Inc., 826 F.2d 1151, 1163 (1st Cir.1987) (“[The] regulations ... clearly set out the Corps’ enforcement policy that in exceptional circumstances, i.e., knowing, flagrant, repeated or substantial impact violations of the Clean Water Act, the Corps shall seek civil penalties ... ”), cert. denied,. 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S.Ct. 1016, 98 L.Ed.2d 981 (1988); United States v. Larkins, 657 F.Supp. 76 (W.D.Ky.1987) (Corps through Justice brought suit alleging a violation of 33 U.S.C. secs. 1311 & 1344 and obtained a section 1319 penalty, injunctive relief, and restoration of the site for section 1311 violations), aff'd, 852 F.2d 189 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1131, 103 L.Ed.2d 193 (1989); Parkview Corp. v. Dep’t of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 490 F.Supp. 1278 (E.D.Wis.1980) (<HOLDING>); United States v. D’Annolfo, 474 F.Supp. 220
holding that the regulations giving the corps authority to issue cease and desist orders with respect to filling in absence of a permit and to order removal of fill placed in the absence of apermit were reasonably related to the corps statutory permit granting authority and therefore valid holding that in absence of valid final order district court lacked power to review boards action holding that agency has the authority to issue regulations prohibiting deceptive practices pursuant to its general rulemaking authority and noting in the statute indicates that statutory cease and desist proceedings were intended to be exclusive recognizing that conditions placed on the issuance of a permit do not necessarily diminish or eliminate the definitiveness of the order approving the permit holding that department does not have independent authority to impose device in absence of court order