So flash forward to the last section of the book, is all about Arizona, where I grew up.

And there the issue, obviously, is not too much water, there's too little water.

I talk about the Central Arizona Project, which is a canal that brings Colorado River water hundreds of miles across the desert into Phoenix and Tucson.

Most of the book focuses on the farmers there who because they're the ones who are feeling the impacts of the water shortages in the Colorado River.

They're finding themselves--some of these cases, some of my sources and characters in the book, are people who are being cut off from their water supplies.

One of them's a young farmer, he's in his 30s, he just had his first kid, he's a fifth-generation grower, and he's now realizing that he doesn't, he's not going to have any water, at least not the way he thought he was going to.

And this is all after years of depending on at the time, it was a largest piece of infrastructure that the country had built – the Central Arizona Project canal.

And so I can make this connection there that I think what's happening in Arizona, the reason so many people are moving to this place that's struggling with basics like water, is because there's a false sense of security that's been provided for by this infrastructure that we built there.

So one thing I was curious about that that struck me that you also mentioned in the book is that maladaptation isn't necessarily just the physical infrastructure rebuild like sea walls or the pipeline bringing water but can include things like laws – and I know that that was particularly a part of the situation in Arizona.

And so can you talk a little bit about, given what you've learned in your reporting, what some of the pitfalls that you're worried about as we try to adapt to climate change are particularly outside of the physical infrastructure?

Especially when it comes to laws and policies and things, I think one of the biggest pitfalls is our kind of need to write things in stone.

Maybe this, you know, this is an aspect of our legal system?

Where lawyers want to have everything battened down, you want to make sure that there's no confusion about who has rights to what, or you know, who's responsible for what, and so we write laws and policies that are, they are as hard as concrete.

And that is a really bad strategy, when you don't know what's going to come down the pipeline.

What we need are adaptive, malleable, reactive policies, and laws and things – things that can change on a whim, not things that are going to be stuck in time.

The policy I've talked to most about in Arizona is the Colorado River Compact, right, which just had its 100-year anniversary last year.

And that kind of sets up the whole story there, because that law determined how much water there was in the river, right?

But it used bad information to do that, which was part of the problem to begin with.

But it also committed the seven states, and eventually Mexico, to using, to having access to, and therefore using a certain amount of water.

Regardless of how much water was actually in the river, whether it would change over time, you know, this was a thinking that really came out of the east part of U.S. where there's ample water, and they just hadn't thought enough about the fact that this river would probably run dry at times and other times were flooded.

And so by locking us into this idea that there was this much water and everyone had this much right to it, they committed the future of these states and cities to just try to use up all the water they had the rights to, regardless of whether that was necessarily a good idea.