matter jurisdiction over the claims made by Southwest against Reclamation. Washington Trout v. McCain Foods, Inc., 45 F.3d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir.1995). Pursuant to section 1540(g) of the ESA, a citizen may not bring suit prior to sixty days after written notice of an alleged violation has been given to the Secretary, and to the alleged violator. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i). This sixty-day notice requirement is jurisdictional. Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 721 (9th Cir.1988). A failure to strictly comply with the notice requirement acts as an absolute bar to bringing suit under the ESA. Lone Rock Timber Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 842 F.Supp. 433, 440 (D.Or.1994). See also Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 26-28, 110 S.Ct. 304, 308-10, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989)(<HOLDING>). “The purpose of the 60-day notice provision
holding that the citizen suit notice requirements cannot be avoided by employing a flexible or pragmatic construction and that plaintiffs suit must be dismissed where plaintiff had not strictly complied with the notice requirements holding that owners notice substantially complied with federal requirements because the owner intended to demolish the housing units and noted that ajlthough the notice did not follow the statutory language it would have been misleading had it strictly followed the statute holding that even though the government had not strictly complied with the statutory requirements the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because they failed to challenge that noncompliance in a prompt fashion holding notice provision in rcra and clean water act are virtually identical and citizens notice to violators under either act must strictly comply with statutory notice requirements holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa