Thus, Defendants’ failure to obtain a permit for their intermittent discharges is a continuous violation for which ACAT properly seeks to enforce against through the Act’s citizen suit provision. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1365(a) and (f). VI.

Ctr., 568 S.Ct. 597, 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1334 (2013) (emphasis added); TRAC, 750 F.2d 77 (“a statute which vests jurisdiction in a particular court cuts off original jurisdiction in other courts in all cases covered by that statute”) (citations omitted). Effluent limitations promulgated under 33 U.S.C. § 1311, performance standards promulgated under § 1316, and pretreatment standards promulgated under § 1317 are actions subject to exclusive appellate review under §§ 1369(b)(1)(A), (C), and (E). D.

None of the Ninth Circuit decisions suggest that CWA section 402(p) altered NRDC v. Costle’s holding. In AMC, the Ninth Circuit held that storm water discharges from inactive mines were still subject to CWA section 301(a) and required to obtain NPDES permits even if EPA had not classified them as industrial discharges: The NPDES permit program of the CWA, see CWA §§ 301(a), 402(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a), regulates point source discharges of pollutants from inactive mines regardless of whether EPA classifies such discharges as “associated with industrial activity” under CWA § 402(p)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B). AMC, 965 F.2d at 767.

.require a permit. . .The NPDES permit program of the CWA, CWA §§ 301(a), 402(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a), regulates point source discharges of pollutants from -18-P&As Re Pltfs’ Notice of Motion for SJ 2:09-cv-04045-DMG-PLA Case 2:09-cv-04045-DMG-PLA Document 193 Filed 05/11/12 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:6410 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 inactive mines regardless of whether EPA classifies such discharges as ‘associated with industrial activity’ under CWA § 402(p)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B).”] Environmental Protection Information Center v. Pacific Lumber Co., 301 F. Supp.2d id.

If anything, it is the Clean Water Act itself that interferes with the specific property use sought by NMA by barring the dumping of waste into U.S. waters without a valid permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Even upon issuance, a permit does not become a legally protected property interest.

Certain effluent limitations for point sources are established based on the pollution reduction capability of available technologies. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A)-(B). At times, these effluent limits do not reduce pollution in local receiving waters enough to meet water quality standards.

V. CONCLUSION There is no material fact in dispute that Disney is discharging pollutants (copper, TOC and zinc) from its stormwater system, a point source, to the Los Angeles River, a water of the U.S., without a NPDES permit. Thus, Disney is violating the Act, CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). There is no material dispute that Disney’s stormwater discharges polluted by on-site activities are “not entirely composed of stormwater” and violate the Act.

If necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, NPDES permits must contain water quality-based effluent limitations more stringent than limitations that would be required to comply with the applicable technology-based standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); see Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101 (1992). The Clean Water Act requires that federal agencies “having jurisdiction over any property or facility,” or “engaged in any activity resulting, or which may 3 EPA’s use of the term “antidegradation” is functionally equivalent to Montana’s use of the term “nondegradation.”

NPDES permits contain (1) technology-based effluent limitations that reflect the pollution reduction achievable through particular equipment ar process changes, without reference to the effect on the receiving water; and (2} where necessary, more stringent effluent limitations to ensure that the receiving waters achieve "water quality standards" adopted pursuant to CWA section 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313. See section 301(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b). To establish enforceable controls on a pobr~t source as necessary to achieve water quality staa~dards, the permit-writer translates the relevant water quality standards into "effluent limitations," which are restrictions on the quantitfles, discharge rates, and concentrations of the pollutants discharged from the point source.

In furtherance of this goal, Congress declared that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” “[e]xcept as in compliance with . . . sections [1311,] 1312, 1316, 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1344 of this Title [i.e., Title 33].” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); Sierra Club, 813 F.2d at 1483. To achieve the CWA’s broad remedial purposes, the Ninth Circuit has consistently rejected attempts by Case 2:11-cv-02980-KJM-CKD Document 51 Filed 11/01/12 Page 16 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Case No. 2:11-cv-02980-KJM-CKD- 10 - dischargers to broaden the Act’s narrow exemptions from its jurisdiction and permitting requirements.