and then later when one of those cities or both of them ask for those contractual terms of the force say i'm sorry we can't do that because our ability to agree with you to do anything involving safety of a hazardous liquid pipeline is preempted by federal law our position is that the olympic pipeline both went entered into the franchise agreement power to assist through the office of pipeline safety or by delegations of the washington utilities and transportation commission cannot wave their requirement to abide by those safety requirements imposed by the federal government that argument would prevail that is the city of seattle couldn't impose state new requirements over a pipeline just because it was in the geographic boundaries of the city of seattle but here has here the pipeline crosses through city property and the contract is for the use of that city property so these are not generally a pluggable standards that the instead of condemning the property it had agreed with a private landowner it would agree to these conditions in order to get a tenure easement over that private piece of property our position would be the life to the state of washington but that the city has to be directly certified by the department of transportation if it's to become an overall regulator of of the pipeline  on what is without any interstate pipeline there's an argument as whether the one coming from rent seattle's interstate interstate but if you take the much larger and more complete example of the remember the olympic voluntarily entered into the city of bellingham of two thousand and it gave bellingham all kinds of safety oversight rights by contract over the operation  that it signs a promising anything to get the franchise knowing full well waiters and say good bye go away and the contract provides as the contract in bellingham that at the expiration of the our governmental entity for example firm entering into a collective bargaining agreement that pays much higher wages than the minimum wage so that i think that's part it's important to me to this one of the three of us anyway to try to entire paragraph is no i'm going to anything that has to do with pipeline safety the management operation and maintenance of the pipeline is the exclusive then that is an interesting hypothetical and i don't know the answer that i do know that that's not an issue before the court i think that our need to rest well i don't know the answer that city give for instance reasonable time for the pipeline to find an alternative location or an alternative route i don't know the answer all i know is that the reason that we filed this case was that the city of seattle said hydrogen or shut down you know and we didn't think they had the right to say that that's the issue it's that narrow narrow narrow issue it's not an issue of what would happen certainly not an issue of what beginning to the end and if a limb pic was subject to safety regulation and extra safety regulations for each municipality an each other governmental entity that it flowed through and each chose to exercise it the cost would be enormous and would probably make the pipeline on it but i'm michael in washington let me  down there's also course the i don't think that i don't think that the indemnity provision could be used to make an end run around the fact that pipeline safety is preempted by the federal government certified and it has a proviso that says municipalities are included in that only to the extent that you're talking about a gas pipeline this is a hazardous liquid pipeline so under that statute the city of warranty is binding in all respects not preempted by federal law i think it's fair to say that if there was a record made of it the record would be that it was a relatively laissez faire regulation since one thousand nine hundred nine and the regulators inspect themselves as much as they require inspections by olympic an audit lympics inspections and other olympics procedures that's the that's the thirty's your honor if the problem the problem is how you just defined overstate and and where you draw the line with the multiple jurisdictions are involved i can tell you that of bellevue to monitor directly olympics performance of its obligations under to its regulators so if we're talking about a mechanism to provide information and a mechanism to receive input in those things that regulation those are good communication and those are things that can be negotiated and in fact have been negotiated with other municipalities seattle doesn't want to talk to us until they know how this case is going to t service is there anything in the record relating to the ability of the pipeline to deliver its services if it is subjected to multiple municipal regulations i honestly i know that there is no expert opinion or i think that there may have been some probably hearsay comments in the in the context of depositions that may have found their way into the record there is no quantification of that is a short time of interruption of the ability to have pipe of oil pipeline products flow through the pipeline while the water is flowing through and it's being pressure test but that's a matter of less than a week i was thinking more  t you know if you had thirty cities in each of them impose different standards on the pipeline whether the economics who would make the right and not viable any that is that you cannot insist on contractual rights in order to overcome a federal standard and in providing this a paladin with rights that they couldn't otherwise get while the supreme court said at the same time you don't have to issue a franchise either and this board in the leonard versus park has said if the union didn't have to agree to those provisions and give a it's constitutional rights but it did and the evidence decide anything for political purposes and then later when the consequences are there say i'm sorry federal government doesn't let us do the federal government has only minimal minimal staffers nothing specific