That's a great question.
I know conservation authorities well, since I grew up in the Ontario area and studied them in quite a bit of detail. What they represent in terms of value is local capacity. That manifests very differently in different parts of the country. I think you're right to recognize that this is how you get to water solutions. You have issues like climate change that feel like a national or broad problem, but it shows up in the water—and in very specific ways.
We talked a lot in today's panel about technology. Well, technology is often to fix a problem that has occurred. It is exponentially cheaper to avoid the problem. To know about avoiding the problem, you have to understand the patient, as it were. We have to understand the water bodies, how they are operating and who's using how much. That kind of science and technology are required, and you have to build them on this foundation of understanding the local conditions, needs and impacts.
You're very correct to say that local bodies are going to be the best ones to do that. It might be conservation authorities, as you understand, but there are many different examples. In B.C., we have a thing called the Cowichan Watershed Board. I can give you a big, long list. You don't need to hear that. The point is that we need this. You need the Canada water agency to tee up to target those investments and maximize them. There are some things that, when learned in one place, can be applied in many. There are other things that we have to fine-tune based on the local conditions and requirements, the aquifer mapping, the environmental flow regime, etc., which are quite distinct.
You have to marry the general knowledge with the very specific to have maximum impact.