zero don't you have to look at the role as a as a as opposed to regulation van i think when i first heard your question is it a ban you know my thinking was that is that you know like a total ban for everyone everything and  going undergo because of the personally that if the state has parking problems and parking lot problems and public access problems that you can't address those on the navigation servitude or  having their customers come down to the beach using the beach area but this charter area and launching from the air and dropping them off back there that was what was creating the problem and the state looked and they said well you know if goes back to the question of is this rule reason fall in relation to the problems that the state was trying to attract and i think to make that determination as to whether it was recently you look at what the problems  that's what we're doing here navigation across the way you know order to get rid of the people i think not as a matter of fact i think that that would be problematic and i think there is a case that i saw it's a very old case that had to do with a dock and there was a public roadway that led to the dock that led  implication because you've you can't choke off you know this artery of commerce at that particular point so i the facts in this case are clear by administrative bay towards the end of separating users to avoid the very conflicts that they're now concerned about but that went through the rule making process and that's the law so we don't now have before us a question would it be possible for them to constrict this one you know these incredible eight restaurants to achieve the same say and then i think they would have a problem doing that but that's not an issue before us that i mean we can think of a number of different permutations that make the case standard of review available to the court it really if you read what was argued below and if you read the argument here she's basically saying you must defer to the to the judgment and treat this as if it were a garden variety police power case and of course it is not so that's one of the five and there's a reason she must stake out that position and that is she offered not  marine environment in protecting the safety of other users of this not having a waterway it was their burden under a number of different theories to come forward and at the very least get an answer from counsel is it rational just to focus on passenger carrying vessels when you have other vessels that are having equal impacts on the waterway why is it rational just focus on the type of life license they have of the type of activity in which they're engaged and there was no explanation for that in the trial court and there certainly has been no explanation in this court in the political question doctrine suggesting that this is a political judgment and this court should not even reveal in that they don't have the obligation to come forward with any show and and of course all of the cases of the contrary now counsel says well how do we draw the line we don't know what the standard yes well re versus arco and which they themselves site provide if there is something about the peculiar areas of a given waterway that warrant regulation then you may drop a regulation that addresses that peculiar already and a ll boats and we knowledge were subject to that regulation as long as it's reasonable as a general matter they did not do that here they did not say we have determined that the carrying capacity of this x and therefore it is necessary to put a limit on the number of that's all that now the get this waterway on any given sunday they didn't do that they instead postulated that there is a problem with  user conflicts and they said we're going to solve their problem by going after the folks that have federal licenses to carry passengers for hire in doing that right out of the box they create a problem of actual conflict federal law the licenses that my clients hold allow what the state is now prohibited so this is one of the few instances where we're going to have a situation of direct conflict and frankly we don't need to go further than that once you see that conflict because of the course means that were chosen by the state the we've talked a little bit about you know the intermediate burden of proof you don't need to get there if you find the actual conflict but it's clear once the state exercises its authority under united states of bateman ordinance applied across the board to all activity it did not center on a particular vessel wasn't targeted to vessels that all in fact here we have a regulation they're not not only target you can regulate the dickens out of them as long as you can tie it to the earlier days of navigation but you can't deny them to access or you can't deny access that takes me to the other point that just came up at the conclusion of my colleagues remarks and that has to do with the shoreside impacts we went to great lengths to point out how our permits were condition  y the requirements under county of co i long with respect to special management areas and the state law chapter two zero five eight of the why revised statutes delegates to the individual counti certainly traffic is an environmental impact that has to be addressed by someone proposing a particular activity we were required to go through and get permits we had to file an environmental impact statement as a matter of fact to satisfy the county that we could conduct our activity in a way that would not have an untoward impact on the shore side or even the marine environment for that matter and we did that so there are various shoreside concerns  days of local waters the call for special precautionary measures will be allowed how they determined that the capacity of the river mouth at home away would support only vessel with the same engines the same impact on the waterway is not by any definition even handed so we would argue that even with aside from the actual conflict that we have here permits was issued in fact a significantly smaller number was issued one reason for that was only a few of the operators were willing to go through the county's environmental assessment environmental impact statement process and acquire the special management area a permit that the county required in order to have activity on the shoreline so only a handful of operators went through that and these folks are now before you and there were two others who chose not to participate in this case but i think that's total the maximum number was five who actually went through this process and got these permits the state and that resulted in a status quo in other words it's the state determined at some point  fifteen would work the name and the number never got above five and so one could presume that if this were ok five would certainly be facially ok and then we that would that approaches the kind of showing that the supreme court has contemplated in saying that when you hold a federal license that license does not immunize you from even handed local regulation designed to to to address the peculiarities of local navigation if you know if anything can be said about this case it is this ban is not related to navigation has nothing to do with it in power of the state to regulate this case arises because that power was misused and it was missed used in a way that has serious implications in terms of the constitution and devastating implications for these individual commercial vote operators who have chosen to conduct their livelihood their businesses from honolulu lastly just as a geographic go matter if you look at the map there is no way to access th nepali coast other than through the two harbors on the west and southwest side of the island and so there's nothing products of an indian one of the purposes of the advisory committee was to prevent people from operating off the beach there was a time when people were operating without permits from every nook and cranny that would allow somebody to offer to launch an inflatable boat the idea was to get those vessels off the beaches and into areas where there have been areas of traditional boating activity and as we point out on a lake has been the site of of boating activity commercial and recreational for as long as hawaii has been a state so without i will  thank you i think what it comes down to and i don't think we have a disagreement here is why there can't regulate navigation  mr niles has pointed out a lot of the things that he says that the state doesn't have a scintilla of evidence that as with the district court they are focusing only on the water issues is water quality affected is whether the state could see no launching from the land and he said that then we would have a very difficult time because you know the regulation saying