holding that the migration of residual contamination from prior discharges is not an ongoing violation. See Connecticut Coastal Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Remington Arms Co., 989 F.2d 1305, 1312-13 (2d Cir.1993) (“The present violation requirement of the Act would be completely undermined if a violation included the mere decomposition of pollutants.”); Pawtuxet Cove Marina v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 807 F.2d 1089, 1094 (1st Cir.1986) (dismissing citizen suit because the alleged polluter had ceased operations by the time of the suit); Hamker v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 756 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir.1985) (dismissing complaint because it “alleges only a single past discharge with continuing effects, not a continuing discharge”); Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, 136 F.Supp.2d 81, 120 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 33 F.Supp.2d 969,
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that the cwa authorizes citizen suits for the enforcement of all conditions of npdes permits including those imposed by georgia law holding cwa does not allow citizen suit against a past polluter for the ongoing migrating leachate plume 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 that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa