suppose for two reasons first it isn't the ordinary administrator view case where a blue skirt is reviewing a decision of a state agency i also make this way if you don't want us to rule on the merits of your petition once you just take a voluntary dismissal i think that's a very good question and i thought so myself and this was five working see say and how does it speak to whether or not the state agency action here was one i believe that i believe that site which specific  taken no appeal we have taken no kill the environmental hearing board hoping that they would that they read that we would be directed back at her why shouldn't we determine that under state law we have a final combination on the state agency determination made for purposes of federal law and the rather determination wanted dependency determination made under state yes yeah there is a meaningful distinction at least on its face is there i don't think so i think if you look at the clean single and if you look at one o five eighteen a specifically you find different provisions and language that are exactly proposes across an exceptional value well and here it is non water dependent and our position is this is a this is the poster child of a product that a non water depended on because you had no no poor in any jurisdiction has ever found a pipeline project were linear infrastructure generally to the to the water depend at and i think that is that is a very important piece of the puzzle here but also we have an alternative that requires that as we've seen by the record to cross waterways and streams and things of that nature to to to complete the project but it wasn't water dependent because it's a web roads do not require access or proximity to water in general as the fil instance i think they're applying state they're applying state law i think that's one hundred percent correct but there are no cases and both parties here at acknowledge regulations was adopted in that regulatory package the agency expressed the intent that we are infrastructure projects such as roads could be determined to be rather dependent on a case by case basis  account concerns of federalism in reaching the threshold determination as to what kind of deference we we ought to show state agency but i think you sense that the agency to us that the state agency actually considered compression well the compression alternative is proposed in the application that the agency reviewed the alternatives analysis natural gas act that courts of appeals have original and exclusive original exclusive jurisdiction to review actions undertaken by a state administrative agency pursuant to federal role all those all of which are met here that you agree we here you have the permits were been issued there's no dispute about that and in addition we have that the benefit they are final in anybody's interest petition because there was no appeal to the environmental hearing board but you also have finality in it in a very real sense which is different than what happens in the butt shark case where you have an internal administrative process when that permit issued and we had to put approval for it to proceed with with work with a notice to try to get an emergency state to stop and everybody recognized that they were fine i don't know what else finality would mean but we're doing work under the permits and they're opposing it and seeking medical emergency relief so i think penelope has occurred so that's that's that's the first piece i want to take a second really to talk about but two or says one compressor stations because i think there's really been a lot of misunderstanding about it miss discussion and i wan compressor compression options for the product the role of the construction of a new friend greenfield compressor stations pool and then it goes on and says tennessee noted that adding a new have to go and condemn it if you had the option if you wanted to do that and you have to do a lot of film work you know if you look at j five you can see that there were two compressor stations for prison for everybody here so four were cheaper to argue as it's done both these appeals that this was really one compressor station and really not even make those arguments in their comments and sort of like an administrator gotcha type of thing it was very clear in the record that there were two composers stations here as well as the alternative there that was considered now in terms of like you to take a moment when you get a chance to look at another figure straight to forty nine which is a project overview map of the tennessee gas pipeline the basic purpose of this project is to go from one point which is the receiving point to the exit point if you you will see that if you're going to go from point a to point b you inevitably as mr sagan said are going to have to cross wetlands roadways it's a heavy waterway but land area in that part of pennsylvania so if you're going to abandon that reasonable and you're sort of touched on a reasonable this is the exact single argument about water dependency was made by river keeper with mr simple it's in a supersedeas hearing before the environmental hearing board they are it's astonishing to me that the product applicant is asserting that this product requires two different compressor stations if you look at the record before it was before the department also in the draft environmental assessment it clearly states that to achieve the project objectives we identified a possible compressional tentative which would involve the development of a new compressor station requiring approximately forty the confessional fire they were under under the impression that this was two sites and that the rats that consideration therefore they the consideration of the compression alternative is a rational because they didn't understand the basic fundamental size of the compressional three and they base if they wanted to make a h d d under every one of these rather courses if they wanted to do it almost every road they could easily do it under under all of these rather water resources so there is no way that a pipeline project could possibly consider be considered because not only do you have the possibility that h d d but you have a compression alternative which doesn't even require any impacts to water and i think those things are very very important to understand additionally i want to address  when when this issue is fully briefed on summary judgment it will be a better understanding of the law of and of the requirements under one zero five eight hundred eighty two although with regard to deference both of the cases we've heard argument on this morning well briefed well argued i agreed to ask that transcripts of both were arguments he prepared and the family will take the matters under advice