at the La Vega site. The fact that the Esso station at La Vega ceased its operations in 1998 does not change the prospective nature of plaintiffs’ suit at the time it was brought. Moreover, in PauÉuxet the Court stated that it did not agree “with the reasoning which, apparently, led the Louisiana district court, following the Hamker decision, to dismiss a number of actions simply because no violations occurred on the dates the complaints were filed. A plaintiff who makes allegations warranting injunctive relief in good faith, judged objectively, may recover a penalty judgment for past violations even if the injunction proves unattainable.” Pawtuxet, 807 F.2d at 1094 (citing .1992); Umatilla Waterquality Protective Ass’n v. Smith Frozen Foods, Inc., 962 F.Supp. 1312, 1322 (D.Or.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court concludes as
holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states holding a discharge of pollutants is ongoing if the pollutants continue to reach navigable waters even if the discharger is no longer adding pollutants to the point source itself holding that to achieve goals of cwa epa is required to establish and enforce technologybased limitations on individual discharges into the countrys navigable waters from point sources