Episode 17: The Human Right to Drinking Water & SGMA
“We actually haven’t had that conversation about sustainable for whom, what does sustainable mean? And when I think about SGMA working better in the future, it looks like us having that conversation.”
darcy bostic & kristin dobbin
A conversation with researchers Darcy Bostic (Pacific Institute) and Kristin Dobbin (UC Davis) about the legislated human right to drinking water, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, sustainability, and participation in California.
guests on the show
Darcy Bostic
Darcy Bostic focuses on sustainable water management and climate change. Darcy examines how social-ecological systems thinking can create beneficial outcomes for humans and the environment; as well as how to center decision-making around the voices and needs of the most vulnerable. Darcy holds a B.S. and M.S. in Hydrologic Sciences from the University of California, Davis. While in her M.S. program she researched the impacts of sustainability planning on domestic well operation and the governance challenges in sea-level rise adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Learn more here and follow her on Twitter @darcybostic .
Dr. Kristin Dobbin
Kristin Dobbin received her doctorate in Ecology at UC Davis studying governance in creating, perpetuating and solving drinking water disparities in California. Kristin examines challenges and opportunities associated with California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for Environmental Justice and the Human Right to Water. Prior to coming to Davis, Kristin served as Regional Water Management Coordinator at Community Water Center in Visalia. She has a B.A. in Environmental Analysis from Pitzer College. Kristin is an NSF Graduate Research Fellow (2017-2022), Switzer Environmental Fellow (2020), Fulbright Fellow (2013-2014) and Udall Scholar (2012). Learn more here and follow her on Twitter @kbdobbin.
TRANSCRIPT
Faith Kearns
Today we're going to be talking a lot about how groundwater and drinking water are connected or not in California, and we're really excited to be in conversation with Kristin Dobbin a doctoral student at UC Davis and Darcy Bostic, who is currently working with the Pacific Institute. There's a lot that's interesting about their work. But one of the most intriguing is a question that they pose in a research publication titled "Sustainable for Whom?". In this case, they're referencing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act here in California. But it's also just a broadly applicable question in water work in general, but also in many other fields and topics.
We append the word “legislative” human right to water to the beginning because the devil is in the details, the issue of implementing the Human Right to Water, in terms of the cost of it, is a somewhat separate question after the legislation was passed. And so that's where you've got two essentially groundbreaking efforts in California, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Human Right to Water, both of which have been legislated. There's a lot more action, I would say, on the groundwater side, because it has a timeline and all of that stuff in a way that the Human Right to Water doesn't. And so the question they are really asking has to do with how do these two things relate to each other, which they were not envisioned particularly as relating to each other. But in practice, and particularly in certain places in California, they really actually make sense to think about together. Mallika and Sam, what did you find most intriguing about our conversation with Darcy and Kristin?
Sam Sandoval
I think the discussion that they have about “sustainable for whom?” and how the same question hadn't been discussed in the GSA’s. In the context of SGMA, I also find very interesting the basic question of who is in the room when these conversations are happening? And if we really know the answer to that specific question, how did the persons that are in the room get there. Certain people or communities that are not there is not necessary that they are not interested, but that they may not have the resources to get there, and so on. So, I found that particular part of the conversation very interesting.
Mallika Nocco
Yeah, Sam, I agree with you in Faith, I really appreciate the connection to this work. And the choice of these two experts, asking them to come on the show, I learned a lot from them and I think those of you who are listening will too. Some of the things that I would listen for are just this theme of different ways of knowing and local knowledge. It's come up a lot in previous episodes that we've had when we've talked about small farms, specifically, when we've talked about Indigenous ways of knowing specifically, but just this idea that different ways of knowing water are expertise that's critical to involve, it's not any longer like an extra or additional piece of the puzzle. It's a critical piece of the puzzle. And when you listen to these two, I think that they are engaging in that sense. They are trying to incorporate many ways of knowing and Faith, I think you use this term, they're insisting on incorporating many ways of knowing. I think we as a water community, a community of scientists, need to do that. And I don't know, just in terms of what's going on professionally in my life this week.
Another thing to think about is okay, well if you are engaging with and incorporating many ways of knowing, I had a talk with some colleagues just about how how you are citing different ways of knowing, right? What does this mean for the way we write our papers and into our studies, it means that we're not just citing scientific studies anymore, right? We're citing different types of data and different types of knowledge and that could involve an art form. It could involve Twitter and tweets and social media. It can involve you know, non-scientific reports or not peer reviewed reports. It can involve a video. I think that recognizing that expertise can have a lot of different forms is really valuable and exciting. And I felt like listening to these two experts, they both are doing that as well.
Faith Kearns
Thank you both. So without much further ado, we're gonna get into a conversation about groundwater and drinking water and a few other issues with Darcy Bostic and Kristin Dobbin. So welcome Darcy and Kristen, thank you so much for being here. We're really excited to talk with you. And you both have been a part of this powerhouse research group at UC Davis, the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior, that's doing a lot of great work on water in California. And so to start, it would just be great if you could give us an overview of the kinds of things that you're each working on. Kristin, can we start with you and maybe you can tell us a little bit your work.
Kristin Dobbin
Thanks, Faith. And thanks so much for having us. This is fun and exciting. It's always great to have an opportunity to talk about our work and a higher level picture way with audiences that are maybe more diverse than some of the audiences I speak to. My research, I guess I feel like I have my toes in a lot of different pieces of this water world, but primarily my dissertation research focuses on the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. I came to this dissertation research project really wanting to explore the law as both a challenge and opportunity for environmental justice and the human right to water. I think fundamentally we know that because water is a shared resource, because water transgresses every boundary, we tried to set that regional planning is absolutely fundamental to advancing drinking water access in households and in communities, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, where everyone is primarily reliant on groundwater.
On the flip side, a law like SGMA, a law that's reforming and institutionalizing how we manage groundwater, has some dangers. It has the danger of institutionalizing and legitimizing inequity that we already see in the valley. And so I came to the research wanting to look at both of those sides and see SGMA in its complexity as both a really great thing and a challenge and scary thing. So that's how I came to the project. I have done a variety of research projects at various points of the implementation process. So I started by looking at governance and looking at the groundwater sustainability agencies that formed in response to the law in 2017. And trying to track how many disadvantaged communities were represented in those governing bodies. And so there's about what there's 260 groundwater sustainability agencies in the state if no one really saw that coming. Those groundwater sustainability agencies impact about half of the state's low income communities, or DAC's. But when I looked at how many of those disadvantaged communities were represented in governance, only 17% of the low income communities in the state that fell into groundwater sustainability agencies had governing board seats, and actually even fewer than that 15% were agency members of their groundwater sustainability agencies. That points to a long standing division between drinking water, and more general groundwater and agricultural water management that we've seen for a long time in the state.
The other thing I did with that project was go through and look at the records that each groundwater sustainability agencies submitted to the Department of Water Resources, where they were asked to identify the interested parties in their area. And they were literally given a list like identify cities identify disadvantaged communities. And what I found was that only 55% of the disadvantaged communities in those areas were listed in those documents. And so again, underscoring this really, it's not even necessarily just exclusion, but a lack of awareness of these drinking water stakeholders that tend to be very small, obviously, are very rural. And a lot of the large water players in these areas are not even necessarily aware that these communities are there and that they're relying on groundwater. So that's where I started.
Since then, I have done a lot of interviews with rural community residents who are participating in the SGMA process. I've tried to explore along with organizers and the environmental justice movement and technical service providers tried to explore the challenges and successes of the groundwater process from a very specifically we're all drinking water standpoint. That project yielded a lot of maybe depressing findings, a lot of exclusion, a lot of frustration, a lot of doom and gloom, maybe but also a huge amount of motivation. Oftentimes, these communities when they're not at the table when they're not at the meetings, the assumption is they're not interested, the most salient thing from all of my interviews is that communities really, really care about water management. Not only did they really care, they have so much to offer water managers, including like detailed knowledge about how the drought impacted their water systems. Private well, owners often know a lot about like groundwater ups and downs in their region. And there's a lot of knowledge and a lot of, yeah, the committee members have a lot to offer the process. That is exciting and speaks to the opportunity of regional management.
Then maybe lastly, most recently been trying to do some work around documenting the outcomes of groundwater sustainability plans that were submitted in January 2020. So the first round of plans were submitted. And the state has two years to review those. So we figured, why don't we also try to review them and I've done this work, I've been really lucky to get to do some of this work with Darcy, in looking at how drinking water was addressed in plan chapters, and there's a lot of diversity. But we continue to see the ongoing problem, that drinking water is often just not addressed. In a shocking like less than a third of the plans. They discussed the drinking water impacts of their sustainable management criteria, and even fewer, they discussed drinking water stakeholders as participants in the groundwater sustainability plan development process at all. But we do see some progress. I see whereas in 2015, only 55% of communities were listed. In those initial documents. 76% of low income communities were listed and described as groundwater users in the plan. So we are seeing some progress with domestic wells, however, we actually see very little description or accounting for rural dispersed residents, just something Darcy's done more work about.
That's been the trajectory of my dissertation research. And I've also been doing some work trying to look at the role of environmental justice organizing in the implementation of SGMA, I think it's undeniable to say that we have really made progress, that there has been some really important things that have come out of SGMA when we think about environmental justice and equity in the state. And that's in my view entirely, because organizers have been doing a lot of thankless work, attending dozens of meetings and providing comment letters and doing that nitpicking watchdogging, that is so necessary in a really decentralized regulatory process, like SGMA. So that I've been getting a lot of inspiration recently from that project of looking at how organizers have leveraged this as an opportunity. And certainly we have a long way to go. But it's a start.
Faith Kearns
Thank you so much, Kristin, I think those are, you know, really rich, wonderful research questions and results. And you know, we really appreciate the work that you all are doing. So Darcy, as we mentioned in the intro, you've recently earned your master's degree in hydrology, and you're now working with the Pacific Institute, can you tell us a little bit more about what you're working on these days.
Darcy Bostic
I graduated from UCD with a bachelor's degree in hydrology initially, and really wanted to know more about groundwater, which is really what inspired me to continue on to do the masters. And I think that I learned a lot about natural systems and the way that groundwater moves and the ways in which we approximate, you know, the movement of water in general. But I was really struck by the sort of lack of knowledge I had in terms of who manages groundwater. And I had started my undergrad when SGMA was passed in 2014. And so, you know, I was really brought up in this academic atmosphere where suppose a thing, which I think for me really raised a lot of questions about, you know, who these GSA's are going to be, and then eventually what the impacts of their management plans are. I did my master's work with Mark Lubell. In addition to looking at SGMA, we also did a lot of work looking at sea level rise adaptation networks in San Francisco Bay. But yeah, really, a lot of my work was was focused on looking at the outcomes of these institutional arrangements.
Kristin provides an incredible amount of information on who is a part of these GSA boards who has power. Linda, also in our group has provided a lot of information about that. And then my role, which actually came out of an ask, looking at the impacts of SGMA on small farms, which I think you've talked about in season one on this podcast. But yeah, it really came out of out of a desire to understand what are the implications of these governance structures? And what are the actual outcomes for people, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, who, as Kristin mentioned, are, you know, groundwater dependent, and often not recognized by the localities in the region? And so yeah, I looked at the impacts of minimum thresholds on domestic well, users and so particularly looking at where GSP's are planning on setting these lower bounds on the water level in their regions, and what we found is that in addition to not mentioning domestic wells, these plans also negatively impact us So it's not just that they're excluded, but they are harmed. And so I think that this provides a lot of good information about, you know, where best to focus, additional research and also planning and for the state to direct their efforts.
I also think that we really found that we need more data on who's impacted by GSP's. And what the distribution of residents are, and then also just on wells and groundwater systems in general, I think that was another intention of SGMA. But yeah, just really understanding, you know, where the pump locations are, and what are the opportunities for wealth deepening, and different things like that. So now at Pacific Institute, I look at a wide range of topics centered around providing knowledge and tools to create a more equitable, and resilient water system in California. And I'm coming at this from a lot of different angles. Now, I've moved slightly away from groundwater. But you know, now I'm looking at water affordability and the impacts of COVID on arrearages. And whether or not, you know, another important topic, whether or not residents are experiencing more water debt, and what we can do to alleviate that. So, looking at projected water demand in the future, and ways in which we can ensure, you know, local supplies under climate change. And we just finished a project in conjunction with CUWA, the California Urban Water Agencies is examining potential solutions for water systems with persistent water quality violations.
We're also working on another project looking at the impacts of SGMA on public supply wells. So, you know, Kristin and I looked at whether or not these water systems are drinking water needs are mentioned. And a lot of water systems are also not mentioned in these plans. And so now we're looking at whether or not these groundwater dependent water systems that also have often persistent water quality violations are also going to be additionally negatively impacted by SGMA. Yeah. But this time, you know, hopefully the question will be, what should the right water levels be? What should the water quality standards be for these GSP's? Instead of just saying, you know, these GSP's aren't doing enough, but really, what should these minimum thresholds be? Yeah.
Faith Kearns
Thanks, Darcy, you've done so much in your early career. And I really look forward to seeing how your work evolves. So in addition to the work that you guys have done individually, I think you've also spoken a little bit to some of the things that you've worked on together. And there's certainly been a number of those. And in one of the reports that you co authored, you ask a pretty crucial question, which is the concept of sort of sustainable for whom, when we talk about sustainable groundwater management, we're just sort of the sustainability questions in general. And, you know, that is a really important question that I think more and more people are starting to hopefully ask themselves about their work in terms of just trying to get at Who are we sort of centering? Who are we thinking about when we do these research projects? And so, I'm just wondering, you know, if we could talk a little bit about that question of sustainable for whom as it relates to groundwater, but also how you actually approach answering a question like that, because I think it's something that's of interest to people in the larger water world and beyond as well. So, I don't know if we want to start with Kristin, maybe.
Kristin Dobbin
I can go although Darcy is lead author and the mastermind behind the report. So, in no way conflate me answering first with that. Yeah, the title, which again, Darcy came up with, I think, is the question right, sustainable for whom? And to me, that's a really salient and concise way to put it, in large part because especially with the sustainable groundwater management act, we've taken sustainable for granted, like, we haven't interrogated that concept. And by not interrogating that concept, we leave open the door for a lot of the replication of inequity. And we closed the door on innovation and opportunity, and really like moving forward with water solutions. And so I think so often, and I was not an undergrad, when SGMA was passed, I was working for Community Water Center. When SGMA started, we all just started off assuming we all knew what sustainable meant. And we were on the same page about what that meant. I think now, in this moment of having some plans submitted, we are all finally recognizing that we don't all agree on what sustainable means, and certainly weren't on the same page about it. I think that's really good.
I think we need to be in this place of understanding nuance and trade-offs and contradictions, because otherwise, we're never going to move forward. And we're going to be stuck in this high-level world. So, in general, I mean, I think that is the question, and I'm not sure I certainly don't have the answers to how we move forward. But when I think about sustainable for who I think about equity, and I think about history and context. Recently, I've been thinking a lot about how my research is very guilty of this. I think a lot of our research in the water space and even just in water policy, we're always looking forward. We don't spend a lot of time looking back. I think in my own research, that has been a failure to understand how we got here and that's important because it's so it's still shaping all of the dynamics of everything that's going on And so sustainable for whom? I'm thinking about that question of sustainability, like, I want to think forward. But I also want to think back and like, how and why did we get to where we are? And how and why could that be different in the future? And obviously, that's like, ultimately what groundwater sustainability plans are asking of us. They're asking us to come together around a table, write, a 2000-page document. answering that question. There's something Darcy and I have talked a lot about, is that the conversations and those meetings actually haven't really been had yet.
We actually haven't had that conversation about sustainable for whom, what is sustainable mean? And when I think about SGMA working better in the future, it looks like us having that conversation. And I do think for me, research can play a really important role. And especially research that Darcy does as a hydrologist can play a really important role in making the conversation more tangible, like right, like if we do analyses like Darcy did, and it shows the impact of this decision. And we can compare that to another minimum threshold sustainability decision that another hypothetical GSA could take. And we look at the impacts of that. That's how we get to this conversation of what does that look like? What are the trade-offs? And I think that is where we will start to be able to move forward together? Because I do think maybe if there's a flaw to the question or title is that it does sound a little like conflict ridden, and it is. And so, it's good to acknowledge that it's conflict ridden. But I think by acknowledging the trade-offs and distributional inequity in these outcomes, it also maybe we could move towards it being less conflict ridden like there are win wins, like not there's not only win wins, and it's not going to be a win-win for everyone. But when we start to see those trade-offs, I think maybe we can make more progress in that direction.
Faith Kearns
Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate your consistent pragmatic optimism. Darcy, I would love to hear your thoughts on the question that you developed around sustainable for home?
Darcy Bostic
I agree with 100% of everything Kristin has said. And for me, it really started a little bit more maybe have a basic perspective, but just thinking about who's in the room? And like, do I even know the answer to that question? You know, and I think that that, again, is a question we're not seeing asked by GSA's, necessarily, and one that I think would be imperative for everyone in all of their research, you know, or even in life to be asked. And so I think, yeah, groundwater to certain extent makes asking this question a little bit easier than perhaps other areas, because it is a common pool resource, right? It is, when one person extracts water, we see the impacts to everyone. And so yeah, I think that understanding who's in the room, and what the impacts are of certain decisions, as Kristin was saying, I think scenario planning is perhaps a good way to go for all of us, and allowing really the local actors to understand the trade-offs of different decisions.
Faith Kearns
Right, thank you. So, in general, it seems like your research group at UC Davis is really building a pretty impressive set of analyses and recommendations that I think are crucial for equitable water management, particularly groundwater management in California, moving forward and in groundwater in particular, just seems to be this particularly potent site of research and practice and all sorts of things right now. So I'm wondering, just based on the work, you do what you see as some of the actions that could be taken based on some of your research findings, whether it's by communities, or agency, decision makers, researchers to act on some of what you all are finding.
Darcy Bostic
I think there's a lot of work already ongoing, that I think us as researchers, you know, have a responsibility to uplift and really get out there in addition to the reverse of people taking our work and using it as well. And so yeah, there are a lot of groups that have been doing this work for a long time. And I think that, you know, directly from our work, it would be nice if the state would take a look at the impacts. Yeah, perhaps to do something I think that there's a broad coalition of people that are calling on DWR to respond to these plans in a way that ensures that we address the human right to water and, you know, protect water for all, you know, beneficial uses and users. But there's ongoing work by groups in the San Joaquin Valley, you know, community Water Center, who Kristin's worked for. Self Help and Leadership Council have all put together a well mitigation framework that GSA is can use, they can take it and implement it. And yeah, I just think that there's a lot of work that's ongoing, and I think all of our pieces put together could really do a lot and really move groundwater management forward.
Kristin Dobbin
Yeah, I agree with Darcy. My initial answer is for researchers and for agencies and policymakers at all levels to make space for the community expertise that are there. And there is so much knowledge and contribution and like drive to advance sustainable groundwater management in rural communities and in the end, environmental justice community. And so, I think that's, I mean, one thing that needs to be done and what that looks like at different levels is different. But I do think most of these water systems and obviously, definitely domestic wells throughout the valley are run by like volunteer everyday people. And those people are experts. We don't treat them as experts. And like the bottom line is the state and like agencies at all levels need to start treating community water managers, as experts. Researchers need to do that.
That's my number one goal, honestly, is to amplify and respect the work that community water managers do every day providing drinking water in their communities, I think that's the first is continuing to make that space. And we've seen that grow over the last couple years. But there is time and need to do more of that when it comes to the state. And maybe this gets at some of these ideas of all the policymaking possibilities and limits, I think this state, the agencies, in particular Department of Water Resources and the State Board, need to look very seriously at the human right to water, which very clearly directs them to account for the human right to water in all of their activities. And that includes reviewing groundwater sustainability plans that includes the day to day work they're doing with groundwater sustainability agencies, and there hasn't been enough crossover and recognition of that we can't as a state, say, we support it, or implementing the human right to water and be doing so many amazing things on the drinking water side, and then shut the door when it comes to some of these other generally conceived of as non-drinking water, but 100% drinking water processes. I would really like to see that kind of realization and crossover happen more, and I think it needs to happen more.
Faith Kearns
I really appreciate that perspective, until I started really reckoning with some of the work that you all were doing, I think I hadn't quite realized the full disconnect with the drinking water side. I just appreciate that and, and appreciate all of the Human Right to Water work, that there are actual actions that need to take place. It's not just theoretical, there are concrete things that need to happen. I also appreciate that both of you refuse to answer the question of how expertise can inform action and flip it around instead to centering the organic intellectual work done by everyday people, and just the actual practice of equitable water management. for both of you, Darcy, you're now working with the Pacific Institute. And Kristin, I know you worked with the Community Water Center before you started graduate school. And so, I'm just wondering, you know, how much those experiences of weaving inside and outside of academia then inform how you think about your research and maybe practice and sort of what it feels like to work on these water issues from both inside and outside of the university?
Darcy Bostic
Yeah, that's a really interesting question. I think, for me, never having worked with a community organization on the ground, I think a lot of it for me has just been listening and reaffirming, really thinking about what I can do from my position to listen and respond to the needs of the community. I think, yeah, also, academia has been an interesting space. I think that there are different barriers to understand the accessibility of academia. And I think that for me, working at Pacific Institute has been really nice, because I have been able to, you know, perhaps write things that are a bit more accessible to the layman. And I think for me, that has been the best benefit.
Kristin Dobbin
I guess I found both sides frustrating, which maybe is like a less eloquent way of saying, but like, there are pros and cons. Honestly, it's interesting. When I worked for Community Water Center, I felt like much more of an expert, which is ironic, but I was on the ground every day interacting with tons of stakeholders, and really knew what was going on, and really easily could identify challenges and opportunities. But of course, now as a PhD candidate coming out on the tail end of my dissertation research and getting my degree, I'm considered much more of an expert. And that leverage is a huge opportunity. Like I have a lot more opportunity to say and provide information than I did previously. But the weird thing is, then I'm like, very reliant on the expertise of folks on the ground, because I'm necessarily somewhat removed from it, especially with COVID and the pandemic. I haven't been to the valley since December. But in academia, I have the time and resources and flexibility to actually pursue and do the work that when I was working day to day never had the time to do. So, I rely on partners to identify important things or to give me, feed me information. But I have the time and flexibility to carry out research or carry out questions or even just message things in a way that I didn't have when I was working in the nonprofit space. So, it feels like there are pros and cons. I spend a lot of time not sure which one's better, but I think maybe neither are better. It's just that all these roles are needed. And certainly, partnerships are needed. I think both Darcy and I have gained so much on both sides of this equation being in partnership with the other side. So maybe that's the lesson.
Faith Kearns
Thank you. So, we always like to ask our guests if there's anything more that you would like people to know about your work that maybe we didn't address and ask the question of how we meaning the people on this call, and people listening to the show might be able to support your efforts.
Darcy Bostic
I guess I can start for me, I think funding is always a big deal. I think resource sharing and information sharing, especially from the UC perspective has been really valuable to me as a graduate student looking for funding but also these partnerships, continuing to build relationships with academics and people, external to perhaps funders, external to the NGO world, I think, is always very useful. And then I think I would really like people to just come away with this, perhaps understanding of inequities that occur and to understand that not everyone has access to water all of the time. I think that maybe there's a disconnect there between a lot of people that I interact with my daily life, and the people who we talk about in our reports as potentially losing water, but also like currently not having access to water. So, I think really, having a deep understanding of that is something that would be nice for everyone to take away.
Kristin Dobbin
Yeah, I guess, I comes from my work as a rural drinking water nerd. So, like, the thing I always want people to know is like how much work goes into provisioning drinking water, especially in rural places, but also like peripheral urban areas, the small systems, California has 3000 community water systems, and the vast majority of those are tiny, some of them, you know, they serve 20 people, they serve 200 people. And those aren't run by engineers with degrees that are paid by the city, they're run by ordinary people. And, you know, even broadening out from that trying to address challenges in our drinking water system in California. It's a huge, enormous undertaking that involves so many people. And I think in a world where drinking water is often taken for granted by the majority, I always like to shine the light on like how many people are working so hard to not just ensure but increase access to safe drinking water, because the reality is we have a long way to go in the state. And that's what's motivating to me to, right, is like how many people are working so hard on this and to not take it for granted.
In terms of ways I think people can support our work, a little bit like Darcy's, in terms of these connections, I think as a graduate student, a lot of my projects, and like the more meaningful things I've been able to do come about through people connecting and the water world in California, I'd say it's really pretty good about connecting, and it's a pretty close knit, probably too small of a group. I think I've gotten a lot out of people connecting me to different projects and different ideas and different perspectives. And especially if we're pretty siloed, right, like in the policy space, we talked about drinking water being siloed from other forms of water, but in the research space that's really true too. And I think it's a shame that even here at Davis, I don't know, or even work with a lot of the people who study water management on campus. And I'm thankful for people like Sam and others who reach out and try to bridge those divides. I want to try to do that myself. Because I think from a research perspective, we could do a lot more if we didn't fall into those same kind of silos that have always existed.
Faith Kearns
Well, thank you both so much are the good work that you're doing, we really look forward to seeing where your research and your careers take you. So, thank you so much for joining us today.