subset so we're punishing them for that that's the implication i draw from what you just said absolutely not with what was the proper implication to draw from what you do so the implication is i guess the point i'm making is had there been something in the record to indicate appropriate for them to hold up and in effect say you're not connecting through the sewer line at least not now because we have this dispute over here that's the line i'm trying to get you say yes your honor the significance this resulted in about a five year process of litigation between the parties addressing what to do in light of the script and the only project that came up after the screech and after the filing of the lawsuit earlier mentioned this exactly identical fact pattern well it's not exactly identical right because you know homework it was evidently taken as a given that there was no rational basis and here you just heard at length they had a would say there's a rational basis how could it be that we would approve enormous new project when the birds responsibilities rights c etc everything associated with the sharing agreement had just been thrown out the window it's perfectly rational for a municipality to say we're not many things to come into this system and tell we work out the sharing agreement which we have thought we had worked out now that's their position that sounds like a rational basis something that wasn't in a week so you know i dress that that's a difference right and a potentially very meaningful role is any evidence relating to this rational argument that's something that you couldn't even find in the four corners of the complaint and this case comes at the motion to dismiss stage unlike other cases that the paper for those letters ri agreement governs control and ownership of mexico any townships sewage plant dislocated in mexico any well only thing that with that issue is not the plant itself but the main line that connects between which stage and so you can't think about those things but we're not really at the motion to dismiss stage with a qualified immunity stagefright i will address the rational basis argument and and  would you say it has nothing to do with the pike there's a shared sewer system and be green in between the two municipalities had to do with how well they were going to manage this shared resource in the government by you advantage point by you're suing them as state actors to take into account mutual responsibilities which are now in dispute they'll make question for you is at does that make it irrational or does that make it or does that make it constitutionally infirm in other words is it possible for something to be rationally related could spell its interests and also be something which put pressure on that you seem to be saying the fact that this is important to mess that could could use it as negotiate leverage they said if so facto irrational and ill will and been big for them to say you know we've got a dispute that we've got to get work down the way those things mutually exclusive rational reason to want to get things worked out because they ought to be worked out by the way it gives us some leverage in our on and as you put it we've become upon it from their perspective you know they're saying we're not against you but we've got a dispute it's ongoing and it up backs this system it's rational for us to put a stop on the users until we was spiked which made them feel happy by denying them this water supply he gave them some reason it's not like they really can do anything it's not like the government official you know the case did it without any reason  reason but it was a bad result of not being here you're saying it's a bad reason as well and the reason it's bad is because even though they might not have any entity for your client directly it's and try to tie in to tell me and all it needed was a certification from chris towne sent to the t t saying that we have sufficient capacity to for the next five years to serv e this project in the next five years and what the d p asked was just tell me yes or no to you do you have the capacity to service this project for the next five years  right yes but isn't that able nine or the only question that was asked from across town russ do you have the capacity they misrepresented by saying no and six days later they changed it because point that pointed out the point thing is when they changed it by saying yes we agree that we were wrong and that there is enough capacity to serve this project the next five years but it says but if you can move forward with this april fifteenth april fifteenth two thousand and fourteen letter now a better question if the only question that then you have to answer was to this a yes or no there is capacity why do they have to talk to the township solicitor on ship or solicitor for several hours and to interject something that was prompted by saying before you  because the only question at that point was whether the hype is sufficient capacity and that's the only question that the d p p want to know the right th so it is in the record as an exhibit it was not attached by plaintiffs to the underlying second amended complaint so i don't think there's a dispute or there can't be a dispute here on this record and certainly it's not evidence from the from the must be resolved and then he goes on to say that the validity of the esther yessiree agreement should first be addressed before this exemption is granted i mean then that in the record this is are we back in april fifteenth two thousand