Skies Remain Dangerously Blue

Jerome is a small town . . . its population somewhere under 500 . . . and it's forms of communication with its residents  borders on colloquial.  A sign in the post office asked residents to please conserve water because the overflow from storage tanks was running only intermittently.  When I drove past yesterday the overflow was dry.

Jerome is an old copper mining community that once boasted a population of 15,000.  With a current population of only 400-plus
the town is experiencing the initial indications of a water crisis.

Jerome's water comes from an aquifer beneath Cleopatra Hill, captured in 3 water storage tanks and gravity fed to the town below.  The aquifer is replenished by precipitation.

In the last 6 weeks there has been about 1/8 inch of rain, hardly enough to reach the aquifer let alone replenish it.  As I've said in previous posts, if you want to see what the desert will support, "Just look out your backdoor."  It isn't much, yet the tree planting, car washing, and yard/garden watering go unabated.

This on 3 - 10 inches of rain annually.

An Ignorant Attitude

The use of water for many in the Southwest elicits a head in the sand, nearly schizophrenic, reaction from some people.   In the face of naturally occurring water scarcity aggravated by global warming [see Krugman comment, below] there is sentiment that all sectors of the environment are the same.

. The facts, however, bring us back to reality.

The Verde River has toxic waste emptied 
into it at many points along its flow through 
Arizona.

Living conditions in the desert are different than the conditions of living in the Midwest. Concessions must be made for a desert environment where precipitation is below 12 in. per year, water resources that are being over-used, and struggling with a high component of toxic waste.

As a point of reference, the Ogalalla Aquifer in the Midwest forces water upward to within 2 ft. of the surface. It is one of the key reasons for the veto of the Keystone Pipeline and a resource that distinguishes the Midwest environment from that of the Southwest.

A common response from residents of Arizona :

"Yikes! Thanks for speaking up on this, Katie! Just the idea of looking at water as a COMMODITY scares the beejeezus out of me... and i agree, taxing the shit out of those of us who have gardens just seems so wrong. I agree that wasting water is bad, and i try to collect rainwater to water my garden, but for fruit trees and other trees, there's usually not enough. This is a huge issue. Clarkdale doesn't want anybody to water anything so they can continue to grow their population...."

In other words, "C'mon, guys, all I want are a few fruit trees. It's not so bad...I use rainwater for my other plants."

The presence of rivers often gives people the idea that
water is plentiful.

Our "Yikes!" comment continues. . . for "those who can afford to continue watering, the price of water won't matter. So once again, the poorer will suffer... the rich will have their lawns and pools, the poor will be robbed of growing decent food. And yes, there are just too damn many people already for sustainability."

In the column, "This Tribal Nation," by Paul Krugman in the NY Times:". . .having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say (on global warming). On the contrary, better-educated were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren."

Water issues are not social issues, hobby farms and ranches excluded. The availability of water for non-essential uses simply subtracts from the amount that will be available for essential ones in the future.

When Major Rivers Run Low

from the LaCrossTribune.com

The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday began reducing the flow from a Missouri River reservoir, a move expected to worsen low-water conditions on the Mississippi River and potentially bring barge traffic to a halt within weeks.

The Missouri flows into the Mississippi around a bend just north of St. Louis. One result of this year's drought, the worst in decades, has been a big drop in water levels on both rivers.

The corps announced earlier this month that it would reduce the outflow from the Gavins Point Dam near Yankton, S.D., to protect the upper Missouri River basin. That drew an outcry from political leaders and businesses downstream, who warned that allowing the Mississippi to drop more could have devastating economic consequences.

Corps spokeswoman Monique Farmer told The Associated Press on Friday that the reduction began as scheduled that morning. By midday, the flow that had started at 37,500 cubic feet per second had been cut to 35,500 cubic feet per second.

Farmer said plans call for a gradual reduction down to 12,000 cubic feet per second by Dec. 11 because of the drought.

Florence Loses Her Water

Curis Resources is in the process of exploiting a major copper discovery within a residential area of Florence, Arizona.  The mining company plans to do this with a controversial "in-situ" process that may destroy potability of the aquifer that supplies water to this major community of Arizona.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality granted Curis a permit to inject "billions of pounds of sulfuric acid into the subsurface in close proximity to an aquifer that supplies drinking water wells presently servicing approximately 83,000 people, and that will ultimately supply drinking water to thousands of more residents of a master-planned residential subdivision..."

The facts are straight forward; the implications, less so.

Curis Florence Copper Mine Project "in-situ" mine site.
 Curis employee inspects wellheads that inject "recovery 
solution" (sulfuric acid) and retrieve "copper-bearing" 
solution.

As claimed by Florence residents, "...uranium  mining companies using similar extraction methods in Texas, Colorado and other states have never been able to restore the aquifer to pre-mining conditions....There is no enforceable backup plan to save our water aquifer if it is damaged or destroyed and, if the company goes bankrupt, there is no way to get our water back."

Curis employee explains that Curis' mining payroll will 

benefit Florence residents.  Curis will gain copper and the

city of Florence will lose it's water.  

The "Florence Copper" mine project might be more palatable to residents if the activity of the mining company was held, not to design specifications, but to performance specifications.  In other words, if drilling specifications were set out in such terms as, 1. we plan to drill in such a way as not to harm the aquifer or, 2. we will re-mediate any damage we cause. Instead, representations of the well are shown below.

 Probable arrangement of injection/retrieval wells.

Mining activity was triggered when copper reached $2.50/lb. The question is whether copper is worth more than water?

Where Water Meets Sun

This photo of a remarkable project in India was recently sent to me by Richard M. Hileman, a Facebook friend who obtained it from Occupy Wall St. It came with his comment, "This would be good for Arizona."

This solar panel laid on the vast stretches of agricultural channels 

in Gujarat India generates 1 Megawatt of electricity per km and 

prevents evaporation of 1 crore (10,000,000) liters of water 

every year.

While it might prove impractical for the mountainous regions of northern Arizona, it would seem a workable solution for clean power generation and water distribution in the southern part of the state which has higher proportion of largely flat land.

The concept would particularly suit irrigation projects and diversion canals which are already level and suffer high levels of water loss due to evaporation.

Has the Aquifer Run Dry?

In a recent news note in the VerdeNews.com, Tom Whitmer of Cottonwood, Arizona, had been nominated for a position on the Technical Advisory Committee with the Yavapai County Water Advisory Committee.

Photos taken from verdenews.com

His nomination was questioned by Doug Von Gaussig because Mr. Whitmer serves on the board of that organization and the conflict of interest was all too apparent . . . especially with respect to an appointee who would, in effect, report to himself.


I congratulate Mr Von Gaussig whose foresight has otherwise addressed many of his communities difficult problems.


I would like to see either principal in this local scuffle, begin to answer Jerome, Arizona's, water difficulties.
  
Here in this ex-mining, tourist town we drink from an aquifer via a couple of large storage tanks.  But the overflow from these tanks has stopped...which means that 1.) the tanks aren't full or 2.) the aquifer has stopped charging the tanks. 


We've had little rain, the Verde River is at record lows and a Jerome town council member is talking about the installation of water meters.  What if there just ain't any water?

Which Will Win. . . Water or Uranium

You just know it will be uranium because it's worth more...

"Washington’s decision to bar new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and other federal policies on energy and resource issues," says the Casa Grande Dispatch, "are barriers holding back Arizona and its residents from prosperity," Gov. Jan Brewer told a congressional hearing Friday.

"Further", the Republican governor said, "the January decision by the Obama administration to block new uranium mining near the national park deprives a rural area of needed jobs and ignores that there are safeguards that would protect the environment. She also criticized federal policies and regulatory actions involving forest management and power plant emissions."

"Unlike in decades past when the federal government and the state partnered on dam and aqueduct projects, use of natural resources is at risk due to red tape and overregulation from Washington, Brewer said."

“We all love Arizona. We all treasure the Grand Canyon. We all support clean water and clear skies,” Brewer said. “But Westerners need a federal government that will work with us to achieve our shared goals of a strong economy and a sound environment.”

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the 20-year prohibition that covers more than 1 million acres rich in high-grade uranium ore reserves in the region of the Grand Canyon. Uranium is used in nuclear power plants."

"Salazar said he took the action to protect the Grand Canyon, which he called a natural treasure."


Clever...if she had said "Stop the mining",  her reason would have been the natural requirements of the Grand Canyon...had she said, "Go for the water...," her excuse would have been jobs.  


Gov. Brewer ought to swallow her tongue and make up her mind.

A Canary in the Mine

Not a drop of water that can be imagined.  Not even a trickle of a seasonal or intermittent  stream that might provide water.  Y'know, the kind on topo maps that are designated with dashed blue lines.

Water in Arizona is scarce, often a matter of life or death. 

However, we read this.... 

"Ohio will soon be in the business of selling water to industry throughout shale-gas regions," a blogger claims.  Speaking of native amphibians of the Ohio River watershed, this blogger continues with the thought, "let's not forget who resides in that water."

"Amphibians are the canaries in the aquatic 'coal-mines.'  Their health should be important to us, as they are bio indicators for our future.  We should all be thinking about this a little more," she continues.

If the supply of water in the Ohio River is being questioned because mining operations require water, what solution do we have in Arizona where mining companies are tapping underground aquifers?  Just a thought . . . . .

Price Could Provide Solution to Water Scarcity

While a newbie resident to the Southwest, I've backpacked out here for 30 years primarily in the Superstition Wilderness where I would plan daily segments on a topo map from one spring to another. 

I remember the surprise one day when I found that the local Safeway in Cottonwood was selling gallon jugs of water for less than it was being sold in Cleveland, OH (bottled, of course, in New York).

About that time I read Charles Bowden's Killing the Hidden Waters and realized I wasn't crazy...at least there was one other person thinking as I was.

Water is a diminishing resource and should be taxed or priced as such.

The small town of Clarkdale, Arizona, has restructured its water rates and found that usage dropped by 50%.

Growing population in the state is part of the problem and, candidly, I've thought endlessly for a solution of how one would control population in Arizona.

Part of the problem will have to rest in price or rate structure...not a popular solution these days.

Tax water use to a level that prohibits lush lawns in Phoenix, tax it to a level that prohibits economical establishment of cotton farms in southern parts of the state, tax it to the extent that makes stock/stock tanks uneconomical, tax it so you question flushing the toilet every time you pee.

Charge enough so that makes an 8,000 gallon swimming pool in Phoenix a true luxury

.

The first year or two I was out here, water wasn't an issue.  I've noticed, increasingly, that one water issue or another is becoming a factor in mining or, less so, the weather. 

Realistically, a water inventory for the state needs to be established and maybe the results will point the way to a solution.

The Hard Facts

Ahh...the hard facts. They bring us home to reality. 


The hard facts are that conditions of living in the desert are different than the conditions of living in the Midwest.  Concessions must be made for an unusual environment, an environment  that has little water, water resources that are being over-used.


As a point of reference, the Ogalalla Aquifer in the Midwest forces water upward to within 2 ft. of the surface.  It is one of the key reasons for the veto of the Keystone Pipeline and a resource that distinguishes the Midwest environment from that of the Southwest. 


A common response from residents of Arizona or otherwise in the Southwest takes the tenor of the following conversation:

Yikes! Thanks for speaking up on this, Katie! Just the idea of looking at water as a COMMODITY scares the beejeezus out of me... and i agree, taxing the shit out of those of us who have gardens just seems so wrong. I agree that wasting water is bad, and i try to collect rainwater to water my garden, but for fruit trees and other trees, there's usually not enough. This is a huge issue. Clarkdale doesn't want anybody to water anything so they can continue to grow their population....

In other words, "C'mon, guys, all I want are a few fruit trees. It's not so bad...I use rainwater for other plants."


From a current column "This Tribal Nation" by Paul Krugman in the NY Times:
". . .  having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren."


Our "Yikes!" comment continues. . . for "those who can afford to continue watering, the price of water won't matter. So once again, the poorer will suffer... the rich will have their lawns and pools, the poor will be robbed of growing decent food. And yes, there are just too damn many people already for sustainability."


Water issues are not social issues, hobby farms and ranches excluded.  The availability of water for non-essential uses simply subtracts from the amount that will be needed for essential ones in the future.

A Costly Solution

My original premise, posted a while ago, was that increases in Arizona population were aggravating the level of water use.

A response from Dr.Gary Beverly was "How do you control population?  You can't deport people"

The standard response from developers is to demonstrate "100 years assured water supply."

My response to Dr. Beverly was to price (or tax) water to such a level that fewer people would move to Arizona.

He seemed to agree.

In discussions with several friends, this solution was not taken favorably.  The feeling was that the "poor" would bear most of the burden.

Water is a commodity, however...a very limited one with undefined quantities, at least in Arizona.  As a limited commodity it should be priced or taxed according to its value.

As a start to help solve the question the state should probably commission an engineering/consulting firm do an inventory of state water resources. That's just for a start.

IBM, for one, undertakes such huge projects.

As an example, I understand (fr.Beverly) a neighboring town, Clarkdale, has cut per-capita water use by 50% through increasing prices. Commodities are the same as other items in the US economy...luxuries are expensive.  Water in the desert is a luxury.  

I'll stick with my original premise...if you want to know what the desert will support just "look out your back door."  It's not much.

In the future we'll be lucky to consume only our past average of 0.5 acre ft. per person.

Ultimately, the choice will be between the cotton fields in the southern part of the state and water to wash your dishes.  70% of water is consumed by agriculture...your choice.

Population Key to Water Use

It strikes me that we can drown in local legislation while the broader solution is directly in front of us: POPULATION.

We like to think we can beat the numbers.  At least commonly accepted ones.  

The density or concentration of desert flora is a fraction of what it is in
the Midwest.

The density or concentration of desert fauna is, also, a fraction of what it
is in the Midwest.

For example, the density of the deer population in Wisconsin is 30 times,
in a favorable habitat, of what it is in Arizona, a arguably more hostile one.

Why the human animal feels confident it can beat the numbers, I don't know.

We are continually drilling deeper to find aquifers and, frankly, the
handwriting is on the wall.

A developer may be able to demonstrate a "100 year assured supply" until a guy
on the adjoining property drills into the same aquifer and halves the capacity
of a viable aquifer.

I don't question that "Arizona law allows threats to water resources."  I wonder that solutions have not been laid out. 

Water Must Deal with 25 MM Population Increase

The UA’s Water Resources Research Center held its recent conference to discuss the present and future state of Arizona’s water issues.

Not much new was reported but some obvious views were well taken.  Here is a summary from the DAILYWILDCAT.com.

The conference played with ideas to more effectively use water coming into Arizona. Main issues involved choices people make with the water they already have, how not to continue population growth with the little water they receive and more long-term plans for what to do with their water over the next 40 to 100 years.

Joseph Garcia, director of communications at ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, said about 70 percent of water in Arizona goes to agriculture. The rest of it goes to industries and mining, recreational urbanization or landscape use.

“We are not running out of water,” Gammage said, “but we can’t do everything forever. We can’t support continued population growth and also support agriculture and also support the environment.”

Arizona is allotted about 2.8 million acre feet per year from the Colorado River. Because Arizona doesn’t currently use all of its allotted water, it ends up being dumped back into the environment, Gammage continued.

"If you believe that leaving water in the environment is a use, which lots of people don’t, then we are using it all."

According to Gammage’s report, the population over the next 40 years will grow by 25 million or more, leading to an increase in water demand to about 5 million acre feet of water per year.

Which Way Goes Desire

When we talk about the availability of water resources, we assume 0.5+ acre foot per person.  
As people f.... and population increases, the question for Arizona is whether our sexual desire will overcome our thirst. 
That's an interesting question. 
The disturbing complexity is that thirst will kill us and sex, or the lack of it, will make life unpleasant.  
There's a finite limit to Arizona's water...a finite limit to population hasn't been found.
If you need it spelled out, a growing population will have effects on water use.
You can pick up sex at the local grocery store.  Wanna quible about water? 

Water and Money Are the Same

“We’re paying them $54,000 for nothing,” he said.

Diedrich said Griffin and Brown were right in the first place to suspect the City would have to pay the fee regardless of whether it wanted to or not.

Another problem Diedrich and Marchione had with the fee was that it was solely imposed on municipalities, meaning that unincorporated areas weren’t paying one cent for water, which is every person’s most basic necessity. Diedrich also pointed out that 80 to 90 percent of the state’s surface water is in unincorporated land.

The state claims the water fees are necessary to balance its budget, but Diedrich isn’t buying it.

“It’s the state’s way of covering the costs of groundwater,” he said. “In my opinion, that’s not balancing the budget.”

(from Maricopa Monitor, TriValleyCentral.com, November 1, 2011)

The names and people don’t matter much, just tired players in a tedious game of politics and money. The State of Arizona hasn’t gotten it quite right yet but it’s coming close.  It will bicker, squabble, gesture and pose . . . finally coming to the conclusion that WATER and MONEY are the same.

Without this intimate relationship, housing developers investing a million and hoping to make millions will not be able to certify, guarantee, warrant there will be a 100-year assured supply of the stuff.

From the other side, millions will not buy what isn’t there.

Ground water? Aquifers? Both are ephemeral!

If y’care to see what’s there, look out your backdoor.

Environment and Jobs

In a recent column titled, “Party of Pollution”, Paul Krugman writing in the October 20, 2011, NY Times remarks that current thought among some Republicans wants environmental laws defanged for the ostensible purpose of creating jobs.

 

Krugman, concludes that suspending or eliminating environmental laws will simply make us sicker and poorer.

In a coincidental presentation to the Cottonwood City Council, Andy Groseta, head of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, took a cue from some of the positions of Republican presidential candidates and initiated an attack on the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) calling for a five-year moratorium on legal challenges under the Act. He singled out federal environmental regulations as standing in the path of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association plans to place thousands of cows in the federal forests. 

Without cattle eating more of the government grass, he says, calamitous fires will continue to ravage the Southwest and future famine was imminent. He claimed, also, his plan opens up the prospect of future jobs. 

"We need a 'time out' from the environmental process to harvest more trees and get more cattle out there," he said.

 
He called the measure a "jobs creator bill."

Job creation, as a concept, has become the new enabler.  Despite the temporary change created in the name of jobs, longer lasting effects will affect the environment, rivers and water resources in particular.

Without trees and grass rain impacts the ground directly and in this hilly region of the Southwest run-off, or just simple erosion, becomes a problem.  Run-off loads rivers with silt as topsoil is washed away.

Clear cutting was implicit.  Selective cutting of trees to clean out years of undergrowth and neglect was not mentioned. 


In this desert environment trees such as Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine take decades to mature. 

A moratorium on EPA Regulations is, in effect, a permanent solution in the desert.  

In contrast, for example, trees in the Northwest reach harvestable size in 15 years because of the abundant rainfall.  Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Jerome don’t get abundant rainfall.  

Obviously, we all have a stake in this public position and ranchers should not hold a special position that alters our water resources because of queer, uneducated, special interests.

Our water resources are more important than Arizona Cattle Growers Association interests.

Selling the Verde River, Part 2

It seems that any thoughts expressed about the Arizona ditch system that draws water from the Verde River generates a variety of knee-jerk reactions that are inaccurate or irrelevant.

The point made in the previous post was that the design of the diversion dam on the Verde River may be pushing more water through the Cottonwood Ditch than it is entitled to take.

I did not (1.) condemn the ditch system nor did I (2.) disparage the 300+ users of Cottonwood Ditch water.  Although certainly possible, I did not (3.) question the environmental impact of the diversion dam.

Google Earth Image taken June 13, 2011, showing the Cottonwood Ditch Assoc. diversion dam.  Nearly 100% of the Verde River is blocked, diverting most of the river’s flow not along its natural course but to the Cottonwood Ditch. Various springs and seeps restore the river’s flow about 1,000 yds. downstream.

Others have concerns, as well. 

Doug Van Gausig, Mayor of Clarkdale, entered comments into the minutes of the town council meeting of June 2007 regarding Mr. Grosetas activity.

"This summer the Cottonwood Ditch is again diverting 100% of the Verde River into their ditch, allowing only a trickle to bypass the diversion. This is a terrible thing for the river's habitat. It means that the river is no longer a viable corridor for transportation and migration of aquatic animals - the diversion becomes, in essence, an unnatural barrier to movements in the river. I talked to Greg Kornrumph, of SRP, and to Max Castillo and Les Bovee of State Parks (which operates the Hickey Ditch) about possible remedies for this situation. I'll continue to work on this issue with State Parks, FreeportMcMoRan and Cottonwood Ditch to find an equitable, legal and durable solution to this annual problem."

A suggestion made by Mr. Groseta is that “interested citizens and political leaders consider the adverse impact . . . trees and vegetation are causing to our river system. These millions of trees are sucking the river dry!", he asserts. 

If this is the case, it’s surprising he has let trees and vegetation line the first mile or so of the Cottonwood Ditch.  (He is President, remember!!!)

As the photo indicates, the river's water has disappeared because of the dam, not because of surrounding trees and vegetation.

Mr. Groseta's myopia may stem from all the trees that block his view of the forest.

The question should not be my qualifications but Andy Groseta's take from the river.  It affects everyone.


NOTES: 
1. I debated whether to continue the subject of this blog in the Verde Independent.  A newspaper is not the format for on-going discussions of a subject.

2. Some respondents to my previous blog should learn the difference between insinuation and inference.  I don't insinuate anything, but I can't control reader inferences.

How to Sell the Verde River.

Andy Groseta has again blocked the complete flow of the Verde River.  He's entitled to do it...Arizona law says so.  The law also says he is entitled to take 10.6 cubic-feet-per-second from the river for the Cottonwood Ditch Association, an organization he heads up.

Note the increased level of the Verde River upstream from the dam and note
the curved configuration. That's important because it increases the flow rate of
water through the sluice gate that is a primitive way of measuring his
"take" ...which he sells.

His water-take is determined by a simple sluice gate.  The flow through that sluice gate, however, is determined by the pressure of the river, whether the river is "high" or "low".

Note the level of the Verde behind the dam.  It's 8 -10 feet higher than downstream.

The primitive measuring systems in use do not calculate river back-up, water pressure and subsequent flow.  

It's not the diversion dam that's at issue.  The issue is whether the design of the diversion dam increases his "take" beyond his entitlement.

Has anyone measured Groseta’s take from the river?

My neighbor has a sign that proclaims, “The River Always Wins.”

We’ll see.  The Verde may need some $$$s of its own.

Underground Water Issues

From the 6-29-2011 New York Times:

With uranium prices rising, the number of mining claims (has) jumped sharply over the last few years. There have been about 3,500 claims in the Grand Canyon-area alone. If developed, they would generate toxic wastes that would threaten the Colorado River — the source of drinking water for roughly 27 million people — the aquifer and the Grand Canyon ecosystem in general.

This excerpt is not taken from a scientific journal nor is it a hydrologists’ more or less educated opinion.  It’s just common sense:  What happens on the surface has consequences in the aquifer below it.

Little wonder that Native Americans push against this project. . .they’ve been around for a while and may have a different perspective than we Anglos.

Water Use Slowing but Rates Increase

Water use in at least one Arizona metro area seems to be slowing according to a news item reported several times on KJZZ, an NPR radio station in Tempe, and the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson.  

Despite an increasing population in the Tucson Water Service Area, served by several utilities, water use is only slightly higher than a decade ago.

Use is even less when calculated on a per-person basis.  That number has dropped from 164 to 133 gallons per day since the year 2000.

Reasons for this decline are only speculative but range from the slower economy to residents’ changes in income, household water bills, their attitudes about their financial future, and even their mortgage situation asserts Gary Woodard, an associate director of hydrology and water resources at the University of Arizona.

However, the water utilities want the economics to cut two ways. 

When supply is adequate and demand drops as it has in some communities, prices should decrease . . . at least according to our laws of supply and demand.  Because demand has dropped, the water utilities shouldn't cry poor because of sliding revenues and shouldn't charge higher rates to remedy their problem.

But, that’s exactly what they’re doing by proposing an 8.2% increase for fiscal 2011 – 2012.

The solution, says a friend with former ties to Ohio’s Public Utilities Commission, is to establish a similar organization in Arizona that would regulate rates, not with an eye to profit but what utility rates are necessary to cover costs.

That may be too much to expect short term but what we can count on, long term, is more expensive water.

To review background on this, click on the following link:

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_8853849a-c86c-5d67-b81d-bd5ab53946e9.html