule of statutory and case law interpretations read on And so they really went out of their way to say these are things we're talking about what we're not deciding Just that and I think the judge in St. Bernard Parish took that and ran a long way Just to bring it back to what I was a case You had a case someone's over Presentation and it was like somebody with an H Versus how Lincoln and there is another case somebody in nature And Harris had a Lincoln the town had sewage pumping stations stacked and you're really drove a neighbor out of their home and We're really kind of go over ready for six people and no problem saying this is like a nuisance or private nuisance type liability You know, and you're liable for the fair amount of value that all And then there was also a case claim She said of course, it's not taking the taking is taking about me. So at least you're a rival And I think we have to insist and and also the There were many people who brought a tort claim in New Orleans as well And they lost because under the federal tort claims act well first They won actually first the Fifth Circuit said yes This is a tort then without real explanation the Fifth Circuit reversed itself and said no This falls into the discretionary function exception to the federal tort claims act So they lost then later they won on the taking so it's not really you know like what you said before it's not meaningless It's not just trading one liability for the other It's questionable whether it's discretionary function actually that's that's a legitimate argument One last question take to try to regulate building or rebuilding a people's property unless the enabling legislation was substantially strengthened and became much more specific and much less gentle at the start. Preferably, I would like to see the state legislature do what they did with EDM and tell towns they're regulating wetlands on top of wetlands. And you can't do that anymore. The states are going to control the state wetlands. Correct, correct. And I think that you guys have all the data, you guys have all the maps, you guys have all the overlays. And I would prefer to see coastal resources management council take control over regulating whether people are going to be able to build or rebuild on paints. We have 39 cities in town. Not all of them are particularly affected by it. But rather than have every city in town try to adopt their own plan or approach to this, I'd rather see the legislature direct CRMC than directly direct EDM. One observation. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Maybe well, then recognize coastal zone and sector to be beyond the no feature, et cetera, et cetera. But what about what's coming down the pipe that introduced the talk about earlier, riverine flooding, and flooding that's coming down the Blackstone Valley, water shift that's going to impact Lincoln, it's going to impact the top, it's going to impact a lot of inland cities. That's nothing to do with stone surrogate, but everything to do with rivers. Those cities in town need the same kind of solid that you guys do. Not sure that you can see the regulatory zone even further than what I already had in such a grand idea, I'm not going to speak for the council in a little while, but I'm just going to say that we transition into Teresa and Julia right now, but I see hands up there, but is it you guys that are coming up? Do you print your turn? Do you print your turn? At your room. At your room. At your room. Thank you. In this last session, last part of the session, thank you everybody for sticking with us all day. This has been a really good discussion, and we're so, as somebody who's been involved in this body, this work for the last three years, and now involved in the beach sample as much as I am, it's so great to be able to talk about these complex topics with knowledgeable people more so than just our smaller team. So, Julia and I wanted to really end the day by asking you all, how can we help you? With all the discussion that we've had today, we really want to know what kind of resources you all need to start to get your municipalities mobilized around this topic. And we just heard one idea. But I just wanted to, and Julia, do you want to add anything to? I think we heard actually a few ideas. So, I was writing them down in that last session, and folks are definitely willing or happy to listen to them again. So, I'll put them down during this session. I thought Jen's comment about having a bank of experts that could be called in for any time that there's a lack of municipal capability at looking at certain permits was a great idea. And that's something we can certainly look into establishing and finding folks to start on. Pam earlier, during a break, brought up the idea that we have our property guide, which has 10 questions that someone may be asking when looking at a specific property and question whether or not we could have a guide like that for legal questions. I thought that's a good way to start off this conversation. If we were to have 10 questions that we really need to ask, 10 legal questions that would be a helpful guide to give to municipalities in thinking through some of these issues, what would those 10 questions be? But I don't want to put in too many ideas. I don't want to hear what you guys have to tell us, and I know Theresa feels the same way. I think Jennifer and John's presentations are very good outline of the type of information that you need to share. Is this type of activity a taking? What circumstances might it be? I think that was very good presentations in the order of that. I would add to that though a little primer for information. And I don't know how you asked these in the form of a question. I would never go with jewellery. See, the other forms of land use law in Rhode Island and then some thumbnails of certain cases specific to Rhode Island. Because there are some quotable quotes like more than a scintilla, less than a compliance. Everyone should know that it's perfectly clear. And those are the types of things that I would ask. Other thoughts, ideas? How many? Yeah, okay. One for one. No, I was just going to say I guess I thought the presentations were great and I'm wondering if they should trickle down to like volunteer board members and how much, because it's a lot of information and you kind of do need to have a little bit of background on this one. Anyway, I'm wondering if like a list of resources or like a beginner's guide or something. And I'm saying this is I'm just going to put any board minds on so I'm thinking of what I would need and maybe like an online module or something that people could do. Self-paced and low fits with those books and workshops. So maybe something like that. Very good. Sir. This isn't so much a comment or a concern, it's more just a general statement as to what kind of a guy was saying earlier. Obviously we all think this is a big issue that we need to plan for. But I think putting down the facts and the municipalities is most likely a big dream. Because people are, we don't have an idea of what mechanisms to do. We don't have many of the mechanisms to start the new mansions that are going on. How are we going to deny some way to develop that problem? Not only that, but from town to town we have different dynamics, different people. There's going to be no consistency. And in fact, it can be ineffective to rely on the independent towns to implement that. I think, more or less what Dono was saying is having one state body create some kind of oral issue or something that we weigh in on these properties that are damaged by storms on certain circumstances and if they extend inland it mimics the same problem. The same way that TDM does with CRMC with their wealth. You know, the same proposal and the same type of thing. I mean, we have TDM permanent septic systems towns have no say in that. That's not a problem, that makes out fine. But I think to be effective it needs to come from one body that has the ability to push that into the consistent across the board. Otherwise, really it's going to be bringing the prayer for hoping to get a town to actually stand up and say, yes, we're going to do it and deal with the ramifications afterwards. I mean, forget about just thinking that you can't build on it. Now you're up to the line. It makes it really hard to see it being federal. Okay, so more state guidance. So along those lines I was thinking of maybe like a long ordinance if you can find, you know, something that you could develop. And I think, you know, REMA does that with the flood zone and the ordinance date. We pretty much have to adopt a verbatim while we can't participate in the political insurance program. So something like that might be good. And I think, you know, as I'm saying that I feel like there's a little bit of I don't want to say a competing mission but, you know, the FEMA regulations come through and they say if you build your house you know, in compliance with these requirements you're good to go. So I sort of feel like it's a little bit of a, you know, in my mind a little bit about maybe a conflict where you're saying on one hand if you build your house according to these requirements you're good to go but, oh wait, I don't really want to build it there at all. So, you know, it'd be interesting to see how those two different thoughts would develop into, you know, one model where there's new parts. In my mind I sort of conflicted about, you know, you've got to have the zoning that says okay in this area you can't build or in this area you can but you have to be certain to stand. I get, I think, you know. How did it capture that conflicting development concepts? I get what you're, I'm picking up what you're throwing down but I'm trying to capture it in a blurb. Well, the second thing so you said, do you want to talk about those ones that are conflicting development? Yeah, I think conflicting development requirements, yeah. Regs? Okay. I don't know if that has come up before with what we're trying to do. FEMA does draw the line with corbizomes and not allowing obstruction of payment. If they do, if you can you're not insurable and you can't handle that. I think maybe in this case that these vulnerable areas are easy to get exacted damage to get treated. Right. The coastal barrier research is at CPRA. CPRA. And those ones are mapped by FEMA but not every time it has those results. So as a component of a lot of ordinance you almost need to have a mapping to determine where and how you should prohibit development or prohibit rebuilding and then the mapping goes into the dot post. The FEMA model. Before you get to a lot of ordinance the state-level, state-enabling has to grant the authority to the communities to zone for this specific purpose. Of course, what is said can be about that better if it's an authorization, it's a delegation of that police power. But to get that to Jason's point, I believe what he was trying to say is we're more than happy to let the state do the regulation. And the state take charge of that. This way it's not in the vast communities we don't have to worry about whether or not there's a planner or a GIS specialist in the community to actually be able to handle this stuff. But before you get to a lot of ordinance you have to have specific and able legislation. And there is precedent for it, as I said earlier, specifically housing. And we should utilize that as we're going to sell that this is the next step. That on the EC4 their work is probably going to be the way the process is done. My last comment would be that all of us for the municipal level we can work from the bottom up in trying to change minds and improve the culture and the attitudes of the local government but the state agencies really are going to top down and I know you answered other people so you know what kind of concerns those are. But without the elected officials at the state level owning this idea and understanding that they're living up to responsibility there's really not much that we can do. Correct. I just have a question for Robert Ryan but is serious jurisdiction currently based on where the current location of the coastal features even though you know that coastal feature will be changing in the next 20-plus years? That's a great question. Where is it? I mean it's a coastal physiographic feature that is an evolving space but remember that if that moves the jurisdiction moves with it Right, but if you often though CRPC knows with as much certainty as you can have that this is going to change you still only have the ability today so we brought in an application to regulate within X number of feet of coastal feet We have two types of jurisdiction below me water exclusive jurisdiction and we have above me and high water which is concurrent with the Music College 200 feet inland from the coastal coastal physiographic feature that necessary to carry out a meaningful mix I'm just saying that perhaps changing that jurisdiction will attract a definition we have a point and we didn't get to it because of a bunch of ones that listened to you guys and you listened to me my presentation is going to be on that point I'm going to talk a little bit more about how that would work in O'Reilly because the courts have been very silent in O'Reilly on the issue of Abulsion and the theory there is that we know we've litigated the death thank you Mike and Brian and everybody else here the issue of the public trust doctrine being high water and Gibson and me the whole nine yards are being high tidaline we have property property different the doctrine of Abulsion is completely different it's a property law doctrine even though the property owner may be owning it for purposes of a migratory shoreline from which you establish a setback to be taken from the Abulsion line that occurred as of the last storm this was discussed in 7th versus 10th in Texas and for other cases it's something that I think has some teeth and I'll gladly talk to you about Brian when I talk to Brian because 7th Madison and some of the case law seems to support the idea of this whole common law theory of Abulsion where a property owner has a reasonable rate of law follow back to the original timeline kind of may not be really my goal the CRC jurisdiction simply man made law they don't change it without having to stick to a scientific no this is a legal principle because what you don't want to do is start to run a file for any public trust document property life that the Supreme Court has already spoken on that you don't want to get into a company TV you want to get into a more property law CRC could say CRC now has jurisdiction within all areas where mapping shows in a 5 foot C level rise would affect that area Other ideas other thoughts I think so it would be helpful Is there been any buzz on the street in any municipalities of legal challenges related to storm events past or more recent this has been going back and forth on the regulatory plan part of what we're trying to provide the cities and towns which I discussed a little bit is infrastructure fuels development and the cities and towns controlling the infrastructure and what gets repaired and rebuilt that is going to have some sort of file on development I think that is an area where the cities and towns can play a great role I think it comes from what I've realized where they expand the infrastructure or where they don't expand the infrastructure in terms of these events I just wanted to say in keeping with some of the things that are sort of underlying on the education front and getting the message across the municipalities the EC4 advisory board is working on that specific thing trying to do basically what we're doing here today specifically to planning boards zoning boards and sort of get the topic before them so they know what questions to at least be considering so it's not really buzz on the street about legal issues but it's something that is being worked on at a different level so stay tuned I guess it's a topic that's being knocked around a lot Oh, yeah Bill, about that I agree education to the municipal boards and like officials but also to have materials that go along with that because I know on my level I see so much better work so I could have a board that's heard the whole thing 10 times over and then 6 months from now I've been tired of using that basis if I had something I could give them to help them prepare for the to sit on these boards and make these decisions I think the online module that could be made available to view at your leisure is probably a pretty effective way to get the information out there make it bite-sized and just hope that they get to pick the way out a little bit with Chris's question You asked about cases I've not heard of any litigation going on right now but I did plan to speak a little bit to um matters that are concerned to planning boards they're starting to look at this stuff and say how are we going to use this how is it relevant to our specific discussion when we see a development for subject and application and I think one of the areas that needs to have help in is how to apply this stuff it's like you have this tool how do you apply it your monthly review process and review process is very powerful for planning it's one of the two major tools they have in the review process and that's what it is and there's standards and there's performance standards that apply as well as specific procedures and they can gain a lot of credibility by applying those procedures and those standards over and over and over again the exact same way so provided the process is the place and the standards are the place a planning board should feel secure in the decision that they're making and the other thing is they are a technical liability as long as they're doing their job as a technical liability and there's an extensive real process and most of the time you avoid those questions and takings and in those situations if you simply follow the process to the lab I would suggest that I did this predictable process and there's regulations in place that you apply barely across the board to everybody is one of the best defense mechanisms for community we'll have to add to our checklist you better ask for more information of course then there'll probably be legislation he had one he couldn't add more things to our checklist he successfully defeated that one so that's why I said last year with regards to we've been talking about planning boards and planning boards at the conservation commission I know that there's no requirement for training but I believe it is that something that needs to be this is only one small part of your picture but is that something that needs to be put into zoning a name or other legislation I think the landing training club doesn't end talking about that for years and pushing it and always on our minds and we want to do something about it but it's just what's the best but it's not it was a 25 years ago and it's only going to be able to act in 1991 we're going to have a discussion again in the context of the land development subject because it is a process idea is there another panel here I think I might end up but I mean I think there's some sort of a case study on physical impacts economic impact seems like everything today is tied to a positive economic so that might help so there is a house study commission on the economic impact economic risk due to sea level rise and coastal hazards is that right what's called anybody an inline flooding yes so Rover, myself, Katelyn and Liz the four of us are here went in front of that commission a few weeks ago and I know there is a call for more economic data and economic analysis to provide that to municipalities but here here there's no plan in place but it's definitely a need that we keep hearing in multiple with multiple audiences thanks for bringing that up what maps and sea level rise maps I think that would really yes I know this say a plan exists if we actually first started to sign up I think I've seen it in a different workshop maybe I've done it where people went out and took blue napkin tape and they went to a neighborhood or an area and they measured what sea level rise will do and they put blue tape on the buildings that's sort of a visual I think it's kind of overwhelming and I think people if you get people to see it and be there and really be there it's a comment that not everybody maybe understands any other final so this idea of requiring permit applicants whether it be at a local level or state level too sort of go through this online module that might be able to be paired up with an online permit application process so right now the state building commissioners office is paired up with 10 communities in a pilot project which is an online building application process so essentially you enter in the information there and you're consistently asked the same information regardless of what community you go into and so maybe as part of that application process they enter all this information and certain maps pop up that show the parcel in relation to seal buys flood zones and erosion hazards and things like that maybe that can be paired up with lots of money so fun to make now we're going to talk about come back to the legal issues here we had a big conversation with some of the some of the municipal officials and some of the legal counsel just wondering to our legal folks how can we reach out to some of your colleagues what is another way to do that is there a consensus is there so right continuing education credits so it would be good to know if you have some suggestions on how to reach a broader audience I think it would be a great place to protect a seminar top of or at least have a and then are there other ways for students to engage so we have this awesome content of law students I'm just wondering how given the parameters of your program are there any other ways that you've done a great job it's been really really wonderful to have him work with us and then we see going out and getting jobs and working firms and forming the rest of us that would be another question is there more ways for some of the students to do some internships with municipalities with legal firms to get the word out of the conversation as well great ideas I think we can build off those ideas I know that Teresa and I are planning on sitting down with this document and with our ideas from today to flush out how we as a Rhode Island secret legal program can support this work moving forward and then we'll bring that discussion to the larger Beach Sound team to talk about that if you guys do have opportunities for students please do feel free to contact me and I will get you in touch with the appropriate students or appropriate divisions here at the law school whether it's to have a student work with you for pro bono hours or work for a law fellow program or work as an externship program there's lots of different opportunities there I just want to add that one of the things that we've really focused on coastal resilience and coastal adaptation today we talked a little bit about riverine but one of the things that we're starting to tighten up our messaging and language on is using the word climate change a little less often and focusing more on the hazard because in the work that we did in North Kingstown we call it climate change we really just focus on sea level rise and coastal hazards we didn't talk about drought or excessive heat or food systems that kind of stuff and climate change impacts different sectors of our state so I think that's another thing just to keep in mind as you're having conversations for us to be specific about what aspect of climate change we're tackling at any given time Grover showed that flowchart of our model process for municipalities we had all the arrows keep going up to scope because one of the things we've learned through our municipal work is that any conversation that happened here today too goes in a thousand different directions so it's a challenge to everybody to kind of come back into like what are we really trying to hone in on so that you can be specific and targeted in implementation strategies and not get too diluted diluted and diluted in your mission of what you're trying to tackle at any given time so I just wanted to share that word of caution an inspiration words that work and it was a way to talk the talk and keep consensus building without creating confrontation the third buzz word was that people off thank you impact I think a lot of you know this but there's also a lot of new research and recommendations on how to frame I'm doing a workshop on this which is full if you want me to come to your place of work or your board or any of your buildings to it because I think we all get the background of what is already in people's minds and what they respond to it would be hugely helpful to all of us as we go forward in communicating about this kind of stuff so just let me know if that's something that's it for our day thank you all for coming