NCWF like CSD has some 30-70 split in terms of known and classified operational plans respectively.
Ostensibly, Raad and Babur cruise missiles have a lot to do in NCWF. Both missiles have multiple platforms to be launched and apart from nuclear war heads can be armed with conventional war heads.
Neither Gwaltney nor the CWA supports the NCWF line of reasoning.
Perhaps recognizing the tenuous nature of its logic, the NCWF court fell back on a public policy justification, noting: If citizen-suits were barred merely because any illegal ditching and drainage of a wetland tract was completed before it might reasonably be discovered, violators would have a powerful incentive to conceal their activities from public and private scrutiny--which would lead to serious problems in public and private enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
The NCWF court reached a similar result on the question of whether the statute of limitations had already run on the claim, though via a distinct methodology.
Having already dismissed the statute of limitations argument, the NCWF court nonetheless went on in dicta to explain how it would have resolved the claim if 28 U.S.C.
It is curious to note that NCWF, having already established that a continuing violation existed for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, did not extend the doctrine to neatly dismiss the statute of limitations argument.
A distinction, according to NCWF and Theis, lies in the claim that gives citizens standing to sue.
(169) This characterization is similar to the continuing violations doctrine argued in NCWF. (170) It is important to note, however, that the permanent/temporary dichotomy in tort law is a court construct and not a product of CWA legislation.
(193) Most courts applying the continuing violations doctrine have liberally interpreted sections 301, 309, and 505, and have merely incanted NCWF or the concurrence in Gwaltney to explain how their interpretations of those sections agree with the CWA.