Water Act’s objective include “those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance____” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(B) ( ifornia, 426 U.S. 200, 223-24, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2033-34, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976) (stating that citizen suits against permit holders under 33 U.S.C. §' 1365(f)(6) may be brought if citizen can show violation of either “conditions imposed in accordance with EPA promulgated effluent limitations and standards and ... those imposed in accordance with more stringent standards and limitations established by a State pursuant to § 510 [of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1370]”). But see Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 358-59 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 62, 130 L.Ed.2d 19 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court determines that the
holding private citizens have no standing to enforce broader state regulations contained in npdes permits holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way holding all members of beneficial society bound by state decree in class action including citizens of the state in which federal action seeking to enforce state decree was brought who were not parties to the state suit recognizing that private citizens do not have standing to initiate proceedings to enforce municipal zoning regulations holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation