not refer to effluent limitations or to the discharge of pollution into navigable waters, which is the concern of the Clean Water Act, see 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1362(12) (prohibiting discharges of pollutants into navigable waters). Indeed, the record shows affirmatively that the 2008 orders did not enforce, or seek to enforce, the Act. According to the declaration of, Leona Winner, a scientist from the Department, other state regulatory agencies have primary authority to enforce the Act and the Department did not study surfacé water quality or issue the 2008 consent' orders to address discharges into surface waters. In context, the orders’ isolated reference to the Permit does not constitute “diligent prosecution” of the Clean Water Act. See Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers, 382 F;3d at 759 (<HOLDING>). Thus, even if a plea agreement or probation
holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action recognizing the term act includes a failure to do any act which the law requires one to perform holding that the term sold  requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that the term diligent prosecution requires thatthe government action is both capable of requiring compliance with the act and calculated to do so internal quotationmarks omitted