[of the EPA] or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation____” Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) (emphasis added). The purpose of this limiting provision is to prevent private citizens from invoking the power of the Federal courts to establish, rather than enforce, effluent standards. There are no effluent standards or limitations for storm-water drains in general or the particular ditch and pipe in question. The plaintiff acknowledges this, but argues that the discharge pipe is no longer simply a storm-water drain; rather, it is argued, the drain now qualifies as a “point source” (described infra) under the CWA since it is not composed entirely of storm water but also includes leachate. Cf. AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. EPA, 846 F.2d 158, 159 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). This is a factual contention that this court
holding that denial of vsf benefits to disabled retirees does not violate the ada the rehabilitation act 29 usc  791 et seq or the age discrimination in employment act of 1967 29 usc  621 et seq and that plaintiffs due process and first amendment claims were frivolous holding that because the federal arbitration act 9 usc 1 et seq preempts michigans lemon law mcl 2571401 et seq the plaintiffs lemon law claim should have been resolved through binding arbitration holding that catch basin which received leachate from landfill consisting of precipitation mixed with dissolved emission control dust was subject to regulation under the resource conservation and recovery act 42 usc  6901 et seq holding that prejudgment interest ordinarily should be awarded on damages pursuant to claims under the copyright act of 1909 17 usc  1 et seq 1976 ed superceded by the copyright act of 1976 17 usc  101 et seq holding that ambiguity within the definitional section of the resource conservation and recovery act rcra 42 usc  6901  whose definitions were incorporated by cercla  as well as the fact that the rcra was part of the overall complex environmental regulatory scheme means that the court should defer to the epas application of the definitional section because the agency is often in a better position than a court to offer a proper answer as to the scope and construction of the statute