secretary of the interior to carry out the all american canal line project upon the date of the mac mint which was december twentieth two thousand and six without delay and notwithstanding any other provision of law given this clear mandate from congress the present injunction against the project cannot stand the injunction was sought by the plaintiffs and imposed by this court based on alleged violations of meet congress has now changed the legal framework for the project and directed the secretary to proceed notwithstanding any other provision of law including any alleged outstanding obligations in other words congress has exempted the project from further new book compliance given th basis for the pending injunction and it must be lifted immediately for the same reasons counts five through eight of the first amended complaint are also moved all of those counts alleged violations of neat and other statutes congress through section three ninety five has directed the secretary to proceed and notwithstanding such other provisions of law there is no reasonable alternative interpretation of section three ninety five plaintiffs see damn palance here have argued that section three ninety five only directs the secretary to carry out one particular alternative and to complete supplemental environmental analysis of that alternative as promptly as possible that reading ignores the plain terms and context of the statute at the time the legislation was an act of the secretary was already proceeding with the alternative that was identified in endorsed by congress in section three ninety five the only delay in implementing the project was the allegation that the secretary had not complied with particular instead congress directed the secretary to carry out the project without delay notwithstanding any other provision of law those clauses must be read as a whole congress acknowledged that proceeding imminently that is without delay could conflict with anything and other statutory obligations congress directed the secretary to proceed if not withstanding those other statutory obligations given the plain terms of section three ninety five the only remaining questions concerns section three ninety five questionnaire your honour's is whether congress acted within its constitutional powers to legislate include it's a power to legislate with respect to particular projects or whether congress overstep that role to direct a particular findings in a matter before th addressing this issue this in court is governed by the constitutional principle of avoidance or the rule of avoiding interpretations that would lead to constitutional problems if the legislative directive can reasonably be interpreted as a permissible statutory amendment graham cases involving the red squirrel there was legislation in those cases that specifically stated that particular project shall be deemed to be in compliance with terms of law here we don't have the mount graham problem or the appearance that the congress is directing the court to find a particular project in compliance with law what congress did here was the knowledge that the project may not be in compliance with particular statutory obligations an standing does not make the legislation invalid congress may enact rules to govern specific federal projects on federal property and congress may also enact legislative changes without violating the rights of litigants suing under existing laws this court has repeatedly of held in its force legislation enacted such contacts in the mount graham cases in the ecology center cases and stop h three association all of those cases addressed single project exemptions in all circumstances setting aside the standing question the critical issue for a tenth amendment claim is whether legislation compels a state to implement a federal regulatory program here section three ninety five does not compel california to do anything the secretary to carry out the federal part of the bargain and again constitutional questions under the tenth amendment are also subject to the rule of void and if this legislation can periods one involves the the volume of flow in the canal and although a parallel canal is being constructed the activity that's going on needs to occur about november to say march ok so we have some of it left the second time sensitive component was brush clearing for certain projects and actually it was rush clearing for certain construction activities trying to do it at a time when birds weren't nesting we have a program to stake out and protect nesting sites but if it's not nesting season it's much more efficient clear sky scrub these aren't endangered species or say just birds in general that window officially of non nesting season as defined in our contract well ended come officially not nesting season again until sometime in the fall it's about seven months from now that doesn't mean no work can go on because we're drawing nesting season it just means we have to do a different way and we have to take care to not look for nesting sites and stay away from other activities are remain time sensitive and i can't give you a february update but we had then left that way the bad news for california the good news for construction is there's been almost no rain in that part of the state yet that's what would cause significant erosion there would be nice to get that finished clearly before one of these rain storms actually reaches runner perhaps without going into the same level of detail the question is what does the legislation mean and why was it passed and i think the common sense answer is  congress has grown impatient with the delay in getting this project done essentially in three words i think they said enough is enough we should remember why the project who's being constructive in all there's a commitment to a tribal settlement water supply has been delayed since eighty eight and there is a need for a colorado river conserve water in california  this project is designed to meet and we should remember why there's the last and that is they wish this water to go to mexico for your farming or environmental purposes which you cannot do carry out the project there's a pretty good sense of they mean now with respect to  what we can glean from the few words they've used we should remember that this is the third time they've spoken on the subject and so although this law may have no lengthy legislative history we have better than legislative history we have three laws passed and if two points can define a line certainly three law is going to find a trend and the trend is from one nine hundred eighty eight and in the stanley ray act where this project was allowed the secretary may do it and maybe use this water satisfy tribal water needs and three alternatives could be considered and  went to two thousand and the packard amendment where the project was mandated the tribal water had to come from this project but the alternatives were still up to the united states to now two thousand and six where the project is mandated the preferred alternative is directed by congress the schedule is upon an act meant without delay directed by congress and so we can see that each time congress has acted it has further and significantly reduced the discretion afforded to the united states and without repeating what i said last time as at this podium that discretion frankly that lack of discretion is critical to the analysis under the public citizen supreme court case and so what purpose would need the review do for the complaint that's in existence paragraphs twenty eight thirty two and seventy five of the amended complaint say that the united states improperly evaluated project alternatives didn't give enough weight to the wealthy old alternative that might be more what further benefit from evaluating the cut off of water to mexico this is not a change frankly and reckon i want to step back and say unlike many of the cases that this this circuit has wrestled with respect to new legislation this legislation is consistent and confirms the district court's conclusion can't do anything about activities in mexico impacts in whining water that saved is to be distributed as step forth in the contract referenced in the law on so again under public citizen what purpose to evaluate something were just a different decision excuse me cannot be made the focus of the relief sought is from the injunction opposition is to essentially everything but the injunction of of the law's attack on many theories there is no there is no foundation for saying that the words which are now paraphrase do it now please from congress doesn't in directed does injunction and those remedies are no longer available so we ask that the motion be granted i counsel unconstitutional rider if the writer means what the government says it means if it really means what the government says it means it is profoundly and constitutional because it is an unlimited delegation of says why not also osha which provides work safety rules which can slow down construction why not the n r a the national labor relations act which allows workers to strike why when that  they say oh we're going to follow the air pollution control laws but why not withstanding any other law would exclude those as well but the government would like to do is pick and choose which laws it can fol statute is unconstitutionally vague because it allows us no guidance as to which laws the government's going to follow or not if this law truly allowed interior to carry out the project notwithstanding any other would like you to go beyond mount graham and let me tell you one how do you live i think you can do it under robertson versus robertson was on the books i believe in the one thing that you didn't reach in that red can go to court petition the government and that conduct is not used against it under the anti trust laws here let against underneath should be able to go to court to come here and without that's the problem when midway through a case a writer is thrown at us of course we haven't planned this this is new to the case you're on and that's an important issue and united mine workers vs the state of illinois the right or other cities can and what's the rational basis for saying that that small town can have its impacts analyzed as other cities can't is there a rational basis is there is nothing rational about ignorance but it is perfectly consistent with the wording of this writer to carry out the project in accordance with law including any there is that this broad language was intended to eviscerate me because application to this project congress has a lot of practice now you know women eighty nepa in projects knows how to do it it didn't do it here i didn't do it well one could only surmise that but the fact that this was a problem for our adoption as part of the spill in the face of widespread complaints among congress that they had no idea what was in this two hundred sixty page bill may supply the answer maybe they didn't know what they were doing and if they didn't know what they were doing you're honest why should you have got the psychoanalysis of the congress to supply fact of the matter is that mule deer are dying in a court challenge extension american now because they can't give up the flat cement flying bridges the manner of death is particularly gruesome they now a man and they're in the pain that they go through crime of their way out of a canal the rich city rich is a real issue the notion that congress and this writer now the safety of riches is reason enough alone for this court to keep the injunction in place perhaps better research or honor than i have in my of my paper so far on the first amendment issues there's a real issues the supreme court i think got it right in us versus time which it was a little bit different you know the one thing that the great swell case didn't deal with was intermediate scrutiny and unlike this stuff each three case governmental purpose there's not the slightest indication in the record as to why having that fair examination underneath of all the impacts shouldn't be undertaken remember spen thirteen years since there's been any public review of this project all other things have changed including the design of the walls and under intermediate scrutiny it's the government burden to to show the substantial relationship to important government purpose and again that purpose has to be asked why is no need for review why is the elimination of need for review for this one project when you can read that notwithstanding phrase complying with nepa is part of carrying out the project that's what responsible government administrators to follow need in carrying out the project it's bound to words don't mandate the repeal of the then the default is is is with the point is well i put another way what other person wadi think congress was referring to i don't know the record doesn't answer your honor but it seems to me that the government doesn't carry the day unless it can show affirmatively legislat this really requires tighter pollution thresholds and compliance with strict new air quality rules for imperial and these same requirements evidence why on this record with the language of this writer the government cannot start to impede our article three i think that the government is taking that language much too far in that instance the origin for example your honor has pages of litigation requirements decision your honor has numerous air quality aker for acre wetlands requirements is full of the kind of mitigation measures that we are trying to enforce in this very lawsuit for example it talks about compliance with the what this case is all about and that instance to follow the language of this wider we can harmonize that language with these claims we have to follow those air pollution rules as c i s in compliance with those rules will help inform decision makers on how to carry out this project mitigation measures study of following in mexico construction excavation even if it is for only the preferred alternative counsel argued but what  benefit by going back and doing that well that is the benefits we can inform the decision makers how to carry out even if it is just the preferred alternative justice to shima in a manner to protect the environment and that weeding of the statute would request that you do is either reject the move this arguments and get the merits of the case or real man for factual interpretation there are a host of ninth circuit cases whether it's the national audubon case red squirrel five justice noon regard to equal protection claims and to what extent noticed is required as required or to what level of scrutiny does apply we should keep the injunction in place there is nothing in this particular statute congress knows how to specify when it suggestion that the proper way of looking at this is to look at the particular laws that are governing the secretary's function in approving and overseeing the project in those particular laws are the laws that the congress instructed the secretary this project there was the introduction of a newspaper article regarding the coachella canal the issue about impacts to wildlife was not even in the appellate varies ever before this case the question was of public safety but it's setting and that is not significant to the record that was before the court with respect to the injunction but but setting aside those issues ultimately the issue before this court is whether the claims are moved and if there's some the in the record of decision the secretary committed to complying with all of the requirements that of the imperial air pollution control board and re committed to complying with the and so we're following air pollution and this lawsuit is not about enforcing those mitigation requirements the lawsuit was claiming that we didn't do enough to meet our obligations that we didn't go far enough we are