good morning and may it please the court my name is matt baka and i represent the conservation groups in this matter with the court's permission i'd like to reserve five minutes for a ball i'll focus on three reasons the conservation groups have article three standing and the right to intervene first the district court failed to apply the right legal standard second all right to intervene now is no different than it was in the two thousand and one litigation in which the court granted intervention me maybe was wrong the second at second time oh on the on the earlier litigation suggested we would submit that the court was right that time around your honor and the reason there was that we were able to demonstrate a clear interest that was related to the property in dispute and that would be impaired by the litigation and i and the line and that's that this litigation will determine the future of the grasslands determining ownership to these rights of way will determine whether motorists use is permitted and encouraged roads so if that's an example sure and it's kind of the similar kind of property and as nice lakes and streams hundreds of head of cattle and things like that law in north dakota now as reflected in the plaintiff's complaints is that the forest service doesn't allow motorised traffic on these on these section lines and so we would have something very different state of the world if the plaintiffs were to their opening the grasslands to motorized use and there may be a form in which we could contest that but if they have the legal right to easements running over the entire one million acres of the grasslands they would be pages seven to ten and that's paragraph thirty eight sixty four there's a long discussion in the states complaint about their desire to open up about their desire to use the section line to allow access for oil and gas leases now that would be a very different scenario than what we have now which is that those section lines are in fact close and your honor  amicus we wouldn't be able to submit evidence and that's exactly what we'd like to be able to do here in our question sure well the good example is the united states amended motion to dismiss that question is about whether the state and counties had were on notice twelve years before filing the lawsuit about the government the united states claims now we do have we believe we have evidence that we can contribute to that and the other part of the united states want to take advantage of that evidence if it helps their well they had said that they would be all right with us intervening permissibly in the lower court their condition no we accepted their conditions and we original brief which is not part of the joint appendix that would be in our motion to intervene i believe we specified there and actually you know what i think also in the government's brief in front original briefing in the district court but why couldn't the united states take advantage of that evidence even if you're not a party i adequately represent their claim that the statute of limitations is or has expired or whatever i suppose they could your honor but there's no guarantee that they would and i think that's that's really what we're after here is that the united states has filed an amended motion to dismiss but this court has recognized in the malakas case and most recently in the national parks case that there's no guarantee that they will continue to take that position there's no guarantee they would use the evidence that we have that we'd like to put before the district is the right to be heard on an objection to a settlement and to have the district court review it to determine whether the settlement complies with public policy and the law  and we would have the right to appeal as well your honor as i see i'm running into my rebuttal time like to request the remainder of my time for a bottle thank you standard would blur the line between an intervener and micus contrary to the east and it's also contrary to the circuits precedent which says that to intervene as of right a party must show that they have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation not the hand the subject matter of this litigation is legal title to the identified rights ways just as a jury in a criminal case is asked to decide guilt or innocence without considering a defendant's possible sentence so too is the issue of legal title divorced from the issue of the future use of that land the management and future future use of the grasslands will not be heard or decided by the district court and the evidence that the opponents wish to present regarding the aesthetic or recreational value of the grass conditions on the appellant the first was that they would abide by all the scheduling agreements that had already been set and any future scheduling arrangements that the opponents would have to consult the counsel for the united states before two presumably between the agreement we would as the district court did not grant intervention veto right and so to only be between the parties whether the district court permitted the parties  file a motion and it's up in the air because the district court did not consider these conditions so it's unclear exactly how they would have played out had intervention been granted three and four yet the third condition was that the opponents would not be allowed to assert any new claims counterclaims across claims of their own and the fourth was that they would not oppose any motion by the united states to or that they would not be able to object to the united states certification of any or any entry of partial judgment however i'd like to remind the court that permissive intervention is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard in the united states position on appeal is that the district court did not abuse discretion when it denied permissive intervention for the same reasons that it's night that congress has said that the that a quiet title act claim must involve parties to a certain ownership interest in disputed real property in which the united states claims an interest here the opponents do not assert their own claim of title to the disputed property and they do not have a legally protected all interest in the united states claim of title to allow them to intervene to argue for the united states and claim a title would run contrary to the q limited waiver of sovereign immunity adopted the special master's report and therefore it should be viewed as the supreme court's holding that derivative interests are not sufficient on the land in the world that would you say a correct and it's also if you look at what the special master said he was citing other supreme court cases for the proposition the supreme court has previously said that derivative interests are insufficient to satisfy intervention as of right under twenty four that record we cited that quote from the the special master report cited includes the quotation argue controlling authority there simply cannot be intervention in the quiet title action i don't believe that is controlling authority and i don't think that that's what we argued in  our brief but it should be considered when looking at what the supreme court has said about derivative interests in this case here at the interests of their asserting is that the federal the fragile protection should be afforded to the grasslands but that assumes that there's federal ownership of the land which is  adequate interests or adequate representation this court said in chad lowe versus the city of preston that when dealing with the parents patrick presumption which is what we have here there's a presumption that the united states will adequately represent the their conservation interest are being adequately represented by the united states the courts to firm the denial the motion to intervene it please the court i'm constance brooks i'm here today on behalf of the state of north dakota i'm joined by my co counsel matthew sags tourney general's office the state of north dakota and i represent the western north dakota count of billings golden valley mackenzie and slo it change things as we have it now it will be you solve the issue in other words i really agree with the government in distinguishing between the issue of title and the issue of land management and what h band i don't want to say a matter of confusion it's a matter of controversy in recent years and by the way less than twelve years is title to the easement on the section lines because the section one statute dates to eight hundred seventy eight there had been a an assumption in north dakota that the section line statute reserved an easement along the section lines held by the state in trust for the public  yes exactly and it's fundamental to the state's fundamental to how the county managers land use in the county how would actually change i'm not sure that i see an immediate change at all but had changed in recent years say within the last decade has been a policy by the federal government to deny access along section lines for sports use livestock grazing for example  and so the county said ok we finally have to take this to court that this is now a right controversy because access is being denied how well this is but this is just a title case is your honor as is pointing out it's not a land management case and so i don't see an immediate impact on the land management and that's why from our perspective of analysis the injury complained of by the alliance is remote and speculative it's dependent on future actions that may or may not occur and we don't even know where those actions may or may not occur the affidavits in the in the pleading have focused on well the series but we don't know that in fact that would be where you would have a controversy with a decision of the county often on petition to open a section lying to a new row but it's the it's the assurance of continued access that so important to the two thousand and one closing all section lines are all closing all the national grassland to motorized vehicle use and that was a seminal moment that arguably triggered the statute of limitations and what state and local governments face in finding out when and if the statute of limitations is triggered so it was the best judgment of counsel that it was time to sue because there was an order a statement absolutely the state has is it four sections or two sections per ten ship anyway you're on it at least two sections exactly and there's a tremendous amount of drilling on those very very sections and the national grasslands are unique because under the bank john's tenant act one the management objectives has development of energy resources these are working land things are not set aside exclusively for conservation purposes early the roads that we've identified in this complaint and there are you know you always get disputes as to who built it but i want to address a couple of issues raised by this court and i think one of the important things is that counsel for the alliance stated that the alliance could contribute to the issue of statue of limitations and i will respect i disagree because the heart of the quiet title notice under the statute of limitations is notice that the united states gave to the state or the counties it's not put some third party understood in perceived it's what the united states did and frankly i think the united states is bass capable of providing that kind of information and i think you know just generally one of the reasons that north dakota and the counties objected to even permissive intervention is because everything raised in their motion sought to darrelle the case into and land management case and it always been the state's position that this was all about title it was not about land management that that was a decision to be made later or had been made prior of when the case settled and also answered a question i think this court raised about how was this like the rollers for all case the original case found by the state of north dakota and the counties challenging the road this rule and the road roll and the off highway vehicle decisions focused on land management and how this would conflict with land management for oil and gas for li grazing and even motorized recreation you know and this case is not about those issues it's strictly about the title yes and some point down the future there may be a decision disconnected from what we're doing now what is before the court to develop a road to open an area but that would be subject to appropriate procedures and we did cite the case of sierra club versus hotel to of how the county or the state may have a right to the road and recognize road but the federal government would still evaluate the impacts on the resources adjacent to the road so there are other procedures which the airlines would have ample opportunity to proceed it appears that my time is basically up if you don't have any additional questions i will close thank  you thank you on as a couple points i'd like to make the first place i'd like to start is with the special masters report that judge loken asked about and i would point the court to page twenty five of that report in which the special master says we're talking about the supreme court's original jurisdiction in which rule twenty four does not apply i think that answers that question there that said that they would think about rule twenty four as a  twenty four at some point in the past they would be bucking their point of view at that time if with that argument right so you're on have with the special masters report only they were not considering rule twenty four now of course rule twenty four generally force policy exactly exactly exactly yes your honor and the point there that leads me into my my second point i'd like to raise which is just the plain language of rule twenty four which says we need to claim an interest relating to the property and what we've heard from counsel just now and what we saw in their briefs is that they've said repeatedly we don't have a legally protect interest in the grasslands but we have a legally protect the interests relating to and that exact sort of interest has been recognized in this court's case on the past in the misuse decision and the idea here that we're talking about something wholly different from a land management case is just not right because determining ownership and in title meant to use the grasslands to in this litigation will determine whether they can allow motorized use on the grasslands immediately they would be able to drive down the section lines in a way that's currently prohibited now that is that is an impairment of an injury excuse me impairment of an interest under rule twenty four the other thing that i wanted to point to briefly is counsel and i think this underscores the point is counsel's description of the grasslands as quote working lands now that is the counties in the state's position that i believe would also be the government position and that demonstrates that nobody in this case currently represents our interests our interests are purely environmental anaesthetic and the court has has recognized that those are legally protectable those legally protected will interests stand to be impaired by this litigation and one final point i just want to mention also with respect to what we would add to the case is i also like to point out there are six individual road claims that mackenzie county has made and i believe those are where our facts are likely the most salient gentz once and i mentioned before the declarant and member of badland conservation alliance she's already pointed out to factual errors in the counties complaints she's pointed out the location of stock tanks she's pointed out federal signage she's described grazing  s and other indications of federal ownership now what are what are to clarence have have noticed and observed does in fact go a long way to what we can assume that has been public knowledge that the state and the counties have been aware so we would request as the court did in the national parks case that the court reversed the denial of intervention and direct the entry of an order granting intervention  club's member he was a part of a crazy decision that the government made and this year club went through an appeals process of the federal government's decision there so i would say it would be on a case by case we're concerned about is really motorized to use that that's the concern of our to parents and that is what would change in a very meaningful way their enjoyment of the grasslands thank you