[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
State number 20-1325-F, the City of Miami, Oklahoma, petitioner versus Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
Mr. Gosev for the petitioner, Ms.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Rylander for the respondents, Mr. Settling for the interviewee.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
May I please report?

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
Residents of Miami and Miami, Oklahoma, have, over the last 30 years, repeatedly had their homes, schools, and defenses flooded because of the operational principle.

[00:00:35] Speaker 03:
In the orders under review, the Commission erred by continuing to kick the can down the road failing to pull GRDAs from the terminal existing license, and not requiring GRDAs to obtain quotas.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
I want to tell you briefly on four points in my limited time scenario in less than 40 seconds.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
Standing, Section 3612, the evidence for work and first referral of these issues to be licensed.

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
On standing, GRDA argues that the city lacks standing because of injuries are not regrettable given Section 2612.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
This put the heart's core for the horse, and has no case for it.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
Indeed, it's contrary to the lawful discrepancy between the seal code that they themselves cite.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
If the city's reading of section 76 follows Brad's, Burke has the authority to grant us the leap we seek, and thus can redress the city's injuries.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Indeed, the distinction from the Willardus Society case

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
On which you realize could not be more strong.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
In that case, the point was that the court cannot be addressed within a society of injuries because according to the willingness to use of the statutes, all that the agency, the other partners could do was.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
Request that Congress designate certain lands as a wilderness area, not that the agency could designate those lands.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
Here under our radio station, we're going to interpret this.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
Another word to say, your opponent has taken part in this issue and is trying to get the public to understand.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
Precisely.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
You know what I'm most interested in, is the last one.

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
The first provision.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
That we're going to take care of this in a light and down a line.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
That we should have discretion as to what procedures we use.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
We don't have to deal with the enforcing of the existence of this.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
We're going to take it up in a pre-demonstration.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
As now Chair Lick of the Commission said in his dissent, it is the dereliction of the Commission's duty not to hold GRDH to the terms of its current life.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
It's not the case that this is a specific proposition of administrative law that once described as an administrative sheltering in an agency, put a position with respect to enforcing or exempting obligations, and instead will take it up in a future rulemaking.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure which case you mean, but it's certainly a proposition that we have here.

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
Oh, I have to know that case.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor, we should have.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
There were more recent cases of the court addressing the same point, though it is certainly some of the cases of opposition.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
And the agency can't play these sorts of games.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Well, as Leo described it, as I described it, as an administrative law shelving, an agency cannot take a question of whether or not there is a violation of an existing rule by answering, well, we'll take it up in a future law maybe, because that's future, not existing.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
Your argument is this is a violation of the

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
We did make precisely that point and in response the Commission basically said, oh we keep on saying this, we keep on saying we'll handle this later and that is a show game in a different sense in that it is just

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
putting the burden of this flooding on the city of Miami over the course of the last 30 years, because the city keeps on coming to work, keeps on coming to your DA and saying, please help, and they keep on saying, we'll deal with you later.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
In other words, your basic argument is that the agency's position that will take this stuff into a role in a future life,

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
It's a non-special.

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
It's a non-special because you're claiming that the existing life is violent.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
Yes, and their responses, we can do that.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
Nonetheless, and I agree that that is a non sequitur and that they should not be allowed to do that.

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
And just because the same question may be relevant in licensing doesn't mean that they don't have obligations.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
Indeed, the question whether GRDA is abiding by the terms of its current license is itself a relevant factor in the licensing process.

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
Among other things, it is one of the standard factors the Commission looks at to determine the length of a new license if it were to grant a new license between 30 to 50 years, or whether to grant a new license in person.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
So, I do agree that it's a shelving in addition to being unfair to us.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
Now, what about the statute that Congress passed, which the agency plans to deal with?

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
The MP argues that it affects standing.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
What about that statute?

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Do you think it's perfectly clear what it means?

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
I do not think it is perfectly clear what it means.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
I do think that that's important to what's further.

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
Of course, the Commission has a certain interpretation, but the lack of clarity is why the Article 28 rule gets essentially codification of the rule against repealed verification.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
But it's not clear.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
There could be an interpretation of this provision under which we wouldn't be allowed redress.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
But because there is another interpretation that we have provided under which we are intended to address and the commission could order that redress, therefore the commission error might not be so important.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
The question is, one, is the agency having an interpretive issue on this climate?

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
We are.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
Yes, we would.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
We do think that there are sufficient errors in the order of such that the court can also direct that revenge in ways that will help.

[00:08:16] Speaker 03:
Correct the agency to receive a lot of such as for example, not the priority license.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
We can't.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
I do think the board can interpret that language.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's going to work ahead, but I think you wouldn't also be shooting.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
But you can see the example.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
But the mere fact of ambiguity when the agency has an assertive ambiguity or desire for difference, couldn't preclude this court from interpreting the statute to non-far of the letter.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
But the amazing part of it was the agency never contributed a lot to law.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
So that suggests you were implying that there would have to be a new name.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
The agency never interprets the language, but also asserts that irrespective of everything else we order, the language would apparently be in our way, which we think is an alternative basis for ruling against us.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
There is no explanation whatsoever for that interpretation.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
But the agency's counsel, my friend Ms.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
Wetman, has said that the Institute lacks statute, so I think the court also accepts this problem.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
Can you explain if we're going to demand in New Seduit some trances, for example, that they should be told this into the legal making?

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
more way to reach the meaning of 76 properties and the reason that you've specified, how would you interpret it?

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
Not to, not to preclude it.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
The fundamental law with the GRDAs

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
But it is not doesn't limit vertical

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
I will otherwise limit or.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
And therefore, the provision that says the project, you can't change the project boundary doesn't have.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
It doesn't limit enforcement under Article 5.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
And are you saying even if enforcement under Article 5 were to require acquisition of land or flowage rights on land, once that land is acquired, it doesn't affect, necessarily affect, the project boundary?

[00:11:31] Speaker 04:
And you elaborate a little bit more, and I see you nodding.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
So what does the project boundary refer to distinct from this sort of rights and in-land that are in the control of the authority or the purpose of the project?

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
In an ideal situation, two are really one.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
The commission in 2003 amended its regulations about project boundaries to say, we should have a project boundary fully encompass the length of the project.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
Before that, for example, minor projects, which are minor licensed projects, didn't even have a project boundary.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
So it's too easy to question whether it's relevant.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
So they couldn't be the same, but they are joints because

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
It is simply for the ease of everyone to know what the project is in process.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
My understanding of your point all along has been the budget boundary is not a limitation on the obligations of the licensee.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
So, therefore, any direction in the statute of the project boundary doesn't necessarily resolve this issue.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
But it's a little confused to do like this.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
But anyway, your basic argument is project boundary is not a boundary of the obligation.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
Correctly.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
It is a descriptor of primary land or of any rights relevant to the project.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
and often includes all lands, relevant to all lands, according to our obligations.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
But the riparian rights site in our reply group is where the commission specifically said, we can order you to do things outside of the project boundary, and that's still an obligation to acquire rights necessary for the execution of the project.

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
That's the same thing here.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
I think we're achieved at this point.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
It does, it said in the staff letter of order in the project summary, does not limit the scope of Article 5 and the commission in its hearing order did not revisit that assertion.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
If there are no other questions at this point, I see I'm significantly over my time for anything.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
I just want to ask about the Pensacola Act, which uses budget boundary and then it's

[00:14:17] Speaker 04:
And for business, there's any land, water, or physical infrastructure on the improvement outside of that project value.

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
It's not being considered part of the project.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
How do you read that?

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
We read that to be essentially the same as the first.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
What is part of the project is the finance of the project.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
And with respect to that land, that land is not part of the project.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
One way to understand that is instruction not to amend the project boundary to include any such land.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
but it's still the case that obligations of the licensee can extend beyond that.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
So, for example, downstream effects of a project are regularly considered obligations of the licensee, but that land is never considered part of the project.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
So, certainly here, I interpret that as being more about which

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
lands are considered part of the project within the project.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
The next one says you can't amend the project without the licensees.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
Agreed all of these to factor are ambiguous.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
There are multiple readings of these which is why I think it's a tough case that For the Christian that they have never provided out for vacation

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
I'd like to step back for a moment.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
And the first thing is that I have some amazing tasks so I can do them.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
That's what I had to go through.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
That's one verse.

[00:17:00] Speaker 04:
I'd like to start with the question of what is preserved and reviewed in this case.

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
And the first thing is whether there's a license violation.

[00:17:09] Speaker ?:
And the second is, and so what happens to that license here?

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
The petitioner did not preserve and review the issue of whether the program was issued for this issue, the issue of the funding to be licensed in.

[00:17:24] Speaker ?:
That does not turn into a fair review.

[00:17:27] Speaker ?:
And in fact, it is appropriate for the commission

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
the issue of your play to the water and more people that are proceeding, in which we consider all issues related to the crisis, including your play.

[00:17:43] Speaker 01:
That doesn't answer the question, as to whether it's been a violation of the existing system.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
That's correct, John.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
And that's why I'm concerned about it.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
Are you familiar with AT&T, Bridges, and Amsterdam?

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
I wish I was.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
Well, that seems to the proposition that an agency cannot avoid answering the question whether there's a violation of acts by saying, well, take it up later than the woman.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
That is what Donald Stratton's leadership is concerned about.

[00:18:19] Speaker 04:
I would not say that there is any shell made here at all.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
It is the commitment that's considered the issue of stream of funding in the work times.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
It can be, they're already ruled in this number of issues.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
It's not, it's not going to be, as you describe it, there will be licensing.

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
Licensing doesn't work in the future.

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:19:01] Speaker 04:
But it matters that it's still going to work.

[00:19:07] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
But what it also can be is the process of making this examination requires further study like

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
and upstream conditions.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
And the conditions are already, I have the conditions down here, which fits in with the study for indetermination.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
The confidence of the study can get to the positive part.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
That study is going to take several years, and then time has simply expired if the conditions are already in order for the study to occur and be licensed.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
As explained in the framework, it doesn't make sense to take up the school with you

[00:19:44] Speaker 04:
It seems that the AT&T principle that they claim to be an existing law system violates the state matter from an upcoming

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
And if the Commission were to do the work that a continent is doing on the causes of flooding in the context of the former, it could very well rely on that same study for purposes of the re-licensing.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
I don't think I would consider this issue.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
The question really is whether a challenge for the city in this case has an entitlement

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
to get an answer to the license violation that has been raised.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, Mark, certainly.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
The commission has handled that question.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
The commission has answered the question that you raised earlier.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
The question was saying that there was no substantial evidence of blood on the spot by the question.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
Yes, you're right.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
How do you just ignore the Oklahoma court proceeding, which extensively discussed evidence?

[00:21:15] Speaker ?:
Well, Your Honor, you're correct, of course, in that the commission did not describe it in the proceedings.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
I have an opportunity to work with the record, that the proceeding there found liability based upon the statutes,

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
But it did not address the question of whether the license decided it.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
No, of course not.

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
But they go over the evidence as to whether or not the dam overflow caused the damage.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, it looks like the University did consider the same studies which we did.

[00:21:52] Speaker ?:
The conditions that came to mind in one of the studies showed that there was a grant

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
The question was whether there was a flood of the town of Miami.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
But the same issue with both proceedings.

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
At least it shouldn't have been before you, but I get the impression that you directly purchased 28 militia units of what, in the town of England.

[00:22:53] Speaker 04:
Mr. McLeese, in return, we're going to discuss the 13th and 15th and the 21st and 24th, dates from 1995 to 1998.

[00:23:02] Speaker 04:
that it was familiar with the evidence presented, that it was familiar with the evidence presented.

[00:23:09] Speaker 04:
And we've seen it in previous times, in the George's license, it seemed it was clear that there was litigation in the state of North Carolina.

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
But there's no, I mean, there's not any discernible response to it.

[00:23:23] Speaker 04:
And it's actually quite odd, when you do procedural, when the commission then adverts to a certain allegation,

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
by the authority that it disputed whether the project called flooding.

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
But that's comparing apples to oranges.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
The city comes forward with evidence referring to studies of a black study, a holland study, and a federal tech study.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
And look, we have studies, we've had a conversation about them, that conclude that the flooding of the city is caused by a project

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
And then Burr seems to hear the authority and response saying we disagree and accept that as an absence of rational evidentiary showing on the city's part, which should seem to me not to move on.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
What's your response to this?

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
Characterizing it?

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
I think from the procedure, it just seems arbitrary on Hulk's part to have some conclusion to the problem with complaining so much on it.

[00:24:33] Speaker 04:
All right, I will move to the side of the agenda that the commission has secretly established and seriously and has, has addressed some of the negative things that are put up on the water and in the water, but the dress specifically suggests that we're running in the worst-case and in the worst-case scenario,

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
It's not clear how taking a step here is going to be any further than it was the city of the commission had already done prior to the filing.

[00:25:04] Speaker 04:
It's just our obligation to apply the law.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
If the law requires that this be addressed as a complaint and not rolled into the future prospective proceeding, then it's...

[00:25:19] Speaker 04:
That's what we do, whether a train dash will continue for one condition or not.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
But the law does not inform that this is a death sentence in place.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
We've been making a desire for residents, again with respect to the black county fair, to the prison and immigration society, by a patient self-proclaimed, referring to the client state.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
The client state has no right to investigate, and it will rely, and it has no duty, if you rely on the client,

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
So it relies on passively including current order, which is, I understand, a much narrower question, which is just whether the most increment of water level would cause flooding.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
And the city's response says, you know, no, the flooding caused whether that additional increment is for living or not, and for never before never.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
That's the undue opportunity.

[00:26:18] Speaker 01:
in the federal proceeding that's very specifically limited to CQB.

[00:26:27] Speaker ?:
Do you have any?

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
I would ask today, are your own CQB places the opportunity that have been given to you?

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:26:39] Speaker 04:
In your eyes, how do you think that dealt with it?

[00:26:45] Speaker 04:
You were the one that said that the commission had in various files

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
address the question.

[00:26:50] Speaker 04:
I just I heard that you were talking about those proceedings.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
I'm not going to need to, when the commission has addressed this question.

[00:26:58] Speaker 04:
And so one response to your, this would be an efficient argument.

[00:27:03] Speaker 04:
That would be an efficiency of the commission for making cabinets in Commissioner Glicks or making shared blitz terms down below for this.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
There's nothing we can do about that now.

[00:27:24] Speaker 04:
I'm taking this question just for the sake of the argument that the commission has been wasting time.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
The commission has wasted time.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
Yes, I am not taking the issue of clauses like prior to now.

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
It's not a question of wasting time.

[00:27:47] Speaker 01:
It's a question of whether you've satisfied your obligation.

[00:27:52] Speaker 04:
There's a challenge to the existing license, obligations, and the challenges that go before you.

[00:28:02] Speaker 01:
And the only question is whether you're obliged to decide on your own.

[00:28:08] Speaker 04:
Chris, I don't know if that's just what I did.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
There is nothing that the Commission could have done or anything in the complaint or in the original review that it had not already done in establishing the latency process laying in its memory.

[00:28:28] Speaker 04:
And for why it was studied that the Commission itself said, you know, the study of energy efficiency would be against the issue of why this wasn't in play.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
Trouble following it just seems like maybe we're talking to each other.

[00:28:43] Speaker 04:
You can spend quite a bit of the briefing talking about how this was first compliance division.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
I take that to be the division that deals with whether an existing life is being compliable or not.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
I think that's an answer in and of itself.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
If the compliance division finds non-compliance, what happens?

[00:29:04] Speaker 04:
Then there would be stuff achieved.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:29:09] Speaker 04:
It wouldn't automatically be enrolled into a law company through licensing, would it?

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
I know your position is that it could be.

[00:29:19] Speaker 04:
I'm asking whether it's automatic.

[00:29:21] Speaker 04:
Let's say this was 15 years before the license was due to be considered.

[00:29:27] Speaker 04:
Would the compliance division, they would seek to enforce in what kind of, how do they do that?

[00:29:38] Speaker 04:
In this case.

[00:29:40] Speaker 04:
So, at the Alliance Division, you know, it's possible at some time that there was a license, that there was a license violation, and that license was stolen.

[00:29:53] Speaker ?:
I think it's the Alliance Division that have, which have, it's done a variety of things, which have required the license to be required to land rights.

[00:30:08] Speaker ?:
It would have required, you know,

[00:30:09] Speaker ?:
like it was part of the conversation over the years.

[00:30:13] Speaker 02:
But I don't mean to be indefinite, but it could be private.

[00:30:19] Speaker 02:
I think I can really see things from here.

[00:30:23] Speaker 02:
There's a great portion of it.

[00:30:25] Speaker 04:
I believe you said, but for the Pensacola Act, I don't take the order to rely particularly on the Pensacola Act.

[00:30:41] Speaker 04:
I took the commission to be taking an even more modest position in that it doesn't argue that 7612 and briefing anyway provides

[00:31:10] Speaker 04:
an independent basis to the firm, except only that it didn't affect the outcome of the agency's proceeding.

[00:31:16] Speaker 04:
It wasn't harmful to Sarah over here.

[00:31:18] Speaker 04:
Is that the commission's position?

[00:31:22] Speaker 04:
I think the commission's position is that the terms of the Act was not necessary.

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
What was the exact line?

[00:31:30] Speaker 01:
The folks in dealing with the pension program?

[00:32:02] Speaker ?:
Your work.

[00:32:06] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:32:17] Speaker 04:
That I'm not.

[00:32:33] Speaker 04:
That sounds like an alternative.

[00:32:52] Speaker 04:
I'll reconcile that with the red brief, which said that the claim about the Act only did not affect the outcome of the agency's seal.

[00:33:04] Speaker 04:
And that we've discussed at 42 and 43.

[00:33:08] Speaker 04:
And so I took that to be the first position is that it's not reliable as a merit basis to defend the order.

[00:33:18] Speaker 04:
Section 755.

[00:33:20] Speaker 04:
But basically saying, even if it's error, it wasn't in the mix.

[00:33:27] Speaker 01:
It really is inconsistent with the order.

[00:33:34] Speaker 04:
It certainly did make sense.

[00:33:39] Speaker 01:
Well, if we see a difference, what do you rely on?

[00:33:43] Speaker 01:
The order of self, or the order of this?

[00:33:48] Speaker 04:
What's the season difference?

[00:33:50] Speaker 04:
The condition speaks for itself within you.

[00:33:54] Speaker 01:
It's the order that you rely on.

[00:33:56] Speaker ?:
That's right.

[00:33:56] Speaker ?:
And the language of the revered doesn't do that.

[00:34:04] Speaker ?:
better.

[00:34:09] Speaker 06:
I think that's the core vision.

[00:34:19] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so the issue of whether you want to extend

[00:34:31] Speaker 04:
GRDA and the court are respectively responsible for flood control operations is not presented by this case.

[00:34:42] Speaker 04:
Do you know what, if any, authority has over the court?

[00:34:47] Speaker 04:
And I think I might, that it's up to the court to regret the release of work.

[00:34:53] Speaker 04:
I guess I want to hear from Axel.

[00:34:57] Speaker 04:
There's a core of engineers having responsibility for dealing with flooding in the city of Miami.

[00:35:16] Speaker 01:
I was curious about that question too.

[00:35:22] Speaker 01:
The intervening seems to suggest, not the intervening.

[00:35:29] Speaker 01:
Yes, the intervening seems to suggest it's the core of the engineer's responsibility.

[00:35:36] Speaker 01:
Is that true?

[00:35:37] Speaker 02:
The intervening seems to suggest.

[00:35:41] Speaker 04:
Because the intervening has alleged for many years that it's not responsible.

[00:35:47] Speaker 04:
The commission doesn't know who is responsible.

[00:35:51] Speaker 04:
The commission is, again, the whole process

[00:35:52] Speaker 04:
I'm sure you've seen it in the record book.

[00:36:19] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:36:44] Speaker 04:
In more and more words, we should take them for DRDA.

[00:36:47] Speaker 04:
I'd like to thank the court for allowing me to have five minutes to talk about the Pensacola Act.

[00:36:53] Speaker 04:
I think this quote is clear, that whether this quote exists as a matter of standing with intercibility or as a matter of reviewing the, for the court, the court needs to make a final, determined decision on the meaning of the Pensacola Act, too.

[00:37:09] Speaker 04:
I think, as the colleague and my friend and Judge Siller made clear, paragraph 18 of the first quarter did not be clear that they made a final decision on the meeting of the Petzl-Kohler Act and interpreted it in the way that we did.

[00:37:24] Speaker 04:
In fact, what happened here is that the city and GRDA had a disagreement in early 2019.

[00:37:31] Speaker 04:
about this very issue that you all are talking about with my friend, about whether the court could require GRDA to purchase loan excusements outside of the property family.

[00:37:45] Speaker 04:
As far as solid disagreement, in late 2019, entire resolvers in unambiguous statutory texts

[00:37:51] Speaker 04:
And I think there are two provisions of the Pensacola Act that both independently resolve this issue in a matter of large and close.

[00:38:05] Speaker 04:
The first revision is first shall the jurisdiction of birth shall not extend to any land or water outside the project boundary.

[00:38:18] Speaker 04:
Here my friends are saying that first you shouldn't force your license outside the project boundary.

[00:38:26] Speaker 04:
That was the argument against the COLA Act, but that would have the COLA Act cut that off the knees.

[00:38:30] Speaker 04:
That argument is no longer available.

[00:38:33] Speaker 04:
Second, if the court has any doubt about the meaning of that phrase, the immediately next phrase is, quote, land outside of the project boundary should not be considered as part of the project.

[00:38:45] Speaker 04:
So what does that mean?

[00:38:47] Speaker 04:
Now, what you're going to be reading, the project is defined in a ghetto house at 16 UNC,

[00:38:56] Speaker 04:
796-11 as land necessary or appropriate for the maintenance or operational project.

[00:39:05] Speaker 04:
That is the exact same language that is in Article 5 of necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of the project.

[00:39:15] Speaker 04:
It is linguistically impossible.

[00:39:15] Speaker 04:
for something not to be part of the project, but then to fall within article five.

[00:39:22] Speaker 04:
That's why it's safe to call it suspended.

[00:39:23] Speaker 04:
The first provision I read said, first of all, no jurisdiction.

[00:39:27] Speaker 04:
That's clear as can be.

[00:39:29] Speaker 04:
If your honor's not dead about that, the court can't go outside the project.

[00:39:34] Speaker 04:
We have the statutory definition of project.

[00:39:37] Speaker 04:
And if you need to add an extra strap on those suspenders,

[00:39:40] Speaker 04:
You can look at a couple of provisions after that.

[00:39:43] Speaker 04:
They say that FERC can't change the project boundary unless it gets our written permission.

[00:39:49] Speaker 04:
So that makes crystal clear what those two provisions say.

[00:39:52] Speaker 04:
Can't be overcome by FERC somehow changing the project boundary or trying to start a new office to do that.

[00:39:58] Speaker 04:
They need our written consent.

[00:40:00] Speaker 04:
So it's a well put argument, Councilman.

[00:40:04] Speaker 04:
FERC hasn't done it.

[00:40:07] Speaker 04:
Well, you're on paragraph 18, they certainly said, they quoted the relevant language, and they said that this is the conclusion.

[00:40:16] Speaker 04:
I think the statutory text is very, very clear.

[00:40:19] Speaker 04:
Certainly, on that second argument I just made, the suspenders on the bell, I've given a little bit more detail, but on the first one, it just said the front-line licensing interest.

[00:40:29] Speaker 04:
And that's clear as can be.

[00:40:31] Speaker 04:
I did extrapolate a little bit more on the second alternative argument.

[00:40:35] Speaker 04:
But the first one is not.

[00:40:36] Speaker 04:
And given that it's in paragraph 18, given that I do think there's incredible argument that it is part of this weak standing issue, I think it would be

[00:40:45] Speaker 04:
the right to do the sort of just interpret that act, which I mean, this is kind of an extraordinary scenario where the party can disagree about a scary thing.

[00:40:54] Speaker 04:
Congress comes in 11 months later and the federalist says, the thing that the city wants you to do, part you can't do.

[00:41:02] Speaker 04:
That should be generally kidding.

[00:41:04] Speaker 04:
It makes no sense.

[00:41:06] Speaker 04:
What makes us think that they weren't settling it for relicensing but not settling it now?

[00:41:10] Speaker 04:
I mean, the licensing is the most straightforward understanding of licensing jurisdiction is jurisdiction to issue a license.

[00:41:18] Speaker 04:
I understand you have a counter argument that enforcement of the license is also a use of licensing jurisdiction.

[00:41:25] Speaker 04:
But if we're looking at this as potentially jurisdictional and not clear and

[00:41:32] Speaker 04:
Why aren't they just looking for, especially in article 28, because you can't change the terms of an existing license by commercial management?

[00:41:46] Speaker 04:
Well, we don't think that we can't return them.

[00:41:49] Speaker 04:
We have a real argument that we still believe that we are right at the time.

[00:41:52] Speaker 04:
What we did is we settled the disagreement about the scope of persons.

[00:41:56] Speaker 01:
When you're not answering the question, what are they selling?

[00:42:01] Speaker 01:
Are they selling the future of licensing?

[00:42:04] Speaker 01:
Do they not address existing licensing?

[00:42:07] Speaker 04:
So I have two answers to that, Your Honor.

[00:42:10] Speaker 04:
I do not thought there was an ambiguity.

[00:42:12] Speaker 04:
Well, so that argument only refers to that person, the best, when it comes to licensing jurisdiction.

[00:42:18] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say anything about that second argument, which isn't very effective in as much detail.

[00:42:25] Speaker 04:
But when it comes to that first argument, I don't think that's the best way to do this actually, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[00:42:31] Speaker 04:
Why would

[00:42:32] Speaker 04:
Farmers want them to be able to acquire GRDA to purchase this massive number of acres of flow Jesus through the giant cost for the past, but then take, but then impose the limitation on the future so the project economy would expand.

[00:42:52] Speaker 04:
They were suffering under the same as apprehension and purpose suffering under, which is that any enforcement action on the existing license would be loaned into the future rulemaking, and therefore we need to worry about it.

[00:43:05] Speaker 04:
They're wrong on that.

[00:43:06] Speaker 04:
They just didn't, they tried to do something that didn't reach an area of exposure.

[00:43:13] Speaker 01:
Which to me, like, could be very dramatic.

[00:43:16] Speaker 04:
But that may be, Your Honor, but that's exactly why the Delta Suspended Approach is very sensible for Congress to use, because, you know, a formula to determine that it is bad traffic, so we think that first sentence is clear.

[00:43:30] Speaker 04:
But again, Your Honor, I think that first sentence is unclear because of the role of the use of licensing for a jurisdiction.

[00:43:37] Speaker 04:
I think the second sentence with the description there, and my friend, why is the second sentence not all so specific of all of the meaning of conferring a future lawsuit?

[00:43:47] Speaker 04:
Second, the land as part of the project boundary shall be considered part of the project.

[00:43:54] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say the land project in the future.

[00:43:59] Speaker 04:
It shall not be considered part of the project.

[00:44:03] Speaker 04:
That doesn't have any indication that it can apply to land in the future as a present tense

[00:44:13] Speaker 04:
And I explained the lower project, which is defined in the federal contract, in the exact same terms as Article V. So there's no other way to read that except in the first Genshi's term, project, different from an obligation.

[00:44:31] Speaker 01:
But the second view, you see the point, Burke does use, traditionally uses, the term project as an unlimited term, than the obligation to the licensee assumes.

[00:44:46] Speaker 01:
My reading, so if it's only defining the project,

[00:44:52] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I see your point.

[00:44:54] Speaker 01:
You would like to refer to another spot where project was defined.

[00:44:57] Speaker 04:
But then Perk often defines the obligation is broadened in the project.

[00:45:04] Speaker 04:
I would certainly disagree with that reading of Perk's precedent, but to the extent... What?

[00:45:08] Speaker 04:
Is that not true?

[00:45:10] Speaker 01:
I mean, I thought that was accepted... Perk accepts that.

[00:45:14] Speaker 01:
Perk's opinion specifically accepts that.

[00:45:17] Speaker 01:
And very briefly says that.

[00:45:19] Speaker 01:
Provers that the obligation of a licensee, it goes beyond the project boundaries.

[00:45:27] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think that... I think of downstream rights.

[00:45:30] Speaker 04:
I mean, there are obligations that a licensee has that aren't determinants of the project.

[00:45:36] Speaker 04:
There certainly could be certain types of obligations that are both on a licensee, but they are not under Article 5.

[00:45:44] Speaker 04:
Article 5 uses a very specific language, and that's necessary or appropriate.

[00:45:50] Speaker 04:
That's the same as the federal powerhouse definition of the project, which is not the emergency position.

[00:45:56] Speaker 04:
Your honor, the letter order, which my friend quotes, at J&A 1970, we don't read.

[00:46:03] Speaker 04:
And we think that they take that one sentence out of context.

[00:46:06] Speaker 04:
Your honor, I can look at J&A 1970 and see if you agree that the letter order is properly representing their position.

[00:46:17] Speaker 04:
But to the extent that there's something in the letter order that's

[00:46:21] Speaker 04:
Contrary to the Federal Power Act's definition of project, obviously the statute that Congress adopted, and then which goes together with the statute that Congress adopted in the Pensacola Act, would trump any big language in the world.

[00:46:40] Speaker 04:
The city of Miami is correct.

[00:46:42] Speaker 04:
The private boundary does not limit the scope of Article 5.

[00:46:47] Speaker 04:
That seems pretty clear.

[00:46:48] Speaker 04:
I'm not reading what they're saying there, is if you put the Pensacolaque side in, you know, Pensacolaque will apply to this one project, that works with it, if they can, over the fire, that that project boundary be expanded by looking at Article 5.

[00:47:08] Speaker 04:
Now that may or may not be an option for FERC before the Pensacola Act.

[00:47:13] Speaker 04:
One of the arguments that we were making is that was not an option for FERC before the Pensacola Act.

[00:47:18] Speaker 04:
So we understand why FERC is not more empowering to have more power than we have.

[00:47:22] Speaker 04:
But by enacting the Pensacola Act,

[00:47:26] Speaker 04:
Congress resolved this exotic disagreement between us and the city.

[00:47:35] Speaker 04:
For other projects, I believe that it can require licensees and other projects to acquire additional land and bring that into within the project value, which would give meaning to that sentence in the letter.

[00:47:52] Speaker 04:
But with regard to our project,

[00:47:54] Speaker 04:
That's you to the one that you live within the first community table for our project only because we have to fall back which I will submit You asked us I think why would Congress pick out the city of Miami?

[00:48:22] Speaker 04:
And this one.

[00:48:26] Speaker 04:
Say hands off and I. I'd like to know.

[00:48:35] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think as far as the public project was serving up, I think the reason that it was done, because what the city was asking for in this case would be absolutely, absolutely catastrophic to this very big project.

[00:48:51] Speaker 04:
It would impose $100 million liability to be passed on to mostly low-income ratepayers in Northeast Oklahoma.

[00:49:00] Speaker 04:
Congress has been incredibly concerned about court safety, these people, often working with regulators to shoulder a hundred million dollar obligation for a problem, if there is a problem, which there is, which is an entire recreation of the court.

[00:49:20] Speaker 04:
The court has to man up the questions, what are the costs of violence?

[00:49:26] Speaker 01:
You know, the city of Miami is losing a fortune, too.

[00:49:33] Speaker 01:
So the question is what the negotiations would lead to.

[00:49:39] Speaker 01:
We can't assume what the total loss would be.

[00:49:44] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, there are current lawsuits by the city of Miami against the RDA and the state court.

[00:49:49] Speaker 04:
And that can be quite scary.

[00:49:51] Speaker 04:
But I was asked by Henderson, why would Congress do this?

[00:49:55] Speaker 04:
What the city was asking was to bypass all of the litigation that they would need to do in state court to prove of the actual damage and to ask her to shoulder this entire giant acreage or put it on us.

[00:50:12] Speaker 04:
for a problem, that if there is a problem, the court creates, the court is going to manage the entire Arkansas river system.

[00:50:20] Speaker 04:
There's tons of different projects on there.

[00:50:22] Speaker 04:
And if there's some problem that's going on down the stream of the day, the court comes to us, you can't release from the project.

[00:50:33] Speaker 04:
Their theory is that causes a backup into the city.

[00:50:37] Speaker 04:
But the Corps is concerned a lot more about the city.

[00:50:41] Speaker 04:
The Corps is concerned about the entire Arkansas River project.

[00:50:45] Speaker 04:
And so Congress can be very concerned about a proceeding brought by the city that would essentially impose on often low-income ratepayers in Northeast

[00:50:57] Speaker 04:
Oklahoma, the burden to pay for measures that could be being done by the court to benefit many, many projects in many, many areas downstream of the dam, which as far as the court appears to believe that if different measures, there'll be a lot more flooding.

[00:51:18] Speaker 04:
There'll be a lot more city of Miami situation.

[00:51:20] Speaker 04:
Are there questions that the city would have to

[00:51:24] Speaker 04:
Addressed with food and then if the proceeding the license violation decision went on in its merits to be defended on grounds of No, the authority is not the cause or no because it's not the authority's responsibility or the responsibility.

[00:51:41] Speaker 04:
I mean what a dreadful point where the claim is that the authority is running its business in a way that causes huge harm

[00:51:53] Speaker 04:
to the residents of the city and multiple millions of dollars there.

[00:51:59] Speaker 04:
And that there's no regrets.

[00:52:01] Speaker 04:
With the license said, if you're going to cause this, you need to get the land in their face.

[00:52:07] Speaker 04:
And they haven't even been able to get first view.

[00:52:13] Speaker 04:
Well, you know, that was certainly the state of play in 2019, and those arguments were there.

[00:52:18] Speaker 04:
Congress looked at it, and they said, if we allow this proceeding to go forward, and the city's argument prevailed, it could have this catastrophic effect on rape pairs in North East Oklahoma.

[00:52:28] Speaker 04:
So they took it off the table.

[00:52:30] Speaker 04:
Is there a legislative, there's a legislative history study about, around the concern about rape pairs in North East?

[00:52:35] Speaker 04:
Oh yeah, where I look at it, exactly.

[00:52:37] Speaker 04:
But I would also say for a research fund, the thing currently suing us in Oklahoma State Court for kind of a million dollars, so they can be stopped from doing copywriting work or anything like that, and they just want to be made a whole.

[00:52:58] Speaker 04:
That's right, Your Honor, and our position is that Congress closed the door the incentive was ever open on them getting to be dressed through birth.

[00:53:07] Speaker 04:
So they do have another door, which they are currently walking through, and they're chasing the middle of the tunnel.

[00:53:13] Speaker 04:
So Congress closed the door on these flooding concerns, but the courthouse door in Oklahoma remains open to them, and they're currently exercising their option.

[00:53:24] Speaker 04:
They're not going anywhere.

[00:53:27] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:53:27] Speaker 04:
I don't think it's about the camera.

[00:53:30] Speaker 04:
Why don't you take two minutes?

[00:53:36] Speaker 06:
Two different presentations today.

[00:53:38] Speaker 06:
Is it about the camera or is it just that?

[00:53:48] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:53:49] Speaker ?:
I'll be brief.

[00:53:49] Speaker ?:
A couple of minor points.

[00:53:50] Speaker 03:
On the preservation of our argument about throwing this license and it's being spent on the slide reading,

[00:53:56] Speaker 03:
The commission is in the SAP order that were mentioned for injury licensing, so therefore we didn't raise it on the hearing petition.

[00:54:06] Speaker 03:
It was a new ground in the hearing order.

[00:54:09] Speaker 03:
There's no obligation to go back to work again on the same, on a point where they don't taste right.

[00:54:16] Speaker 03:
On the core of engineers, the core is

[00:54:20] Speaker 03:
fundamentally irrelevant to this proceeding.

[00:54:24] Speaker 03:
GRDA's obligations are from the project, including when it is operating the project under the control of the floor.

[00:54:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's in fact no different from when it is operating the project under the control of the room curb order in the curb license.

[00:54:41] Speaker 03:
In each instance,

[00:54:42] Speaker 03:
It is the GRDA's employees who are at the dam working, who are opening and closing the sluice for whatever they're calling this kind of dam and letting water through.

[00:54:53] Speaker 03:
GRDA took the license understanding that it had obligations under it.

[00:55:00] Speaker 01:
Even if they were not responsible for increasing the water over the top of the dam and flooding.

[00:55:08] Speaker 03:
The water raises because of

[00:55:11] Speaker 03:
a store or something and then they are

[00:55:17] Speaker 03:
The question becomes how much water is left through the dam downstream, which is a balancing act, which is why there's government regulation involved.

[00:55:25] Speaker 03:
But the point is that those are issues that are GRDA's responsibility with its regulators and shouldn't be borne by the City of Miami in particular as compared to all relevant partners.

[00:55:41] Speaker 01:
What about in an argument with respect to the statute?

[00:55:45] Speaker 03:
That was my next point, so sure.

[00:55:47] Speaker 03:
I mean, I think on B3A, I think the court understood the problems with that.

[00:55:52] Speaker 03:
It's licensing jurisdiction, it's type of project property.

[00:55:55] Speaker 03:
On B3B, I think Judge Pillard could have done better than I could.

[00:55:59] Speaker 03:
It's part of the project is not a term that defines a licensee's obligations with downstream rights, et cetera.

[00:56:06] Speaker 01:
And even beyond that, which might be relevant to the definition of project?

[00:56:13] Speaker 04:
And the elsewhere in the statute.

[00:56:20] Speaker 03:
Including article five.

[00:56:21] Speaker 03:
Article five talks about obligations of a licensee for operations of the project.

[00:56:25] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say that that's part of the project.

[00:56:28] Speaker 03:
And they have no authority specifically on

[00:56:31] Speaker 03:
One last point, if you don't mind, Your Honor.

[00:56:34] Speaker 03:
On the state court litigation, that is, of course, ongoing, as they said.

[00:56:38] Speaker 03:
But as I understand it, most of the litigation ongoing is still about one specific 2007 flood.

[00:56:44] Speaker 03:
2007.

[00:56:45] Speaker 03:
It's a long, drawn-out process.

[00:56:48] Speaker 03:
The reason you get here, the court involved, is to try to resolve this question on a broader, respective basis, pressing the last six months of the issue rather than through the law.

[00:57:00] Speaker 04:
I think the court involved,

[00:57:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:57:10] Speaker 03:
It's a thrill to be back in person.