or trespassed on the site which i think constitute about the litter and then there were the remains of the rows of production facilities that it previously existed on the site been there for a generation or found facility over the years was after vandals would knock the windows out of it repeatedly and they would have to stop it so they would move it from place to place as they needed it and when the road production facility and it was left right where it was there as a result of the rose production facilities at all but whatever was used in the course of the road production was left right where it was still going on about the rage the greenhouse structure itself was completely was obviously the brick by the photograph lot but you're saying that's all that was the result of calling down the rose to celebrate it depends on what degree we're referring to material there it was discovered but it doesn't result from the road reduction itself as for the road production facility the intention was always the leave it exactly as it was in the hope that they could use it for some other purpose in the future and as i mentioned a minute ago i think there is a should have been granted because his evidence was the only evidence i've seen to the prior use and worth of the property or the manner in which it went out of production at a later time the other issue that comes up as a i thought you said that a six pack but but i say that and that you said that these photographs clearly show that there was still discarded material from the rose production facility some of those photographs  position with respect to the road production facility is it was never discarded period and the definition in the statute is that the waste is among other things discarded cereal that's left over from the operation so they were going to use it in the future support in which case it probably is discarded here but if the evidence doesn't support that and that use of the property is intended to be something into the future at least at the point that the use was terminated the material as lot a lot of money have to remove other road auctions so is that that definition and that's why i said i think there's a qualitative difference between whether something is abandoned or whether discard that definition   i frankly i guess i just don't care but somebody owns the property somebody owns that truck somebody else out somebody owns a bar and they they apparently have some use in dissipated form and some point future but if you use i side of the hundred chain no trespassing sign does that keep people from coming in and put the stuff on the ground i don't know is it sufficient i don't know but i think we've conceded that if there is that property there that period there that it probably should be there but because there were forty years ago many of those are strewn mounds and you know broken hither hither and yon but when one takes a look at those materials  it doesn't even seem that you could be found for them at this point because it's been forty years that they've been sitting there to learn that it exposed the banker at this point the defendant only has very a patient visits to the site so and this is material that is not used doesn't have a use of this boy has been sitting there forty years of the of the waste you know that are used to be part of this greenhouse we don't need anything more than we have we know we know where it came from we don't need anything more than we have the conclusion that there's disposal here because you don't have to take it somewhere dispose of her right in same location and in this case the disposal as abandoning material or  than sites where that's where there are all the different types of waste being left there i just don't think that well what i'm trying to get is here you see a house attack were falling down is that equal to suggestion that well does this mean if you put something down for a few minutes you know becomes distorted material you know that's not the case at all we're talking about  a mandatory injunction was not specifically requested in weight and therefore the courts remedy order was somehow improper  remediation so there was no unfair surprise it's not like this came out of left field remediation site years earlier in the summary judgment motion and well before the litigation started going back to the original legislation this is over two thousand and one two authority for the proposition that leaving material on the ground constitutes open dumping there is not not as it would identify a factual similar situation as in any manner similar to what we have here what but the state wants us to understand about the situation is that a piece of property doesn't have a decent serial left on the ground doesn't have a useful purpose then it must have been abandoned if it's been abandoned it's been discarded if it's been discarded it must have resulted from open dumping and i'd suggest to us that there are a couple of concerns there one of them is that that that analysis is probably leads us down a very very dangerous road in the first place if the property doesn't who's determining whether the property is left on the ground has a useful purpose is it up to the e p a to decide that and certainly we cannot we can't leave it in their hands somewhere else somebody as make a determination whether the property has a useful purpose when it's either discarded or a van and as for our purposes or we're standing in front of a judge or a jury that determinations gotten a taste of what the evidence is that present and the evidence is either going to support the properties been discarded or that has been abandoned or that is still in use and a jury would make that determination but for the e p a allowed and this court's decision since it will be if you decide that issue the or greenhouse from our primary issue is the greenhouse right and the problem of using this analysis that the state wants us to use in that situation is that the e p a is going to shouldn't be in the position of deciding whether any of that property  useful purpose we have a statute statutes are to be strictly screwed and the statute very specifically says what it intends to prohibit as far as the term waste is concerned in it and that waste consists of discarded property and there isn't any evidence in this case that the remnants of the greenhouse to sell the planning benches here haitian systems the foundations from the original greenhouses any of that stuff that that was ever in any manner i discarded and the next step in that process is of course that the statute says it in order for something to constitute all of the government and you can have ways anything as long as it is not the result of over and done if it's  sure you are as i said before that that's a i don't know what that question and the answer that question it i know that there's some pretty old discarded cereal around the state that's been left in a particular place that hasn't had anybody that it's been there since its original use the e p a has not identified any regulations in that regard the legislature hasn't identified any rules in that regard and so we don't have anything to go by but i think