With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d 1305, 1312-12 (2d Cir.1993) (“The present violation requirement of the Act would be completely undermined if a violation included the mere decomposition of pollutants.”); Brewer v. Ravan, 680 F.Supp. 1176, 1183 (M.D.Tenn.1988) (dismissing citizen suit based on allegations made against a permanently closed manufacturing plant); Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 1333, 1354 (D.N.M.1995) (finding no ongoing discharge from pile of waste rock on surface); Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 33 F.Supp.2d 969, 975-76 (D.Wyo.1998) (concluding “that migration of residual contamination from previous releases does not constitute an ongoing discharge”), factual background stated in 989 F.Supp. 1159 (D.Wyo.1998); Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, 136 F.Supp.2d 81, 120 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>). This court is not so easily persuaded,

A: holding that the cwa authorizes citizen suits for the enforcement of all conditions of npdes permits including those imposed by georgia law
B: holding cwa does not allow citizen suit against a past polluter for the ongoing migrating leachate plume
C: holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa
D: holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations
B.