run off water a pollutant. but do you have any idea what the e.p.a.'s real rationale for this was? >> well, i think first of all what they said in court is they acknowledge that what they put in this permit to regulate was water when which is not a pollutant. what they then argued was well it helps us get not good enough. regulate this like pollutant you don't have the authority to do that end of case. you asked what were they trying to do? first of all they were trying to get the legal ability to bootstrap non-pollutants to get at pollutants, which, in turn, would have given them a massive beach head in local land use and the ability to have a seat at the table when your local county is making decisions about zoning and storm water and things like that. which would have put the e.p.a. in every economic development decision everywhere in the country. or at least given them the ability to get there.