It's one of the concerns, but I think the privatization issue for us is linked very clearly to procurement in general. You look to our bridge, and we love our new bridge. But had this been in place two years ago when the planning for the bridge began and the actual RFPs were let, our impression is that we would have had a lot less choice than we had at the time around who we actually wanted to build the bridge.
When we talk about the things that we needed to do, as my colleague has suggested, around making sure the old bridge stayed open and around making sure there was a demonstrable benefit to the community, not just from the outcome of the bridge itself but to the people who were building it, it was important for us to have that opportunity. Given the size of the project, my understanding of the rules would be that we would have had a lot fewer opportunities to make choices with local procurement.
Water is a big issue for us because I understand your references to bulk water, but we are still unclear about the operational issues on water possibilities and privatization and particularly around not just the sale and operation of water systems but the output of things like our new sewage system.
So water is still a big concern for us because we haven't seen the details, but procurement is almost more of a concern for us because so many of our local strategies around economic development are built primarily on our ability to prioritize our local contributors. We are again really nervous about the limitations that we see there on what we can do, when, and under what threshold.