of life or use of property in such area of the State as is affected thereby. Complying with any of the other sections of these rules and regulations or any subdivisions thereof, shall in no way exempt a person from this provision. Ga.Comp.R. & Regs. R. 391-3-l-.02(2)(a)(l) (1992). This “standard” contained in defendant’s earlier permits is a subjective one. Count IV of plaintiffs’ complaint alleges common law nuisance and is not addressed by defendant’s motion. Citizens cannot sue for alleged violations of a non-objective standard such as the one cited above, even where such a standard is incorporated into a permit. See Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. City of Portland, 11 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.1993); Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353 (2nd Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The Clean Air Act sets overall National
holding that there was no provision in the cwa authorizing a citizen suit where plaintiffs failed to allege violations of specific effluent limitations or standards contained in defendants permit holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa holding that the plaintiffs reply to the defendants motion to dismiss which did not allege a specific date of discovery was still sufficient to establish a potential defense to the statute of limitations 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 holding citizen suit jurisdiction exists to enforce permit conditions based on stateestablished standards