appreciated good morning you know thank you for the honor and the humbling experience of appearing before you as a pro se play of an environmental issue i'd like to give a little bit of com lot of issues that open up the breach between citizen by the likes of the congressmen opened up a lot of other issues in the north pole and environmental issues not a tree hugging experience it's rather a matter of life and death often in the consent decree of the port wanted to use for and corps wanted to use to allow the filling of the washer and and that they wanted to do that was the use of a nationwide problem at number thirty two here is the point is that judge hogan should have been involved which should have used the force majeure provisions in the consent decree we should have they should have contacted me we had resolution ways to resolve issues in  happened is a very significant event and filling it has very significant results and the only way to fill it then was to go to the corps of engineers and get a permit not to try to bootstrap some other then then for him to change it open it up change it make a decision is wrong because it's wrong for another reason because the that time the corps had not made a decision on their own th thank you thank you hear from me the half of the united states to the point believes that mr jones appeals should be rejected for three reasons first he's not showing that order he appeals from final second and other jurisdictional problem mr jones has not shown that he has standing to challenge the consent decree between the port and the united states which is the operative document for purposes of his clean water act claims finally on the merits mr jones has shown no error in the district court's interpretation of his consent decree apply elaborate on these three points i'd like to give you a little bit of background this is one of a number of lawsuits that mr  states and i refer to that as the enforcement consent decree and mr jones is not a party to the enforcement consent decree the consent decrees are not identical but they do contain the same mitigation requirements and were quite extensively negotiated and this was actually a complicated process because it involved not only the parties but a number of other right military and resource agencies that have authority over the river gate area in particular the city of portland and portland metro which manages the lakes area that's at issue here now one of the specific items of medication mr jones in those negotiations was construction of a tight gate that it's my understanding metro manages the lakes and there is some sort of water control structure so they actually manage the levels of the lakes and i don't know their management objectives in doing that but project and as mr johnson said there was a washout in this meant that the port couldn't complete its obligations so there was another round of discussions and mr jones again renewed his position that he would like a tie get their city in metro renewed their opposition and also at least there was general agreement except for mr jones that the porsche to repair this breach and then complete the trail and then because mr jones had threatened to sue the porters did that the court went back to the district court and asked for a determination whether that repair work would be within the scope of the consent decree as the court said that it was and then the port went ahead and completed the repair and completed the trial i believe at the end of the summer of two thousand and three so that's the decision that mr jones challenges and the first issue really is whether that is the final order for purposes of twenty eight u s c twelve ninety one generally in the post judgement context courts have applied a practical approach and one of the things they look to is whether there will be some sort of more final disposition so to speak that would be an appropriate basis for a comprehensive review and the intent of course is to avoid of separate appeals she had a consent decree to contemplate a final ruling they provide that support is to bring a motion to terminate the decrees after it's completed all of the mitigation so in the circumstances here argue that any particular item of medication was not in compliance with his consent decree at that point the work has been done here so that sort of takes away the urgency or some need for an immediate appeal from our perspective the poor have consent decree and only an action brought by the united states can implicate the clean water act issues that he's concerned about that is whether or not this nationwide permit me up so by virtue of the jones consent decree standing alone there's this repair work consistent with the consent decrees and the terms of the consent decrees with respect to this particular item of litigation that is construction of the trail what was to be built how it was to be built those conditions are acknowledged that work necessary to be done to fill the obligations of the consent decree are covered under nationwide permit thirty two so it's it was discussed and acknowledged but i don't believe the issue of whether that permit appropriately applied was before the court that's a clean water act claims there was no underlying clean water act claim the question was does this language in the consent decree allow he didn't actually raise that issue properly below in his response brief so it wasn't fully addressed but second on the merits our position would be that that interpretation if i understand it correctly is that the port would have to construct the trail under water and clearly the parties did not intend that to be the case it was a matter of interpretation but the response requirement we believe was intended to refer to native soil that existed at the time the consent decrees were entered into so into inclusion your honour's if the court does find that the order is appropriate for disposition i would ask that the district court's decision simply asked to make the determination on that legal issue beyond that there are other terms and conditions that nationwide permit thirty which is the district which the court then process through and it took a couple more months like the endangered species act consultation and there's all sorts of soil erosion traditions and so on and so forth but i don't see those as being a source of the disagreement between the parties i think the disagreement is simply centered on that first preliminary step then to thirty two which is whether they were contemplated by the consent decree or fall under the terms of the consent decree and certainly judge hogan had jurisdiction to decide that by the terms of consent decree what is authorized is the placement of all to provide an appropriate base for the trail it also provides in this particular area the lead better pronounced remove all of all on the areas on either side of the trail so it actually the way i read it is a fairly gentle authorization to do whatever movement there remove all our placement as needed to create you know a trail that goes through is the creation of the trail through the system and remove all of fell on the other side of the trail and i think there's something different between more than the land where there's already between these two bodies of water and one is being installed now in the first instance you comment on that situation you would be thinking about the considerations i think somewhat differently than you would if you already have the soul of land between these two bodies of water and the challenge being raised as i understand it mr jones is one of those different considerations ought to have been contemplated in the way that you would have to have done in the beginning that's the situation of things i can't even understand that question not necessarily on you know what erosion may have created in terms of the start position for the construction and by the time they were actually doing those so that  line that the trail may be turned over to a different governmental authorit complicated and i think it's a good question because it's a question we run into in the north part and all the time is doesn't matter all have the best interest of the people in north port and in mine and your answer is no and and significant changing water hydrology of everything ever considered and that wasn't that the intention of the clean water act and isn't just use of a nationwide permit a violation of congress