Well, I'm not quite that pessimistic. It is challenging but I think we take a fair amount of comfort in the fact that in the upper part of the watershed, the forest cover is a greater percentage, it's a minimum of 9% and as high as 15% in those communities. As you move down the watershed the forest cover depletes to less than 3%. The slope is greater in the upper watershed and so there's greater potential for soil, if it's not properly managed, to move off and into the watercourses.
Once again, I think of necessity the agricultural producers are much more aware of that, and there is a good history of trying to contain that. It really then behooves the producers in the lower watershed, even though they have flatter soils more intensively farmed, to make sure that their contributions aren't being ignored as well. In reality the ability of the lower watershed to contribute, particularly during intensive rainfall events, is just as great as the upper watersheds. So, we have to do our share in the lower part and I think farmers—in fact the population in general—are happier to do their share when they understand it's their share and that everybody else is also doing their share.