No. Anyone who wants to sell or lease subdivided land has to prove that. Not only that, but if the development gets water from Scottsdale, then it does not have

No. Anyone who wants to sell or lease subdivided land has to prove that. Not only that, but if the development gets water from Scottsdale, then it does not have to prove a 100 year reserve. Scottsdale is confident, (or, at least, shows outward confidence), in its ability to provide water for 100 years because of its three pillars. One, that the Salt River gambit will always pay off. Two, that Scottsdale's water from the Colorado will never run dry. And three, that if all else fails, I mean, hey, Phoenix is sitting on an ocean. They can't leave us out high and dry can they? With respect to two and three, we had zero confidence. Additionally, our faith in the ability of Scottsdale's leaders to effectively manage unexpected events with 1 was, limited. I'm not saying move out of Scottsdale. I'm saying for us, it was too much risk and inconsistent with sustainability. I believe for a place like Scottsdale to become sustainable, somebody has to move out. Not saying who that should be, but mother nature is clearly signaling limits on our growth ambitions. Not all places in Arizona are unsustainable. Tuscon, Sedona, Phoenix proper. Etc. There are lots of places in Arizona that I think have put forth credible plans to manage their growth in the face of uncertain water security. But climate, geography and a failure to get out in front of the issue long ago has just put other areas in a precarious spot. That's just reality.