denied on administrative reasons which had nothing to do with the federal standard early r p o standard and if there is no other application pending what are we doing here if if the difference  second application which you just referenced would would have to proceed and if the that the the r p o would not apply it would be preempted by  say something and something happened apparently in the mail but you didn't get it but could you could you tell me how what is the case or controversy have to know what is the case or controversy between the litigants in this case a district judge wrote an interesting opinion about the spending clause and so there may very well go to be in the in the in the record somewhere that i did not and maybe documents that i did not submit in this portion of the record which indicate that the county in talking to in fact intends to is not merely to preserve the well wetlands it's to preserve wetlands and preserve property on a choice and if you see it in that way you can see how any mandate that the county might issue is still the county ordinance there is no new application in the record i'm not aware of any and finally i did receive notice from the  subject to the same regime i have no information on that as it may well not have any property that's considered wetlands under the county's ordinance your honor it is for the county's position that this case should have been dismissed from the outset because there is no article three kayser controversy in particular there has been no injury in fact your honor i believe that it is i think initially there was no injury in fact because of the ninety five letter standing on the first application that the county was willing to accept the federal determination as to what letter there was also some information in the record provided by mr turner chair where he submitted decorations and one of his declarations indicated that he  to the existing application that there was a legitimate threat of prosecution and that's what the court relied upon i think this is different however from the normal cases where you have a legitimate threat of prosecution because mr trichet did not have to change his behavior in order to avoid some kind of prosecution under the ordinance apparently based on his original application he would have to make some modification to his development to comply with the ordinance but once that application had been decided on a different basis there was nothing pending on which the ordinance could possibly apply there is no fact and the problem we have with the record in terms of seeing that there is some kind of existing controversy  there are consequences to a land owner if you she uses those wetlands for agriculture they limit subsidies similarly with respect to the resource protection ordinance it was in acted to protect sensitive lands including wetlands is the dual purpose is not found in the statute it's really not found in the legislative history and it's not backed up by any case law so i think it's very clear that the federal law and the research protection ordinance are parallel they are in agreement there so there is no reason to find preemption even if the but there is protection in the r p you know that yes there is a determination that strictly enforcing the research protection ordinance would take away all economic  for that in the county's ordinance but it's your position that that's still far down the road in this case it would only be reached that's correct your honor there's nothing in the record that would support any such problem