two purposes one purpose is to look into the circumstance regarding that this missile of two of our counts with prejudice on it to gas six one by motion and the second purpose we came to you with this case is to look at section nineteen of the metropolitan water reclamation district active bridge at the complaint filed for the one counts or well once or meant complete is final then if you don't we assert the count that's been dismissed with prejudice i thought the the law is that you've two from your original complaint into one i'd like it so it's really it's of no consequence really but let's let's let's keep our focus on the amended count because that's really the what's at stake  d that gave us an avenue to to to push them to home offering with the town to give feed us information to to to help us who are made our systems with their and that leads us to be the second difficulty and you are in your complaint which is one seeking equitable relief he said and it's difficult to to envision what a it's a common misconception that when you when you talk about equity you can go into court and just make up cause of action when you want to junction that when you're seeking injunctive relief which is equitable destroyed cause of action there's no common law cause of action that gives us this this right then you don't have that right and perhaps you should be talking to the legislature of office you can't just i don't think you can just come in and say the courts should communication in anticipation of the heavy rainfall that's going to have consequences in your own township in your time it certainly seems like the right thing to do specially since they have the wherewithal do it and how the phone call well it's on the same page now let's go to justice palmer's point that was justice palmer's point is that you need an underlying cause of action to force the court or to allow the board to of the ways that doesn't answer my question i mean i agree with you that there would be a good idea to take accountability away so that we don't have an issue with that but in inju relief situations we always have to consider is that one of the requirements for drunk of relief is that you have to show that there's a likelihood of success on the merits when they say merits they're talking about the merits of a cause of  action you just can't go to the courts and say this would really be a good thing if they communicated with us i drew with just a scare see it it seems to me like it would be a really good thing especially when the rai coming down like it was coming down but the courts only have so much power and if it if it would be a really good thing maybe it would be a really good thing to tell springfield about because i still need to know if you vices and they have control rooms in our community and they have the wherewithal hood to deal with this section nineteen on its face the language active in southern illinois to being active in northern illinois they have built all of the white house is that connected with mine tell us sewage system my town's green they are schools has anything to do with the enlargement of the reclamation district because well awkward does a really have to do i didn't in all candor i had very little to say to the porridge let's i do the question why my you know what is that if the if the case is properly pronounced what what does punish you stand for if it doesn't stand for what the appellants are claiming it stands for and which gives them at least it gives us guidance in in a in addressing these are cases that the district doesn't necessarily agree with the outcome and so far as the flooding damages are concerned but these are in all candor cases that were properly wrought with with all due respect to the to the second district i believe very strongly that the finnish court got it wrong it got it wrong twice it got it wrong right out of the chute for the simple reason that section t never apply to the rock river water reclamation district or what we knew as the old rockford sanitary district section nineteen never even  and act to create sanitary districts and remove of structures in it as flames of illinois rivers that was standing the fact that it several places that are enabling legislation it makes reference to sanitary districts you'll you'll do you understand why i'm saying no and perhaps somewhat vehemently as i have said literally dozens and dozens of times in the circuit court over the past few years section nineteen was promulgated as part of the district's original twenty seven section and the legislation it has had as its purpose the compensation of the downstream property owners ill of primarily illinois valley who were flooded in many instances permanent legal land was permanently overflow as a consequence of the district excavation and construction of the drainage canal what we now know is that the sanitary ship canal at the turn of the at the turn of the twentieth century and the reversal of the compound of reversal of the chicago river there was to a certain extent a political issue there the folks down the state and their legislators would not accept the district into creation but for something that in all candor your honor i have to be forthright when you read section nineteen that sure sounds like strict liability in tort to me and there's a reason for that it's because these people needed to be made whole for the damages that everyone knew would occur when lake michigan was was trying to time is is precious but the very first section one thousand case that i argued when we started to be inundated with these after the sheet i remember reading that the chicago wire and looking at the at the head olds and restaurant review just as i was solomon's for you and i said look at this and he read it and we both looked at each other and said how long is it going to take before someone sues us and sue us they did we have been inundated with decision should be published to sort of put it in its box let's play it wow how do you think we should do that is that court offering me a position well i'm not i'm asking a circuit court doesn't even have to examine the pleadings to determine whether or not there's a true cause of action if there is no one to contest that that's the nature of our adversary system there's no one to contest that we accept it we go forward and then there and then a question of whether we can vacate the fall depends on the diligence that demonstrated by the party that didn't climb response i guess you're right i'm asking the court to do perhaps a great deal more than it has to again i don't i don't mean to some of those i have asking you to do a great deal more perhaps than you need to do to dictate this case but this section nineteen sure cries out for work for a downstream turned out to be a problem and then later on tonight my understanding from the priests is that later on it was decided well i would have to do more and that's when we started the water management  section of our act much like just like a companion section that specifies the actual construction of the drainage canal the service digital in nature there at this point are an appendix they don't serve any purpose respects see the other the other sections of the of the of the act is as i say once observed to the trial court these legislators didn't raise any you know their their mothers didn't raise any stupid children there is a reason why section nineteen was not and then did and the others and the others were and the court made reference to section seven well that that's the particular section among other things  overview of the district's operations where the amendment that the trust that you just as palmer alluded to where the amendment comes into play was as the court correctly observed in the early twenty's there was a q one cried down state well they built this thing it works but it sure smells down here that was the advent of wastewater treatment there's as we know that was the the the impetus for the construction of the  supreme court has made it clear here soko in in city of chicago versus reagan and gentleman in in green green was a long story short of taxpayers who were the tax payer said i court's recognition of the clear and forward thinking language of section i think that's what it stands for it sets so in fact your use your writing that we read the statute as written as opposed to in the make of conflict in decisions so that this lives on i think that your honor should recognize the the forward thinking language of section one thousand as well as the second district and the national and maybe channels and inches and it didn't include what they were about to embark on and so they needed an authorization from the legislature to build these water treatment plants and arms and if if they needed a specific statutory language to do that then their position as well as it has stood for eighty nine the phrase didn't mean