honor i'm very glad you said that because we did that and what happened they removed the case to federal court and the district court stayed it and made a finding in that decision that said that this if you know was going to have county and the city and the state working out in their political process so they're not happy with the way the county is turning this they can go to the slate legislature and pass a law that makes some other agency responsible or give the city  which is granted by state law the thought likely to dispose of these claims has said we give up really the state law as written by was very have by legislation by the state legislature to do with unless the state was preempted that's correct this is what you want to talk talk about i want to talk about preemption because there is no preemption in this case prohibiting or controlling that and there was a state statute that allowed the consent excuse me that allowed billboards and the court felt that you could not a even in a consent decree so the preemption analysis here is one regulation only one that was in front of the court that isn't from the court about what is reasonable environmental regulation under the gr between the outdoor advertising act and any federal law and accordingly  the case there was not any federal issues at play there while there was federal money there was no argument that there was any federal law that was in conflict with a long regulating the billboards here we have the underlying preemption issue which is that the issue of the land use designation of this mine in conflict with the state laws and environmental regulation and environmental protection and resource protection and one might also offer that i think keith vs both you need to be reading reviewed in light of the case of lawyer versus the department of justice it was not so i didn't the brief but after the reply was filed as i've noted that case which is a rely on it it's always a good idea not only to notify the court to notify opposing parties thank you i'll make sure and do so next time and in that particular case it was a case dealing with the florida legislature and redistricting and the case has  there was a federal administrative decision by the federal highway building authority that they didn't want any billboards on i thought right i'm not sure  the federal authorities in their great obese and to environmental interests and concerns said no billboards that was a federal decision so there was a federal decision in conflict with caltrans ability to determine where that's of the two cases it seems to me i think you have to try to shift the focus about six degrees there are private parties in a civil dispute three to settle a case by a consent decree that violates state law i think in this particular case when you have i'm not talking about this particular case i'm talking about is an abstract legal proposition are private parties free to enter into a consent decree in federal district court that violates certain state laws but nobody's going to stop you from doing it just a little bit after home from entering into contra that's what's the teaching of granite rock i think the teaching of granite rock is that if you have if you have an issue of facial preemption that that was the issue there in granite rock and granite rock really leaves us in the gray area when you have the issue of how far us because once it's it's settled it's over it's gone we don't care about state law our or anybody else i will i agree that's not ninety nine percent the only things that you know i think that gives me pause is if you look at the course of this court's prior or granting intervention to the city i believe there may be language in there and if i'm if i'm wrong going to retrack i'm about to say there may be language saying that they think that they think they have the limited opportunity to oppose a decree and appeal decisions gilman let's suppose that you're the stipulation regarding preemption is just for a moment is not good and do you agree that there are on the project site just before this project was scheduled to be approved why was that not new information which would require research elation well there's a certain height that reach a certain level of environmental significance here on earth and what happened was the u s fish and wildlife service examined the discovery that so there was a consultation between regard to future conduct and after that the permit is issued in the mind becomes up racial and there's nothing in there which precludes anybody from exercising any rights that they have to object to the process in the mind as it's ongoing if you referring to a portion of the consent decree which the city has said which somehow well cause county employees not to speak and i can address that there was during that consent decree negotiation process the county in this nine months mediation involving everybody was reaching agreement on issues at the same time the county was doing that there were portions of the county which were acting to undermine the settlement which the rest of the county was reaching that concerned that the county could not with one hand be stumbling with us in the other hand trying to undo the settlement that caused the language in a consent decree that says that the county cannot do that kind of conduct you can't and  hand you try to negotiate with us and the other hand trying to undermine the soundness recall that one voice speak with one voice if that's what you're going to do it's not intended to and it would not be interpreted to apply after the permit is been issued to whatever anybody wants to that further review would be preempted and why virtue of by herschel by virtue of the fact that there is a body of law which says that if not feel preemption the conflict preemption right and what it says is that you can evidentiary and reasonable legal basis not that there was an adjudication but that in looking at the terms of the consent decree was the agreement of the parties reasonable in terms of the facts that were in the legal conclusions that we reached and with the impact on third parties you need to look at it to make sure it's a reasonable resolution need not be the best resolution a reasonable resolution and that is the standard that should really knew that he had to meet  in approval of the consent decree it was the leader challenge to a consent decree in the action there in the opinion was that you couldn't you couldn't conclude that the action would be precluded by federal law without some findings well i think the key that we've heard is that they tell these concini that the validity of this consent decree depends on the preemption finding that was what the wise move the stand because they're putting that preemption signing in the consent decree for an improper purpose which is to bar third parties from challenging under state law this project that's why and your honor keeps going back to the  they want why did they put a preemption finding in the consent decree why is it because it's a by no one parties and the vine nonpartisan what respect you're trying to stop this project called no we are trying to get mitigations that would reduce the size and scope and the district court in our secret case we have all of this found a court an original request for additional notice when he stayed the sequel action which doesn't say one thing in our complaint about state law it's a state law claims got me moved to federal court and back with instructions to take out the preemption is that and otherwise leave a completely intact well then i think we have to then we have the parties will have to look at that agreement because there's some very strange severability language in the consent decree in the time remaining research but i think that when they're talking about cancer risk i think when we're talking about effects on the species the sequel standard is that's absurd stansell new information there cannot be judgment no discretion on the part of the there is judgment and discretion after surprised that they tell us it was reasonable based on the circumstances you disagree well i think that i don't think that under the standard of review that it amounts to a proper