post fair to two years after the fact or not the basic facts to me back in two thousand and nine there was a back up of water that had been caused by the strong us on to with water and dirt that has backed up into the system concerning remediation providing additional drainage remediation for what they've done with the improper construction of these two ponds service in the area for forty fifty sixty years but the ponds the ponds they are causing the problems around the southern strong property there's actually a supreme court case u s supreme court case that says where there is just your mid flow you're not supposed to regulate but the army corps says well if if it comes to the navigable waters and if it is part there are good there were two cases that we side with regard to this conflict situation one of them was the metropolitan center district drainage you know of the type that she has so it's it's not quite the same but it it deals basically with that issue one of the other things one of the other cases  that i said to the court was international paper versus that you know this is the supreme court case and this this case is is interesting because it involves a situation where to the one that's being made here is false was also made international paper versus the left and that is that the remedy was going to conflict in the supreme court or didn't address it in the body but they specifically noted that it did not draw a line between the text and relief soft because there is no suggestion of such a distinction in either the clean water act or the legislative history simply saying that he does not have a private cause of action under this specific statute with respect to this specific property because the army corps of engineers has already entered comprehensive orders were not talked about on constitutionally clearly if you that this is a conflict preemption case and the reason is simple it would be impossible for the parties in this case to comply with the army corps of engineers orders with respect to this property and also comp was identified as a protected wetland and then when straddles the strong property and the office property that was in two thousand and four no one disputes that in october two thousand  alice began taking steps to drain its half of the wetland they installed rain tyrell which led up to the property boundary and then at the property down was a submerged reader which they dreaming that there were drainage tiles that existed that if you come cotton over time that's a disputed fact what is undisputed is that they put in new drain tile in october two thousand and nine to drain your half of the property or half of the wetland and then rigged out from here that's what everybody agrees on and try to stick to the to the stipulated facts or that of the uncontested facts here so that the eldest half of the wetland could drain across the str properly now let's be very clear what they were doing they were trying to drain a federally protected well in a three months later the army corps of engineers came in and said you can't do that and they issue orders to both albus and strong and the order that they issued a obviously is instructive they said you have to remove the tyro you just put it and you have to replace the we're in the condition it was in permian process the strums revenue that with the army corps of engineers and reached an agreement they came up with a plan which is in the record i believe page seventy five of the supplemental bendix it was approved by the army corps of engineers and so the claim they might be able to say you know we're monitoring water across your property room or a common law but because this specific parcel is protected under federal law the army corps of engineers has the final say here and they cannot obtain damages by saying we have a right to do under state law what the army corps of engineers has already said they don't have a right to do in a federal case what you said at the wetlands was identified land two thousand four two thousand and four and council just argue that from that two thousand and four there were water problems did these is here is the allegation that these water problems cost you know i'm not i do not believe there's active involvement of the parties and i believe it was part of a comprehensive survey through king county news done by a laundry list of federal and state agencies but there's an interesting tension in the argument that mr smith presented i think you picked up one of his complaints about the strongs expansion of the pons in two thousand and seven was that the didn't go to the army corps of engineers to get a permit ok why would they are you get we needed to go to the army corps of engineers to get a permit the answer is because they knew that that's who has jurisdiction over this specific wetland they knew that the army corps of engineers has engineers is the body he gets to decide when you do or don't do to maintain a weapon and they're the ones who make the decision and like almost everything else in the clean water act this is an interview process that includes everybody  this particular situation both the strom's and the obvious have their own consultants the console's work with the army corps of engineers in the recommendations alternately when the army corps of engineers says this is what needs to be done to preserve the wetlands that's what the parties have to follow now if it's part of their process they want to raise to the army corps of engineers hey if you take these remedial steps or you require this action we think this might back up water an extra two hundred feet or fifty feet or or whatever that is something that needs to be part of the army corps of engineers process but in this particular case if you will get the claims that they brought their claims are  maintaining ponds that are now permeated by the army corps of engineers have created drainage issues on your property that's the underlying issue behind all four of their claims soft is to undo basically everything that the army corps of engineers has ordered done in two of your claims they have a claim for money damages and you claim there is we have a right to drain the wetland you repeat we put it in tuttle and we spent money putting in that time when you need a page or two to have removed all the army corps of engineers or city shouldn't put in that tile they were wrong to do it they didn't get a permit they didn't get approval and so they measures and i think you're getting into the into the international paper case a little bit so the answer i have is the supreme court's addressed that issue because obviously congress has the statute the e p a the army corps of engineers they probably need to regulations forced so for example in this particular instance the army corps of engineers within the scope of its jurisdiction has intruders telling you what they need to do that has a preemptive effect on state law and that was made pretty clear in the international paper at here because there in that case the supreme court in one nine hundred eighty seven really struggled with the question of ok to what extent can handle state laws they coexist as on one side the clean water act and in that particular instance the supreme court did two things number one media very clear and in particular read it very clear at pages eight thirteen the fourteen and a fifteen foot note twenty of its decision that  state law can now present in an obstacle to the enforcement to clean water through a conflicting state law or conflicting state and force an action that would undercut the clean water is absolutely preemptive is it is possible the new york law could be more stringent than the clean water act they might have higher standards for pollution control than we have and in that case in new york  an instance where we are dealing with the illinois pollution control act and we don't like control act as a more stringent standard than that which is used by the clean water act or the army corps of engineers the army corps is insane you can release five t under different tax courts found that the federal act and the state act serve different purposes and could co exist in this particular instance the application of the drainage act can co exist with the army corps of engineers workers this specific claims lead can't co exist with the army corps of engineers orders and that's the drainage model is perfectly valid when applied to  ok there are series of photos that have been taken and you were semiannual basis that show this area in show that is in this particular year there was one pun in this particular year it was expanded in this predict you know