dismissed the complaints as moot after the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued storm water permits. Id. On appeal, we pointed out that the CWA violations alleged in the environmental organizations’ complaints “were the Cities’ continuing discharge of storm waters without NPDES Storm water permits.” Id. at 1015 (emphasis added). Relevant to the present appeal, we also noted that “[b]e-cause permits have now issued, plaintiffs concede that their initial claims for injunc-tive and declaratory relief are moot.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the only issue before the court was whether the environmental organizations’ claims for civil penalties were moot. Id. We ultimately held that the claims for civil penalties were mooted by the MPCA’s issuance of NPDES permits. Id. at 1017-18 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, this court has held that a lake
holding that the remedies available to the environmental organizations were limited to those that would redress ongoing and future injury and there was no evidence that discharges without permit would resume holding that the foia clearly requires a party to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking redress in the federal courts and collecting cases holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that a plaintiff had adequate state tort remedies available to redress the denial of basic necessities such as socks toilet paper and soap holding that tjhere is no question that parties to a contract may agree to limit their respective remedies and that those remedies need not be the same if the contract provision is reasonable