will we versus they institute to answer your first question there is not a list of other purposes of the statute isn't as great however i don't think that is that is determinative here because the answer to your second question how to construe the statute is to give effect to primary is to require the question maybe whether the secretary would be compelled to allocate more than half of the larger kind of primary purpose whether the secretary in just trying to allocate more than half of the the secretary to decide that more than half would go in the from the c p p to accomplish that purpose the second reason why we believe that that reinforced primary clause to be given specific leon something that it's it proceeds th what the ruling says ye district court will intend probably in conflict with itself the judge made very detailed findings in three separate that extent they should be credit years is that that language refers to changes in the way the project is operated and it provides benefits but does not reduce the amount of project water available the example we used in our brief your honor is that these are basically  the department of the interior stated i will quote interior disagrees interior believes that finalizing the revised decision at this time is an appropriate exercise secretary's discretion so the secretary of the interior has exercised her discretion to adopt a new decision and admittedly if anyone c new decision goes beyond the authority of the secretary set forth in the statute then the party would be free to challenge that new decision but the adoption of the new decision means that things were in the new decision that different from the meaning and order of that this record well the district court's decision dealt with issues concerning limitations on the amount of water used for the for endangered species act purposes it helpful if you have the accounting issues but there are other issues that are in the new policy that were not addressed by the district court as an example the new policy establishment is that a new shortage criteria that will be employed to determine when the eight hundred thousand acre feet will be reduced that is an issue that was never addressed by the an accounting issue your honor one but there but there is a change in policy that those relates to accounting and that is that interior will dedicate an upfront two hundred thousand acre feet for what can be characterized as discretionary the two uses and so the new policy does modify the way in which interior will account for water used under be two i guess or the reason i asked that  follow the correct law if we indeed decide that district court made a mistake but now you're saying well we went back on our remit and and we did with the district court told us to  to decide issues that were decided by the district court although that as i indicated that controversy is no longer alive because the policy which was the subject of the district court's decision this is how i am going to implement the law now there may be some issues pertaining to the new decision which the district court could decide in a new case that may be substantially the same as the issues that were raised by this appeal but the policy that was the subject of that action is no longer in effect it has been super there's a another issue but i would like to turn to on the merits in case you do determine that the court has jurisdiction and it relates to authorized by the the act but if you listen to the argument carefully they would limit the fish wildlife and habitat restoration purposes of the act restoration purposes of the act and in fact section thirty four zero six b includes among the authorized fish wildlife and habitat purposes of the act meeting and i'm quoting here meeting all obligations under state and federal law including but not limited to the federal endangered species act and all the solutions of the california state water resources control board establishing conditions unapplicable licensors and permits for the project those are among the fish wildlife and habitat restoration purposes of the act this caller said but it wasn't necessary for congress to set aside yield for those purposes because the project was already obligated to meet the requirements of the endangered project concerning the obligation of the klamath project to use appropriated water to comply with biological opinions under the endangered species a there at the time c b p i it was an act that there was a great controversy concerning the obligation of the central valley project to comply with decisions of the state water resources purpose because your are what congress was trying to say through the use of primary purpose was that the water could be available for other purposes if the court looks at the legislative history of the act upon enactment of this act assign one point five million acre feet of project field for the primary purpose of implementing the fish wildlife and habitat restoration purposes and measures authorized by so when the bill went to conference well what let me ask ask ask your answer your question specifically so congress used the one point five million acre feet of project he'll cry for the primary purpose to indicate a congressional intent that once the water had been used for environmental purposes it could be used for other purposes as well for instance once water has been released from a reservoir to increase flow for the benefit of fish it can be we diverted downstream in the delta so that it can be used again for irrigation purposes primary purpose was inserted to make it clear that the water once it had been used for fish wildlife habitat restoration purposes could be used for other purposes then the question becomes why did congress insert the language to assist the state of california in its efforts to protect the waters of san francisco bay and the delta and to help meet such obligations as may be legally imposed upon the c d p under state or federal law following the date of an act meant this title including but not limited to additional obligations under the federal endangered species act and that language was added in conference to make it clear that to express  additive to it now if you look at the legislative history there are many statements to come out from from members on the floor in the conference report was being considered by the respective houses and  out well those were opponents of the original bill but this was a compromise and that's exactly what those members said this was a compromise if we were to if we were to take the case without legislative history to actually look at the law that was passed rather than what to meet with the idle chatter about preferences of various individuals who are members is your definition of primary purpose something like the purpose to be served principly but not exclusively of others i have two responses to that your honor the first is that by using the word primary congress did not mean solely for this purpose but beyond that and i think this is this this is critically important when the environmental when environmental plaintiffs were four one and then expect you have it here because its volume is high but interior made the following comment it should be noted that the delta water quality control plan includes standards that promote restoration of environmental policies have the court believe if you look at the language of the statute it says the primary purpose is for implementing the fish while life and habitat restoration purposes and measure authorized by t now my purpose my purpose in referring to what interior said about water quality control plant was that interior did what it was directed to do  with the state of california developing these new water quality control plans standards for the delta to say we want to use water that will be dedicated under b two for water quality control plan purposes in four hundred fifty thousand acre feet the four hundred fifty thousand acre feet would be needed to meet the fishery requirements of the water quality control plan so if in fact the statute required for the preponderance of the water or a majority of the water the used for those purposes using it to meet the water quality control plant standards was in furtherance of that because under that plan four hundred fifty thousand would be used for fishery purposes not necessarily fishery purposes authorized by this title but for no no no in fact your honor they are fishery purposes authorized by this title because if your honor were to look our obligations under state and federal law including but not limited to the federal endangered species act and all decisions of the california water resources control board establishing conditions on the portable licenses and permits for the project so that gotta remember not only get the finality of this but your honor what the court said the court listed a number of factors in color and i am not sure that any of those factors apply in this case beyond that your honor i don't believe that that declining to exercise jurisdiction in this case is going to prevent any party from remain and from the district court does put some limits certainly on what inferior can do with its new accounting decision it puts some constraints on interior but at the same time leaves a fair feet but they keep coming up with a new accounting decision interior has to figure out how we can maintain the statutory purposes and still abide by those limits and in doing that it has to make discretionary decisions as mr birmingham mentioned one of those is that well we'll set a two hundred thousand acre feet target for the beginning of the water year from october to january and we will target few hundred thousand acre feet for fishery purposes then that's that's an important time to do that now in the comments that we received on the graph decision that are included in district court and that accordingly this court doesn't have jurisdiction now we don't really see it as a movement issue in fact we think that the issues that are being raised here  from raising that in an appeal from the final judgment when it does become final and i don't think they precluded that the exception that colored notes has been applied where the years two thousand and two thousand and one i think that's incorrect i mean for one for one thing even if it was a limited ring and just for those that still remain on but i think that's based on a misreading of the order the or over there would have been no point for that i think clearly that district courts remain and was to the agency to come up with a new accounting decision taking into account if you will the legal limits that the district court be saying if you like some guidance from from this court on some of the issues that were raised but i think it's a matter of appellate jurisdiction that the only proper way to get guidance on particular legal issues is twenty eight primary purpose issue and completely different argument it's found that that's actually an established and immutable ceiling on the total amount of c b p yield that can be provided to environmental purposes this cannot be squared with the law which indicates congress intended just the opposite to carve out a new part of water for restoration not to limit the c p s uses of the statutes and finally i am out of time but i would request that if this court