day also filed to state court action as a purely protective measure because there was only a thirty day window in which to bring suit in we had to ensure that if for any reason the district court did not exhibit kate the case that the united states would state courts may be too deferential to state agencies and state policies on matters that impact a federal agencies execution of federal policy as set for the next of congress and that's the us is generation that in a badly written ball involving both federal statutes and state statutes where those two things are mixed that we think not only is it important that the united states be able to educate in federal court but that in section honor and i will do lou keep track of that keep track of that here thank you sir but one your honor how i would respond to that and i think this is critical here is that if we're looking at colorado river  countervailing interest that must be identified in order to weigh against those role of the federal courts exercising federal jurisdiction in order for that to be that narrow exception of the supreme court refor to from the almost flagging to the of the federal courts it's actually this court that emphasized that that countervailing interest must be identified not by the state up by congress itself in federal statute this is what the answer to my question with a practical one they do the the answer to the practical question your honor is that this court's precedents make clear that merely having dual track litigation in the fact court this court in rejecting him st and a district court's grant of abstention under colorado under colorado river said quote colorado river does not say that every time it is possible for a state court to obviate the need for federal review by deciding factual issues in a particular way the federal court should abstain as discipline court has observed such a holding would make a mockery of the rule that only exceptional circumstances justify a federal court's refusal to decide a case in deference to the state's rather colorado river stands for the for it stands for the proposition that when congress has as it was in colorado river itself only when there is evidence of a strong federal policy that all claims should be tried in the state courts it is just another quest and you are rolling a precedent in moros is controlling in that because no federal statute has identified a policy as the mccarran amendment did in colorado river explicitly saying that congress district court on d the factors where where the lower court found that that abstention would not be counsel for the regarding the factors with a lower court believe that colorado river was cold for o more broadly to say that that that you would have to be mccarran per se it could be any variation thereof any federal policy reflected in federal statute signaling that congress was district court for the central district of california invoked that very point that i'm mentioning just last august just several months ago in finding that cop in holding the colorado river applies when congress  identifies the countervailing policy i think the question here your honor becomes not whether there is a countervailing policy that would counsel in favor of an extension but rather is a question is who gets to decide whether there  s a countervailing policy who gets to claim an articulate countervailing policy and they would say that it's congress that has to do so and that the other side can point to no indication that the united states wanted as was the case in mccarran where the united states consents to the injured a case in of these matters in state court instead in a situation where both federal statutes and state statutes are to on on the basis that that is meant to refer to just a position in this case the state law claims and the reason for that is when you have a case that present the circumstances we have here where the state law claims are present in bold the state and federal action but the federal action alone has a federal claim and where that federal claim can be separated neatly from the state law claims and adjudicated without significant duplication of  effort or the risk of inconsistent judgement be partial stay still serve the purpose of colorado river because it increases efficiency by allowing the state court to handle the state law issues and the federal courts deal with the better of court issue water area that we're talking one part is better than the other or we're based in technically being able to handle a particular element of the play why is one better than the other of handling the whole thing choose what i want to you seem to say that it is the federal claim is totally separate from the state claims that it seems to me that some of the problems that arise in state claims are impact this claim but this formulation that's made in the federal side is going to if you're going to say there's absolutely nothing to do with those other claims you know you're on i mean i  cannot as as you point out i think as judge smith's questioning points out due to the nature of water regulation particularly in this area we're talking about in stream flow requirements being the core of these regulations ensuring that enough water is maintained in the system there is inevitably the possibility of push and pull but the actual legal claim raised by the u s the u s is the only one that can raise that you need to the u s no one else can raise anything in the nature district court or the rest of the state court is able to to finally definitively adjudicate and handle the state claims again when they can be separated without significant risk of duplication that that factor is met because the state court is then finally educating nature of these regulations that if you're handling them within one chord gets rid of the risk of duplicative or unnecessary litigation and that's what the district court has done by sending these people claims to state court essentially and we do have a real risk of inconsistent judgments on the sequel claims where other parties in the state court proceeding have raised substantially similar claims regarding election defect with respect to the carry over storage requirements however the parties in the state court litigation cannot raise that same the foundation of the i g i claim the intergovernmental immunity claim which is treating the us differently from everybody else to an unfair disadvantage and i see my time is rapidly diminishing so and i just want to address the us his main contention here today which is that section one thousand three hundred and forty five essentially provides in a right a special right of access kind of a weight on the scale when it comes to the colorado river doctrine and i would just say of these contacts the do have that have no federal policy and the u s and its brief also stated that it is not taking a position which seems to be somewhat inconsistent with today that only a federal policy can allow the application of colorado river rather the us took the position as briefing that you need exceptional circumstances which is true and we admit that and to explain why this case is so exceptional we have an extremely complex area of water quality control or of state mistreated regulations which judge smith already touched on and we have the intertwining of all these parties currently we have twelve cases in the state court proceeding unnecessary duplication of effort and even conflicting judgments which generally the judiciary would try to avoid but doesn't that actually go to the point i think i was making which is if you have all of those in a single trial  risk of duplicative work and inconsistent judgments with respect that claim the super claims are duplicated in in significant part in the state claims other parties can and did bring those same different factual scenario where there was it was just the us proceeding with the federal claim in federal court in the state came claim instinct or what we have here to use the courts language in our history is a vastly more comprehensive state action river you give me an example of a the law that that basically controls those environmental and water resources from the the the bell so that is larry yeah i mean i can on the wise sort of come up with something like that but again i would just emphasize that seek was fundamentally different from the us constitution of course equal to  complex than the federal statutory interests here as well and that this case with a particularly poor vehicle from this court to create new president saying that a parcel stay is ever possible under colorado river since among other things it will leave a federal constitutional claim on the table which most certainly should be adjudicated by a federal court and that that then given that there would be a dual track litigation this court is faced  with with with an unfortunate choice here one would be to say that either a state court should decide all these matters including the federal constitutional prerogatives of the united states or that there will be dual track litigation so there will be no conservation of judicial resources and that that violates the very core rationale of colorado river so if there ever is an instance where a parcel stay under colorado river  it is something to explore this would not be the case to do so instead we would say that the text of one thousand three hundred and forty five dollars which grants jurisdiction ends except as otherwise provided by acts of factors rule of decision obviously that would be federal we believe federal courts should be the ones to decide whether federal rights constitutional rights are adequately represented and of course as to whether there is complete parallelism there is not there are some federal