the ultimate he has created a policy a policy statement which just in the last few months has become final a copy of which has been provided to you by this doctor representing organisms the defendant mr hegner gets and consistent with the e p a policy contends that the application of the fight for approved pesticide and including any residual waste should be deemed not to fashion it can in other words that there is water quality oriented supervision of the project that's our position and and that's what we that's basically what we propose and now the reason protections would apply if the administration is not done in accordance with the label or loser way in this proposal to to bring any reasonable balance but that premise i think is the problem with this case it doesn't have to be an all or nothing solution to e p a just need to find a way to try to fashion it certainly would have the authority to implement a regulation that says we will do a special n p t s permit that will assure honest i specific basis that clean water and water quality considerations are properly to be a police within the meaning of the clean water act and still me how many had a technical violation of the clean water act in that case and the court was presented with the case of your honor's it's already it's says here we don't have that clean water act when shift for the use or vice versa situation in fact what we have is a chemical that is uniquely developed for eradicating water through quite an extensive testing and rigorous application of the chemical to in order to ensure that there are no unreasonable facts on human environment in using the let me quote so that i don't get it incorrect fish after the treatment after forty eight hours so in this little of forty as forty eight hours the the chemicals no longer in the water and it's a tactical amount that would affect organisms and it's a chemical developed and marketed for that purpose and used only for that purpose and so in answering your question and referring to the record in this case whether or not  know it for fact that there's nothing left in the waters we don't what we do know is that the chemical degrades to a point where all of the intended circumstances of applying the chemical no longer happen and still the organisms whether non target or target organisms are no longer affected and humans plants other animals anyone else any particle system can also use the waters and ingest the fish further as that lower court noted in its memorandum and opinion the project that the state of montana is implementing here is one that's intended to respect or the biological if the only thing that ended up getting killed were the trout that you wanted to kill there would be an argument about waste yes your honor but the people that wanted to kill the van trout said well you know your honor because so we're not considering that the the non tort target organisms were at least for part of the project and the reason why is that we have in this project management the fact is it isn't that up to the psni it is to the extent that this court doesn't weigh and otherwise well but i mean if you're talking about the wisdom project that's certainly  special n p t s program that will allow us to require these agencies these these users of the waters like every other user to come along in modern times and develop the technologies to make fewer impacts our waters