section 1311(a), each time fugitive coke and other dust, including but not limited to dust generated by wind, conveyers, and trucks, discharges from uncovered bulk material stockpiles and/or uncovered bulk material transport systems on the Levin Facility to a water of the United States from 6 June 2007 through the present. FAC ¶ 232. It now appears that, faced with a recent Ninth Circuit case that set forth a narrow definition of a “point source,” Plaintiff has shifted its arguments from fugitive dust to “direct point source discharges of pollutants from Defendants’ equipment such as trucks, railcars, front loaders, conveyors, cranes, and clamshell buckets to waters of the United States.” Reply at 13; see Eco. Rts. Fdn. v. Pac. Gas. & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502, 508-10 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff claims that Ecological Rights
holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding inter alia that sending a victim out into the focal point of law enforcement officers weapons is not a safe place holding that utility poles are not point sources and categorizing point sources holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived holding that ijssues that are raised only in the argument part of the brief and are not contained in the point relied on are not preserved for review