please stop short of using up the full twenty minutes and holdbacks and thank you your honor i would try to reserve about five minutes for you but i will try to remind you if we remember but we kind of put the burden on the council to we're almost as good in many respects you're better off we will take a look at that face on those issues ok and as so as as it evident by my misstating of the court that i haven't had time to read it yet an issue of fact creating issue for some not for summary judgment if i recall correctly that the debate in that case about the state statute of limitations is just a debate about what's reasonably available it's not really all thiering or purporting to offer state law correct these are just applying that standard and and the question of different things about what that means yes and whether something is available this is typically a question of fact on result real just say cited in our brief playing this must only prove that they are a proximate cause and you can have one more than one proximate cause plaintiffs also not required to prove that they would not have with the evidentiary presentation something like this they don't know what the background fosters here nevermind these people there may be enough phosphorus coming in just from nature  actually did reach the stream just because there's a phosphorus increase in the lake or rather i don't know that that anybody ever would know in the sense of absoluteness whether that occurred at any time but it is a reasonable conclusion that an expert may make from the evidence that they do have from the activities being conducted on the properties from the measurements made of increasing phosphorus in miles upstream downstream and percolation and stream flow and whatnot drainage to the lake which sits at the bottom point as i recall you actually didn't designate any particular way that even you could have gotten there from the particular assuming or applications from the particular mechanism the provenance of the of the phosphorous for the screen was never designated any mechanism for is reaching there was not designated either wasn't not sure if i is within the watershed and maybe in the water it's in a larger and it ok and it drains to the stream which flows to the lake well and that's what i'm asking ok where is where is the evidence that and the defendants also say just because they deposit four tons of fertilizer i'm on my playfield switches next to the stream and when it rains on it you know where is it going to go it's not going to go uphill but they say maybe it just goes into the toxic algae blooms in the tacoma pierce county health department routinely comes out close that is toxic and that's what you have there that's not meeting stay water quality standards but what was the cause of the causation gets  i don't know that that would prove it was caused by that necessarily i mean could be the climate is different or that you know plant levels are different because of washington's becoming warmer something  it may be less that you can argue that but it doesn't seem like it's itself definitive evidence of that right but remember where we are where iran summary judgment we don't have to prove it and also we have to do to have a fact and create an issue of fact and we have in a reasonable opinion by an expert in this field who draws conclusions based on these facts and present sufficient evidence that a rational jury could so buying your experts conclusions and i'm going to make the decision that i don't believe it and so i'm granting summaries against you and that's improper to do on summary judgment you know you want to reserve five minutes we've got only two minutes left so we'd like to wait and this case there is no evidence and in fact the expert testified he had no knowledge as to all of these properties of the mechanisms of the nature of the activities that go on there any mechanism that would get the phosphorous from any particular location  between naturally occurring phosphorous they don't that could naturally come out of the plants and that there's no evidence that ties that say anything at mcchord air force base or and with respect all the other thing downstream of them a quarter of course they say there could be heavier still have to show this big burst chemical you know what it's actually naturally occurring chemical i mean as it has played us expert admitted even if you took away all of the put this lake is a shallow manmade throwing away waste knowing again in the midst of the fertilisers waste no there isn't and there's no again there's no evidence that that the fertilizer is reaching at any of these facilities is reaching the light  thank you mr avil tons of fertilizer that there's only a small percentage of that it actually contains prosperous and that there's no evidence they could ever get to the lake much less ever hast in fact the evidence is that the this fertilizer  and he's such important things as the transport mechanisms which we admitted he would have to know and that quote we don't purport to have that information quote so of course been provided it is not correct that the plaintiff gets benefit of the doubt under the are supposedly continuing tours of the limitation period will only bars their claims be on a certain date and the problem with that is that they have the burden of proof there which again is missing they have to show that there is a continuing towards their burden that's one of the document where the expression is start claiming that it is quote development in the watershed in quote and that was again decades before this lawsuit was filed as to quickly covering the remaining specific to elements of it your honour's already pointed out that it's trespass you have to have a physical invasion and they deny ownership of the like there's no claim that their property that they own is being invaded so trespass is unavailable and if there's any claim like there is against state that they should and a prepared to present argument and answer questions related to independent legal bases that would provide for the state defendants to be removed from this case even beyond this failure pro that there was a failure to show the necessary and so on the various claims fear didn't preclude administratively for relief for any appropriate administrative body quickly enough with respect to leak still but there are water bodies for across the entire state the state goes through a process an actual ministry of process to decide where to prioritized its resources and develop it can deal for eventually lose in dahlberg u s supreme court of thing and vigorous cross examination presentation of contrary evidence and careful instruction on burden of proof are the means of dealing with that kind of testimony and enjoin