three points i would like to emphasize today first the point which will occupy i suspect most of our time the standard of review for this case the district court vacated our creation student based  the proper standard to reach completely irrational or manifest disregard of the law the court still applied the improper analysis of attempting to ascertain whether or not the s drinking water laws in oregon are environmental laws as a matter of legislation that's really the question your honor is not what is the legislative intent of the law the question is what is the intent of parties and  decision in the ninth circuit under section ten b of the federal arbitration that the decision can be so completely irrational or it can be in manifest disregard of the law both of those standards are much different than the impossibilities standard applied by the district horse implausibility your daughter my understanding of possibility is difficult to believe the standard of completely irrational crazies and that level your honor the standard of a decision being impossible to believe even decisions which are wrong on the law cannot be vacated by district  to apply that law to the decision before him or her or to the arbitration panel because the implausibility standard yeah it's contradictory not only to this court's decision organ drinking water asked was not an applicable environmental law in order to come to back including the arbitrator happens through the entire arbitration record in front of him that determination so the analysis of the district court to look at the characterization of what is an environmental law and what is not in the part of the law misses the point entirely the question is not what the legislature intent the question here is in the the first question is your standard of review your ability to look high what the arbitrator did and review those findings and this is my third point that record for to answer your question is not before this you don't have a record to weigh whether the arbitrators you what's an environmental law was right or whether it was wrong the second step of this analysis is the context in which the parties negotiated the leats and that requires looking at words environmental law content in this sense that it's not just any environmental law that would cause the indemnity provision to be called upon it would have to be an environmental law that has some application to the claim for tenant was in compliance with environmental law it would just be the test are in compliance with all environmental law and that's just not what the police asked the person in the best position to assess the hard facts and the meaning environmental laws on one side are laws about her clearly to protect the environment the clean air act in the main water and regulate pollutants that are invested in our industrial society to contaminate the environment on assignment of risk for the allocation of breath i think that this feast for vision that is subject to our mark especially today the arbitrator now and based upon all the evidence which he review determination was implausible paul should be made no argument under the correct basis of better arbitration that the decision was completely irrational or a manifest this recall the law so ground if you were to find that his decision alternatively supported under the irrational stand you can affirm the district court's opinion on that basis i don't think i've personally i don't agree that we didn't i think that's true i don't think that was the focus of the panel the last time i think the focus was on the kind of terror decision and whether the kaiser decision applied to these rather unusual circumstances were parties did not have an underlying arbitration agreement solely based upon his reading which he plucked out of thin air as to what that word me and i think the district court properly recognized that the arbitrator's decision was not grounded or tethered to anything in the actual lease agreement between the parties and that's why i was an irrational or implausible conclusion one of the questions you asked earlier was how how wrong does it have to be in order for this court to not confirm an award and i would submit when any arbitral decision is not based on anything in the contract it's not based on any facts it is just based on the arbitrator's own notion of what justice should be in a particular case and it is not something that arises for drugs as it's from the country and i think that's what the completely irrational standard means it has to whether you agree with him or not authority for that notion that iraq is simply a decision that is not tethered in any manner or grounded in any manner on anything in the lease agreement or indeed and so i would urge that you know using the water for their employees to drinking to wash away that cetera we were just the landlord under a triple net lease had very little attachment to the property other than other than that so your hon it's clear that they violated and an environmental law so the only issue is whether it's in a pluggable or not that's where the arbitrator fell down on the shot and that's where his decision is completely irrational and or implausible doesn't matter which all environmental laws pretty easy because they didn't test the groundwater for the presence of that contamination in addition he found that the organ drinking water quality act was in a pleasurable because it was not and i want to quote this section because i think it's important he said it was not designed to protect landowners from having their property protected from environmental damage this is nonsensical reason and the district court properly held that was not sensible reason no environmental law has that power and no environmental law could pass that test environmental laws are intended to protect public health and the natural environment they are not and protect landowners from having their property protected from environmental contamination so that central thesis of the arbitration award is irrational without any basis the district court properly found that there was nothing in the lease agreement that justified the arbitra the district court properly found that that term like the whole environmental law was a commonsense term has as judge graver in your question i think you refer to the fact that if the judge looks at something that has a commonsense meaning like the meaning of barley and says that barley should be considered weak it's because the arbitrator sense though that goes beyond what an arbitrator's allowed to do that goes beyond the pale and therefore you do not have  purported to derive from the contract itself and that was the issue entire can the parties contractually change the f a a standard of review to be more like a district court you know conclusions of law for the  record judge and asked the district judge to re view the matter under the completely irrational standard of the manifest disregard of the last under that's an option for this court but i think that you can take the other way out which is to merely affirm on the basis agreement then it's completely irrational or implausible the court is not to confirm an arbitration award which is legally irreconcilable with these facts and i think in this case it's clear that the drinking water applied to mattel is clear that they violated it clear that it has no relevance to this particular product council you know raises the specter of an air permit not being related to the or the completely irrational standard i would ask you