time around this case is to it with to decide a question that is of the answer which is going to be of critical importance potentially and particularly and large and significant import to the general assembly specifically a definition of a term that has the ability but actually to impact the constitutional obligations that the legislative branch has under circumstances like that and it's difficult to see how  the radically different interests or well i don't think there are radically different i think that i think that the i think they are different enough that it's appropriate for the senators be the case the where for causes if that's what we want to talk about a of  necessarily we know when group potentially could be satisfied and we gave an outcome that only affects wayne land group and that is the area of geography they own on the other hand the interests of the general assembly the senate and house the two constituent parts thereof girls to the broader question of does the commission have the ability to strip away legislative authority for a whole swath of both geography and subject matter that is the term project is to find it yes it does it does take away every senator every house of representatives represented the ability to cast a meeting for effect a vote on anything having to do with either  the only representatives of any part of the commonwealth of pennsylvania executive branch legislative branch who attempted to intervene at least at this point are pro tem and the two senators who have separate and some  the outcome is on count one there wasn't a need to have the analysis because it least by implication the core polow determined that when their group and the senators were asking percents of the same week on c well for sake of argument i'll say this i think that in any event that that analysis requires a standing and to exhibit a standing analysis of required for count two i think that  all that different from the relief in count one in very practical terms the net effect of granting the relief that the center disaster for and count to probably leads to exactly the same result which is the commission does not of half of the general assembly and their votes and whether those votes can be cast in an effective way this is not a situation where it's an after the fact fight about legislation that maybe you lost on maybe didn't win on if the if the the view of the word project and the prevailing view apparently the commission is the result of a trial below that means that on vote that the senators would ever cast that would be inconsistent with a moratorium or whatever rules the commission imposes for the delaware watershed would be ineligible to be no point making those votes because they were already overridden by  by by the commission that in itself i think gives a generalized interest to each of the standard senators and i think probably the house members too if they wanted to get the case but in particular leadership senator scott  pro tem has an institutional interest which he frequently has to defend when he's a defendant in article three lawsuits and which he in turn has been recognized to have as have other leaders in the senate when they are suing over institutional concerns and that is to diminish it with a potential dimmu nation of a constitutional authority of the body that the quote and not sure i understand that here's what i mean by that you are  the question now being sent down to the district court is does this term project right is it expansive or is it now the district court has at front of the right and one of the things that the district court specifically was charged to do was determine what was the legislative authority to an extra state body not clear whether it could do good weather could do that under article free in the st place but that that interests that is whether the body intended or did or could have even given away a substantial amount of its legislative authority to somebody else is something that only gives leadership of the senate at least the pro tem and also the speaker when there's a ate certain activities in the delaware river basin what's the point of doing it if you're going to allow the legislatures of the four states to nd guess everything you do well i don't think it's a question of nd guessing if these is framed by this court give away as they were going to was to say well i don't think you're being called on to say yet your honor that we can in fact pick up that discussion and put it over to the side because the only thing we need to think about right now is d whether k the use of the way in company land for oil and gas drilling they know that ok can it can the senate institute through legislation a bill to change the compact it could do that weber but it doesn't have the unilateral ability to control the outcome of that legislation even within the contours of pennsylvania it could let's say let's see that happen you heard let's say senate bill one of the next session was a bill to withdraw from the compact or say well we're not rich or offer to modify the compact to say that the delaware river basin commission in you know trying to protect the water supply of the lands within the four states may not have the authority to determine whether on someone drove for natural gas senate bill one says that gets pas governor signs it and he has parade it what does it what does that do nothing besides being a bill that was signed not because the compact can't be amended simply by even even within the can even if pac even if you accept that it's appropriate for the pentagon i think it's fair to say that it is for the senate of pennsylvania or whoever's running that bill to go push it in the house and pushing on the governor that's as far as it can be taken it is probably not appropriate work among for how be done for a bill like that to become law in pennsylvania and then have the senators or the senate or the house or even the governor go around and try to lobby for other d legislatures to do the same thing and then what i think that leads to ultimately is the same thing that i start up the question with i would draw from the compact and nobody wants that either and it may be it may be that there's a determination at the end of the litigation that the intent of the general assembly and the intent of the senate need ten of the housewives to cede some portion of sovereignty in some portion of legislative authority when i'm up i'm prejudging the outcome of it but i think the fact that the senators weren't there  legislation passed doesn't diminish at all their interest in whether that body today is about to have to live by a middle district opinion that strips a lot of its legislative authority and and question five no not necessarily now why would why would not the state attorney general have the ability to attempt to get the calm the waters created compact properly enforced well i think at worst i think you're asking a different question than than that than the one i've been trying to answer but the one i think is appropriate answer the issue for the senate is not ease not is not  the interpretation of the contract the issue for the senate and the legislature is an interpretation of the contract that radically diminishes legislative authority where you would that the governor has a sufficient interest to care about that issue or the attorney the speaker was a name party as a defendant the attorney general was not i actually made the argument will the attorney general's unnecessary party in this well suit in the come wilkinson it was not you know it's not doesn't have anything to do with you don't need him in this case you're talking a the plaintiffs are suing you over whether you violated d section thirty one of article three he doesn't have anything to do with it he's not a necessary party neither is the government let me leave the court with this and then all of a sit down with you have a more questions for me the core issue for today is whether the senators have expressed as sufficient enough interest to get to two belong in this case as interviewers what that means for the positions they take or anything else is for another day posit to this court that the district court has already set the floor for what a sufficient interest is and it did so when it allowed the delaware river keepers network into the case that to a point where we're talking about the intent of the senate at the time senate bill eight hundred and fifty dollars rand and whether that intent was to radically strip away legislative authority it seems inconceivable to me that the president quality at least coextensive to delaware river keeper several if not foster so you're saying we should focus on standing i don't think it's necessary for it's certainly not necessary for count one your honor and i think if i think if you answered the interest question in the affirmative i think we're really my argument would be the same if we had a standing argument for count two as it is for the intervention argument really all boils down to the same  idea do we have a sufficient state as the senators in this not to generalize we want to particular result but is there something concrete that we care about that we can be hurt by depending on how this lawsuit goes and i think delaware river basin compact to jointly manage the water resources of the basin without regard to political boundaries the compact created the commission through which the basin states and the federal government jointly exercise their sovereign authorities over the region's water resources congress consented to this arrangement and included the federal government as a member of the commission with an equal vote this experiment and cooperated federal served the parties to the compact well for almost sixty years including protecting the drinking water resources of thirteen million people the purpose of the temporary moratorium that's what they're challenging in this case the temporary merit moratorium in place today is to protect these important water resources until the commission can put permanent regulations in place now the contract itself says who do representatives are of pennsylvania the governor of pennsylvania is designated ex officio as the commissioner as are the governors of all the other basin states and a representative of the president each of these x official members or politically accountable we're not talking about an independent agency that acts without independent accountability you can't have much more responsibility to the electorate than being the governor now the senators must demonstrate standing because the relief that they seek on both counts is different from that will leave that is sought by when they're going to judge issues initial question been because standing goes to the jurisdiction of the court over these claims and where the relief that's being sought by an intervener is different from the relief that's being sought by the plaintiff town of chester teaches us that the interveners need to have independent standing and their independent standing has to be looked at separately for each of there's a chair there counts it's really a gateway that is the gateway question for the district court rises and not yes your honor can we do i believe that you can compare the relief that's being sought with the by the interveners with the relief that's being sought by the plaintiff and conclude their different and therefore that a standing and alice's is necessary and i think on cow to with respect to a takings claim in which damages are being sought there's clearly no standing for individual senators to do that and likewise there's no standing for individual senators to attack the moratorium the moratorium results from two acts the act of the executive director in requiring at all fracking companies to come in and get approval and the action of the commissioners themselves in saying well we're not going to grant those approvals until we look at the science very carefully and establish a set of regulations that we deem to be safe to protect water supplies and other water resources what we what we know is that individual legislators do not have standing to challenge the implementation of a statute and that is exactly what the senators are trying to do here trying to back out what about center yaws claim that the fund that's what is statutory responsibility is there is nothing in either the internal senate regulations or statute that gives senator or you off the ability to sue if he doesn't like what's happening to the wealth fund by some extra no factor that certainly could be construed because they'll often requires the public utility commission to provide a report for the well fine to a specific senator by virtue of his committee chairmanship that would certainly at least be an indication of responsibility for whatever oversight responsibility means for this case well i think  the committee itself does take a look at the well fund right but what senator yacht is attempting to do here is to say that because he has the ability to receive reports which by the way given the temporary moratorium he continues to receive it hasn't interfered with his reports at all somehow that gives him a farty overall drilling activity in the commonwealth and while the legislature certainly has an interest to pass tax thirteen in looking at drilling activity in the commonwealth senator yacht has no particular right to intervene and express his own individual views whenever drilling activity is edition if your action think it his argument is that if the commissions act and impacts a number of people or drilling that is going to impact the amount of revenue coming to the well from correct that's his argument and is back on create interest it's not a concrete interest of of center review office i would say that the commonwealth has a concrete interest not arguing that the commonwealth can't express its views in this case but in individual senator you off can't interven litigation expressed his own views about whether or not a temporary moratorium designed to protect water resources in the basin will somehow interfere with the well fun and you know what what the compact is a federal statute in addition to being state statutes and what the commission does by way of imposing a moratorium has precedence over state law that's why the senators are complaining that they can't develop fracking at the wayne site because this moratorium is in effect well what we know from cases such as roe against casey or national collegiate athletic  association is that senators cannot intervene any which a slate sure legislature cannot intervene to say that a federal statute or the federal constitution should be now or we construed in order to protect their so called authority to legislate further the supremacy clause is what is limiting him them here however it is with the leaders with the consent of the governor of pennsylvania that this is being done are you're referring to the to the case of the the penalty on penn state yes what was going well is going on there federally because there's two cases a state case and a federal case right and they came to different results and the reason they came to different results is in the federal case the court understood that trying to now we construe a federal action is not a function of an individual state legislator think for standing purposes the federal court case is really what's controlling you don't have an interest that's protected under the standing doctrine simply because you would like the funds to go somewhere else and if the if senator if senator your had a right to allocate those funds if somehow he were imbued with that by the legislature i think the answer would be different but he doesn't have that right here his only right is to review a report and take an action as a member of a committee which then gets reflected in the general assembly that to make just a couple of other quick points here the st is that under the under this trustee doctrine that the p d f case set forth it is entities of the commonwealth that are trustees not individual legislators because if each individual legislator or himself or herself were a trustee then any time there was an interest in natural resources that was being allocated or regulated in some way you could have hundreds of individual legislators the siding to step in and voice their own individual views and you could have hundreds of municipal officials stepping in to to give their own views it is the commonwealth's it is the how many votes position that matters and judge fisher as you said it is the attorney general who should be stepping in on behalf of the commonwealth if in fact the commonwealth believes that the d r b c is doing something to protect water resources it goes beyond its authority in addition to the trusty point that's being made i'd note that they were world has separately prohibited leasing bend over which the senators have no trustee relationship because they're conceding that it's way in who should be developing the natural gas and wayne who gets the proceeds from that abbott there they're arguing that they should whether the effects on water resources are so severe they do you know b c needs to prohibit it that's what's at issue in the regulations and we'll know an answer to that relatively soon but that's not what's at issue here the only question here is whether a temporary moratorium can be imposed until the r b c goes through the science which involves extensive e p a reports extensive reports by the state of new york to determine whether or not this activity can can occur safely in this basin where there are thirteen million people including all people in the city of new york every people in the city of philadelphia all the people in the city of camden we're lying on us to protect those water resources and we've heard a landfill case just recently and the question is what happens when the regulatory agency is not doing its job we're trying to do our job the best we can to make sure that we keep things in place until we get through the science and we get through the science through the normal comet and response process we will adopt regulations and then people will decide if we acted arbitrarily or not but we're trying to do our best to get it right your honor been they were once denied by this court on the last appeal when the senators try to intervene the case is proceeded through fact discovery and expert discovery is ongoing because the complaint they seek to f relief and presents issues different from plaintiffs comply and if you look back at the rd circuit opinion it said that the plaintiff is not challenging the moratorium said it expressly in the decision that's not what's being challenged in plaintiff's case because they present different issues the senators must satisfy each element of standing as well as each element of rule twenty four dollars a and as the district court recognized the senator's complaint would introduce damages and takings issues that w signed by the governor that said that when the when there is litigation and there is a role for the commonwealth to play in that litigation that will is to be played by the attorney general it is not the end the general assembly conceivably in the governor governor was the compact itself and the compact to self is really and the litigate the legislation that enshrined that compact not just into pennsylvania law but into the law of each of the signatory states and i law the federal government is really what they but the with the proposed intervenors here seem to object to it because they're concerned as expressed to this court this morning is over what is being seeded from the legislative authority that they might otherwise have that was a decision to cede some of that authority when pennsylvania decided to join the compact and one could look at the purposes of the compa and i won't quote it here but that was the whole purpose of the compact is that there are some resources of our nation that are interdependent that you can't simply regulate from the view of one member state they have to regulate from the view of the share of the signatory states and the federal government the commonwealth of pennsylvania determined that it was in the commonwealth interest to join and not in that compact recognizing that interdependent interests that we all share well the legislators who appear before you today may wish to do is to back out of that compact and that's a political question for the legislators individually but ultimately collectively and the governor  collectively to to agree to and what we see throughout this effort to intervene is a is a conflating of the world of an individual legislator with the world of the commonwealth as a whole and we see it in their ceding in their attempt to take the role the attorney general and we see it in their attempt to affect the livy undue pennsylvania's joining into the compact a so we ask you to affirm the district  just senator jean your from williams for he's the chairman of the relevant committee and i think that accords different way to him and simply as a senator he does have oversight over potentially  revenue generating resources right now in the calm i thought that was an important point to make while we're on the status the center you know i am as the court may or may not know somewhat familiar with the coleman v n c double a case having done it  i know exactly what the issue was on its own senator cormann standing and i think it was correctly stated by judge fisher in fact because senator cormann had oversight authority over the particular monies covered by the fine he chairman of the relevant committee and that committee's oversight responsibilities or over funds generated by natural gas drilling let me close with this let's not forget what the directive was from this court and why the senate at this time has stated a significant interest we not yet talking about the relative merits of a moratorium or or whether it's environmentally sound to allow some non all drilling in the in the watershed the issue sent by this court back down for determination was understanding that the compact is a contract and understanding that it had to be assessed and its terms and understanding the terms had to be assessed under contract principles this core specific mandate below was what is the intent of the senate and the house the general assembly when it entered into the contact interview into the compa and what did it mean by the word project what did it intend to give away in terms of authority by ratifying the word project is it is expansive as a d r b c me teens or is narrow or is it as narrow as wayne land mean and that seminal question is one that again i can see how the general assembly and the senate in particular does not have an interest in having a boys in in deciding it's a question of what does that body understand use of a word like project and what does that body believe even then now or sometime in the future it can give away in terms of its legislative authority i can think of no