challenge that regulation on of the two thousand and fifteen variance regulations specifically states that states may adopt variances if it controls the pollution controls required to achieve the base or quality standards would lead to substantial and widespread economic and social impact e p a found based on the record developed by montana yes the discharges here were compelled to comply with the base or to meet the basic water quality standards that a substantial and widespread economic and social impact would occur waterkeeper never challenges that regulatory body waterkeeper doesn't challenge the regulation as interpreted or applied and waterkeeper also never specifically challenges the regulation itself as we noted in our briefs in water keepers nd and its final reply brief waterkeeper never even acknowledges the relevant regulatory provisions and water keeper below so they weren't waterkeeper should be required to acknowledge the particular regulation second point your honour's by disregarding the regulations waterkeeper has failed to acknowledge the nature of a variance within the regulatory scheme waterkeeper because the base criteria remain for other purposes under the statute in the base rate to remain for other discharge so would make a lot of sense within the regulatory scheme to have a separate designated for the particular water body but the has adopted or propose a certain control technology the time period would be based on time needs design and install that particular equipment there is no textual support for the district courts the only aspect of the regulations t variance is not in open and operate out from meeting to the standards progress must be achieved must be maintained and additional activities to improve processes and polluting controls are required under the variance use of the case found that in fact the poison pill had not taken effect because one of the triggering events had not occurred the court noted that it considered twelve b still the original one that is the subject of this case the highest attainable condition for the water throughout the term of the varians and then fail to require that protective standards alternately be met at some point in time my nd point is that we just reported did not to pollution just chargers as opposed to what is necessary to protect montana as designated use the turning st two to the point that they just report was correct in finding that the circular twelve  ok you know i'm supposed to have a refrigerator throughout march but that means i have to have it on march st as opposed to i guess a refrigerator during march might allow me to be emphasize in your briefs the language does say such standards will be subject to protect the public health or welfare do you agree or disagree that e p a and montana can consider welfare in don't i think that they are to protect the public health or welfare but i also and i have great i agree that that is in fact the language of the statute i do not believe that that means that the rest of the statute can be read as meaning that as long as brief for example the d opening brief age to you say the clean water act is not allow cost considerations to drive water quality standards directly or indirectly and i would ask you them provide for that congress knows how to provide that and has dom's we've got many cases where the supreme court has said for example congress does not hide all of that now so i just didn't want to  could spend trillions and trillions and trillions to clean up the cement line gone but it's never going to get there so we would prefer to protect it for some lesser designated use that is there but it's got a lot of safeguards in it there are a lot of requirements that a state house to pass because we do not want and congress did not want someone to simply throw up their hands and say well it's going to be a little bit hard so we don't want to protect for example the pristine trout streams of the parties the court ordered without specific deadlines but it said i want you to go back rewrite the twelve b variance so we can still have a variance but i need hines to cannibal conditions to be m applying this regulation because what happens with the way they are interpreting it is an open ended indefinite off ramp from meeting protected water parties ganders water quality standards designed to protect designated uses that better if they didn't want to go to the base immediately they would have to go through the same process for any new variance and that could be a challenge that is it's the end of the seventeen years  say look you're just you know you're just bluffing you can do it tomorrow then you could bring that challenge in the administrative process to start with right they could not delay you further they say there will be a new variance unless there is a lot cheaper technology that comes down the road that this states in its discretion decides is cheap enough that we will move for me to actually protect the standard so there is definitely some foreshadowing your honor that that's where we're headed there will be a process i agree we participate we just believe that this variance does not meet the standards of the law today terms during and through out mean that the air has to be met at the beginning and that's exactly what the language doesn't cite right it doesn't say it has to be met at the beginning it says the verb fireman's ply during this term that just means they  but that's exactly what the plain language barrier that i gave the court needs right no longer than necessary to achieve the highest and it will be addition means as soon as possible subject only to right these attainability concerns was just wrong that it's necessarily twenty years as we explained in the brief it varies and it will be determined at the permits they treat each particular discharge counsel's also wrong is saying this has something to do with what montana wants to spend right this is not about what