sued technique which is the owner of the red dog mine the northwest artists borrow is a unit of local government that's similar to the counties in the lower forty eight and there are eleven communities within  that within its boundaries some are incorporated some are not many of the girls residents live a subsistence lifestyle and it's very important to the residents of the plants in the animals that live in that region  for subsistence for their subsistence way of life the mine is also in the borough the borough is the legal entity charged with protecting the public health and safety with protecting the environment with protecting the subsistence resources and also charged with determining what growth and development is appropriate within the for us in addition the north the starting borough entered into a contract with the with technical the owner operat not representing all the facts of the question of liability and what what positions do you want to argue or would you concern that might be different from you know others well and actually what our interest is stronger i mean i think we still have an argument on the issue apply villany because there is some question here about i mean if you look at the affirmative defenses sort of a technical there's a question about whether the readings in the test results were accurate or reports submitted to the e p a and what the northwest are girl would be arguing is they may or they may not be because there may be some other reasons why those test results were faulty or there are exceptions under the regulation no i think they're going to argue that these were not that the test results were valid and we will argue that some of the test results were not and that's really actually in conflict i also would submit that they cannot adequately represent our interests i mean for another there's actually several reasons first of all off you know as they say the northwest our girl represents you know the the residents of the entire world not just intervene and i think i would submit to you that their argument would be you know they are representing everybody we're just representing our folks who want clean water to drink when we relocate and then we have a very strong comments for intervention interest but we're going to protect that interest in court and i don't see how the party can do that i mean you're basically taking both sides oh well they don't have any interest but you know we'll well make all the arguments they will interest and there is certainly a governmental interest and a contractual interest wrong i think that's totally speculative and yes if that contract was affected they have a remedy of original contracts and they don't need to be in this suit to protect protected interest in the property and transactions which are at the heart of this lawsuit which is the permits and the violations of the permit i mean they make another likely defendant they don't own the permit they don't own the different than anybody else is anybody else who has a contract with facility whether it's the people who supply the toilet paper for the vast rooms or the people who supply the bottled water well anything else that's quite a deal if there's quite a difference intervene in remedial we would say limit their intervention obviously but if that if the choice is no intervention and intervene in the remedial we would say no intervention because of the way the borough has operated here the b operated as the big foot the members of the borough have tried to bully our clients include alina by saying this is not the way to bring this lawsuit it's not the way that  resolve their problems it's a community of about four hundred and it's one of twelve villages that make up the yes because the borough has been aware of these thousands of violations by the by the mine for many many years and has taken absolutely zero unfortunate action when they could under the clean water act that's the  concerned about them as well pending both technical and then an original corporation which was allowed to intervene because they own the land in which the mindsets filed motions to dismiss on the motions for summ effect on a legally protect the interest and i don't think that they can show that this is not a situation like the southwest it's like the southwest center for by the first of a year your case judge told this is not a situation where the relief attacked the actual document with a contract to the night in that situation it was the information agreement whereby third parties actually have some permit violations could you going to the district court and say we want you to join the plan from operating lasted until this is correct  when presented with the question would you let the minutes of remedial says there's a why should we let them in there they try to get rid of us all the way along they're clearly hostile to our interests we don't want them at the table because they are going to sit and they're going to intimidate our members at that table having the power brokers from the local borough it's like having the governor come to your cocktail party and sit there and say you know what are you going to for what they're going to drink when they  remedy that protests our citizens you know the environment for testing the subsistence resources and promotes economic growth growth within the bar and we think we need to be at the table i mean it's one thing to say oh y to be litigated litigated for a number of years anyway you know we're going to have to do a separate litigation where you know we may be able to avoid this you know in this lawsuit by fashioning a remedy that does not harm the northwest or girl and we need to be at the