action seeking a determination of its rights under nine hundred and fifty two dollars active exchange between its predecessor in title international paper company and the united states the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction lack of that the government had caused harm and said that instead the court found that aggregate had caused its own injury by choosing to charge the phase in question and that because aggregate had char had caused its own heart and had essentially a self inflicted injury that for that reason and that the government had not caused the harm and in this case it's important to remember several points one there are only two parties to the act of exchange and the act of exchange is a federal contract between the united states government and a private party and ca clear that there is no rd party standing so there are only two parties with any right to inforce any at any action or obligation under the act of exchange a took action that it believed it had the right to tadic as the laying down not action that was allowed to get under the act of exchange but action it believes it has the right to take as a landowner challenging that action that there is there is no question that what that action the government cause that injury and that and a decision declaring the rights of the parties will re parties rights and or the act of exchange and because there is no standing of any rd party any rd party will necessarily be balanced by a decision that affects the two parties to the act exchange it would be the equivalent of accurate in the united states modifying their agreement which they have the right to do that not prohibited under the act of exchange and that would also be binding on the parties and in terms of the outcome you ultimately did desire to achieve that the requirements for standing require here's a causal connection that just doesn't exist with the action the government took or the none action the lead in to my question which is did the missouri courts or whatever implicitly ole that there was standing on the part of b s people who wanted to use the lake that they had standing to sue i mean of that implicit in the fact they issued an  in a contract between the federal government in a private party you arkansas courts i apologize but i guess my problem then is is that sitting there aaron if it's sitting there and they've made this thir parties to the active exchange they can change it at any time they want so any ruling saying that there was a right of some rd party to not be said dick to those face would be rendered moot by the district court decision so burden of causation in this case they cannot meet the burden of consolation as there is no adverse legal interest between the united states and agra or other injury predate the complaint of conduct beginning no adverse legal interest here as the united states has not in the past disputed the phase in fact agora charge the fees for numerous years united states did not take any action and the united impossible and also it is a hypothetical set of facts the united states of publicly made this information knowing how can they later change their position and also and state the contract  yesterday i would agree that is a bit of an overstatement but my point in this case is that exhibit a for accurate would be here is the letter from the united states signing that they believe the contract is silent on the seas and in that same letter the united states briefly discussed so that it doesn't have the authority to say whether or not ag read and charge we see it's just not likely that the it is impossible in this case and i will be firm on the possibility this that there is no traceability so and i've stated the injury that accurate compliance of the state court litigation and specifically discussing the friend  add red trace injury to the united states conduct which occurred five months after the entry that it is impossible there is not traceability united states in this  moving on even if the united states court asked these two questions to opposing counsel even if the united states were to changes the dishes and say that it supports wholeheartedly see what changes they see there is no difference as the court asked earlier that i'm aware of their status that's your regulation that says a court must refer to the government's interpretation of  contract that does not make any logical sense and i do not believe there would be any i were all or statute out there that would give the united states any type of deference in saying that and clearly the united not going to be deterred from pursuing litigation just because the united states to a certain position next aggro makes different arguments about how the lower court error by finding that it discussing taking the elect this wind farm case where a court incorrectly found that it causes a mentary in that case there are this winery have this wind farm license and this lifetime may them subject jika to the statute that required that their wine be made up of a certain percentage in state and gradients there they sued this commissioner who would have the authority to enforce this provision as like a prosecution or they'd be subject to civil liabilities and so they want to return to the commissioner and the court ultimately found that they winery have standing in that case because the commissioner has an adverse legal interest to the winery because they can enforce this provision and prosecute them for failing to comply with the statute that's not there is no flexibility to this case there is no unilateral enforcement that the government the government could pursue in this case that they are contracting parties where  incorrectly determined that they were that by continuing to pay these fees that there was no longer any injury and no standing this has no flexibility in this case there's there is no argument by the united states there's no opinion by the lower court that because ag read want the injunction was issued and the state court stopped charging the fee that is no longer any favor there would be no redress ability afforded to agra as a state court and state court tribunals is not bound by inferior federal court there would be no binding effect i will time that with respect to traceability and our city both of those principles in the declaratory judgment context are structural there are only two parties to the active exchange the only adverse party  saying that the other party didn't fall is that injury in the in the context of a declaratory judgment is taking a position contrary that would a limited a declaratory judgment in the context of a declared or a judgement action if the district court's ruling is correct in a contract between the federal government in a privately owned down when a controversy arises with respect to that contract even with rd parties who have no standing and no interest in a contract the landowner can't take action it believes it has the right to take as the land down there and the government simply by saying that it takes no position which is in and of itself taking is so adversity again it is structural there are only two parties to the act of exchange that have any any standing in the right to start any anything under the act of exchange that is moment you can't charge for access to this recreation side even though they're acknowledging that the act of exchange does not prohibit the they are saying well but there are some species that you can't charge and so that is directly contrary to aggregate position that it can charge fees as a landowner and impose reasonable reg rules and regulations on its own property as long as structural component in the context of a declaratory judgment action where as the only other party to the active extent i they are an adverse party and they're the only person who can have caused the injury by taking an adverse position to a