i believe this case sets forth and set a very unique facts and i would like to least highlight a few of those before i get into the specific cases there's no dispute that the that there is no fire department to it's actually several statutes read together thirty one forty six thirty one forty three thirty one forty two thirty eight seventy two thirteen eighteen thirteen eight seventy eight thirteen eight seventy two point five in each of those statutes mandate that the fire chief response to an emergency and that's set forth in the attorney general pretty clear it's in his territory or not it's within the state your honor and make a condition of the mutual aid agreements saying look we're not going to take on this obligation unless you satisfy these various concerns that they have about access and practices so so i want to very clear that there are two different sources of  obligation and i think the agreement source of obligation is a somewhat different from the status or statutory one that you've alleged well actually i would just group that in the sense your honor the mutual aid agreements are with the state of california or with other  they can call upon other just rips through mutual aid but into more significant issues such as has just materials responses geyserville we defer to the snow in the county fire chief and his officials in fact that has already occurred within the past two years guards or went out for an emergency first responder saw what appeared to be a potential hazard materials concern incident and they called upon the snowy county fire officials who did respond eventually turned out to be nothing but they did respond now in regards to the fact that there are no on there is no on site fire department and sonoma county officials or other fish was going to have to respond to an emergency because they have that duty that responsibility with that comes certain rights and even obligations well again the responsibilities when you're saying them is imposed by state of california statute state of california  ranch area is a sovereign as well and is there anything in the action on the part of the ranch or ia which obligates responsible the part of the county i'm not sure exactly what i'm saying here is you're arguing to us that the state of california has passed actually it's imposing an obligation upon the fire chief which justifies the fire chief imposing his authorities to some degree over this territory so i well the state of california doesn't have itself authority over this territory i'm not sure it's statutes can can give that and if you look at the compact between the rancher and the say dry creek it's easier to dry creek and the state i explicit in saying that nothing here is going to provide jurisdiction over the to the county to enforce building and safety codes well so now we're here and you're telling us things the state has done someplace else somehow gives this authority to the dealing with and special work all state that the jurisdictional or the sovereignty of the state does not end at the border with the ranch area and there are certain issues that are so compelling where the state has a right its own state sovereignty to assert beyond the border with the ranch area so that's the first issue of what is the compelling interest in regard to the compact itself the compact simply says it does not confer jurisdiction on the county it does not say that the directory however is going to take care of all fire safety it's going to take care of all responses that question actually is left unanswered by the compact and the argument that we have made if you first determine what statutes are at issue here parker has a significant compelling public policy issue for the state of california and from there just the compact limited in any way yes there's an issue regarding whether it's a uniform building code or whether it's the california fire code or whether it's not a county fire code that may limit it as to our ability of what we're going to enforce but you begin first with the public the fundamental public policy which is you need to have fire safety within all of the jurisdictional area of the state of california including the ranch  said i think the state of california has elevated fire codes to be of more of a significant issue than building codes and the reason said i think there's two sources for that first in regards to peace officers and we started to i believe it's code eighteen thirty thirty eight seventy two point five and thirty eight seventy two point zero in regards the fact that fire chiefs are designated as peace officers and if you look at penal code section eight thirty that has a list of all the persons in the in the state has been listed as peace officers it includes the fire chiefs it doesn't include building inspectors it tried even though the compact allows them to enforce some of the building it does not allow them to raise it to to criminal prosecution they don't have that same status yet the state of california has recognized building code violations may not raise to a criminal level where they need to be a criminal citation but in fire codes that's a different issue and that's why the deputized fire officials local fire officials as peace officers and then also i think there's a second evidence of the fact that far closer dealt differently in the state of that the fire chief has to have the ability to with fact without restrictions and that is a major concern for the local fire chief he has to be prepared to know what's up there so my county patrons of the tribe know residents live next door the other local fire officials are responding all have an expectation that this no my county fire chief knows how to respond to this far knows are the innocent is prepared to down the one road going to the casino and that i don't know if it was said directly at least implied it was pretext you all as a way to shut down the casino operations is part of what the chief is looking for is just shut down that access right absolutely not it there is a concern that this road is not safe that many lead to some result were either additional crash will have to be made or second access road will have to be built yes the worst case scenario yes the road may have to be closed because you need to have a safe access that could be the worst case scenario however there still could be other avenues i think this actually highlights a significant issue that may have been overlooked by the district court and what was before the security court and what was  for the just record was a request for an inspection we're actually asking for a very limited remedy here we haven't gotten even to the issue of what violations and they were truth criminal citations issued but we hadn't even had an opportunity to  and that explains why we're here i mean i understand where the fire may be coming from but i also understand where the rancher is coming from the ranch area tells us there in fact have been inspections the state has taken responsibility for the state  through declaration or other evidence or or reports what it is is her statement saying i am informed and believe that the state doesn't have a problem here i am informed and believe the garza bill doesn't have a problem paraphrasing but that is basically the evidence there really isn't any direct evidence from the state of california when we have had discussions with the state of california then taking the position that that this is all part of the dispute resolution process with the tribes and all the documentation is confidential we actually had to serve a public records act request on the state of california to get some of this information now that seems crazy to us is that the local fire chief has to respond to this information if the state of california taken the position that most this information is confidential tribe or tribal members and looking at the dover says the man case that was started in the briefs you need to look at what is the public policy behind the activity the conduct what is the public policy  there is a significant public policy here now looking at how does that differentiate from any other regulatory or or civil code type provision that provides for building inspections presumably there's a public policy behind that too and yet the supreme court has sorted out regulatory on one side and criminal or perhaps a tory on the other so public policy by itself can't be the answer when you don't need to look at the statutes involved and again i don't disagree about the building codes i believe state of california the elevated fire code in a different class from building codes just by the fact that detonated fire chiefs and fire officials to have peace officer right where a building inspector doesn't have that i also think that if you look at the type of  are looking at and the and the facility we're looking at there are code sections under the fire regulations that deal with a residential property for example you don't necessarily have to have a fire sprinkler in a residential building were issued in this case they weren't prosecuted what happened was we received a letter after trying to make contact with the tribe they want to do a further inspection and they said no you don't have jurisdiction you can't do an inspection we decided for a fire chief decided not to proceed with the citations at that point but to deal with the issue of do we have a right to do an inspection so again what we asked of the so if you're in court and when we got to the district court was actually a very narrow issue do we have the right to do an inspection that minimum request the other cases they were cited in the breeze i think we need to highlight here as cabins are keyshawn and people such as road all dealt with the fact that you need to look at the public policy and only keyshawn it's the only nicer case i was dealt with fire with dry creek one with many other tribes for a gaming compact that sets forth the allocation of jurisdiction for the complete regulation of travel gaming facilities  compact you have in the record lays out a comprehensive scheme for applying all the uniform code that need to apply to build a big safe public building they knew they were talking about a casino the state hoses will fit the fire hydrants and so forth is because there are these uniform standards the standards are applied by the state and the tribe by agreement on the reservation the contract gives inspection authority explicitly to the tribal gaming agency's qualified official it gives oversight inspection rights to the state of california with a dispute resolution mechanism including waivers of sovereign immunity s i think that's an excellent point there's that somewhat misleading the record in this case the county fire chief and wash does not fight fires he does not have a fire department with trucks and firefighters he does not respond to fires there  evidence on the record that he does is my belief he does not he deals with code inspections he deals with hazardous materials and coordination countywide among various fire departments the people who fight the fires are the geyserville fire protection district caught a fired the relationship and provided funding mechanism from the tribe to geyserville to enable guys to go to upgrade its equipment and training and so forth it's in the record it at two thirty nine and i just wanted to draw your attention specifically to paragraph four point one in order to protect and i'm quoting now in order to protect the safety of fire personnel and the patrons and employees of the project the tribe shall provide at least reasonable access to the project to the fire district so the fire district may examine the project pursuant to these examinations the fire district shall make recommendations to the tried regarding maintaining or improving the safety of the project and the ranch area there is spirit resolution geys walk away if it doesn't feel comfortable and the record is very clear in leon manuals declarations that geyserville participated over many years in the design and construction of the facility can call on how do those that's no different than the city of rome you know santa rosa having a mutual aid agreement with the city of healdsburg to help each other out if they need backup the healdsburg police chief would never go into santa rosa and say i have code enforcement authority in santa rosa and i want to apply healdsburg municipal fire code in the city of santa rosa that would make no sense that's what the county fire chief trying to do here  i want to just correct misapprehension in the county's reply brief in looking at the issue of the scope of the indian gaming regulatory act it's preemptive scope county search in its reply brief section on class two tribe has to have a gaming ordinance the ordinance i think it's reviewed and approved by the federal government that ordinance must do a whole long laundry list of things one of those i provide that the construction and maintenance of the gaming facility and the operation of that gaming is conducted in a manner which adequately protect the environment and the public health and safety and the reply brief says that only applies to class two it's not true twenty seven record he read about vern watches comments in the press democrat i went out and didn't specter and under this federal statutory authority found that all the allegations of a lack of safety were untrue and that the casino with state and met all the applicable codes and that's that's in the record regulatory or not it predated the cabazon decision which really solidified the civil regulatory criminal prohibitory distinction that was in eighty seven to seventeen years precambrian on it the opinion acknowledges that the state regulation at issue was regulatory and just as a background for wildland firefighting which is what that case related to the bureau of indian affairs has a contract with california department of fire to fight fire wild land fires in indian country throughout the state of california so that issue is in our view it's just not applicable i want to reiterate this court in in the santa rosa ban case thirty years ago said subjecting the reservation to local jurisdiction would dilute if not altogether eliminate indian political control of the timing and scope of development of reservation resources subjecting indian economic development to the veto power of potentially hostile local non indian majorities i should have written that sentence about this case that's what this case is about and in the opening grief of that county fire chief he trying to make the point that the united states is not a necessary indispensable party says neither the inspection warrant nor the requirement of a second access road would place any obligations on the u s that's on page thirty three there is no doubt that this dispute which arose right at the opening of the casino was all about the interest that were allowed and opposed and indian casino being opened and sonoma county is beautiful alexander valley highway one twenty eight wind region and there is no doubt in the tribes mind that's exactly what's at issue and it would certainly put burns on the united states of america they would be responsible under about eight or nine hundred regulations in twenty five c f r part one seventy dealing with indian reservation roads to finance the construction of the of the new road that would have to be built so that was somewhat of a misconception i think on the can these fires excuse me i'm on the phone nineteen the united states if that road was deemed not to be held in trust with the county have any inspection authorisation rights over that road well your honor for that to be do not trust the united the county would be to bring a quiet title action against the united states there's no question the united states holds title to the easement that that's undisputed and this court has decided and  judge clifton was on that panel in the case by the neighbor that the neighbors brought to try to restrict access on that the i ninety three easement road on the reservation and that case was properly dismissed because the quiet title act does not waive  government's i mean the federal government's immunity for acquired title actions that relate to indian lands or lands that the federal government makes a colorable claim to be indian lands that's the end of the inquiry so your question presumes that congress amends the quiet title act and allows those actions to be brought for indian lands then if it were if the united states owned it but not in trust for the tribe with the county have jurisdiction i don't think so i don't think the county if the federal government owns land that's not in trust for a tribe and happens to have a u s army base on it i don't think the local county officials have jurisdiction to impose county laws on the on federal land question of the rule nineteen ruling because the court had already said that p l t we didn't apply and it didn't seem to me we got a list of have a district court came out that it would make any difference to the united states interests i wasn't it wasn't clear to me why the united states was an indispensable party an answer can stand i'm not sure i understand your question in other words if if the united states was holding the road in trust then sonoma county had no ability to inspect that the court had already decided that with research that under public law to eighty the that is eight fire codes were regulatory and if the united states held it in fee interest then the county would have no rights to inspect that road so why did it make any difference if united states was a party or not well i was under that scenario i'm not sure it would make a difference  which could be a political two to tribal property you still have the problem of is the united states an indispensable party because the property is nominally held by the united states of the title well your honor a criminal case would involve an individual indian presumably living on on a reservation i'm so i and michael's close friends you've got a kind of code that is criminal in nature so the apply the issue becomes the it's like ability of a state code a fireworks provision with regard to tribal property in general well the facts are that i understand i think i understand your question and i think as to a fireworks stand there would be no particular interest the united states would have and a firework stand on the reservation per se we're talking provides the one and only access to to the tribes reservation which really implicates the governments trust obligations to the tribe that you cut that road off that reservation is landlocked as it was from one nine hundred fifteen to one hundred sixty five all those reasons and if it was required to build a second road the government would be very likely to be liable for the cost of that second road which given the topography would be very expensive and you know the government has a lot of interest that relate to these facts that might not relate to the hypothetically pose and the court said deals with a nicer case deals with indian gaming that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about fire safety getting into the rule nineteen issue an indispensable party i think that i just disagree you raise a good issue which is the district court  a doesn't apply so that issue is not you don't need to look at that anymore is united states really an indispensable party and i would say no they're not interested in civil part of they may have been a necessary part but they're not indispensable for the purpose of doing an inspection on  a ninety three and then lastly just in regards to the casino itself an opening on i think it's mid september of two thousand and two and having inspection two days before mr lawrence seems to imply that the whole purpose behind this is that we're trying to close down the casino and they were trying to close down the road and that's not the case the fact the matter is to track never invited to fire chief up to the facility to inspect until literally two days before the casinos to open and that's when we see these violations that we're concerned about the other thing to realize is looking at the evidence in the record tried leon manual submitted a declaration talk to all the things they've done since september two thousand and two so our position the reason that taken some of those steps because we issued a notice a violation we issued the it's because of this lawsuit they have taken the steps to change some of things that there and regards to the road itself that bought property which happened since this case started next door to the ranch area where they can build a second access road so there are options out there but i do think th