whether Flambeau's mining permit is a WPDES permit or determine whether the EPA approved NR § 216.41(4)(a). 21 .We note that in its briefing at summary judgment to the district court and to this court on appeal, ‘ Flambeau did not use the phrase "due process." However, its arguments concerning notice and fundamental fairness clearly raise the issue of due process. 22 . See, e.g., Citizens for a Better Env’t-Cal. v. Union Oil Co., 83 F.3d 1111, 1120 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply the CWA’s permit shield where ”[i]t is not disputed that these regulations [governing modifications of NPDES programs] were not followed” and so the defendant’s permit clearly was insufficient); Oregon State Pub. Interest Research Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Coast Seafoods Co., 361 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1243 (D.Or.2005) (<HOLDING>). 23 . See Appellees' Br.
holding that a state permit did not trigger the cwas permit shield where nothing in the federal or state statutes provides that a stateissued sco is the equivalent of an npdes permit  holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right holding that it was error to permit the name of a nonparty intentional tortfeasors name to appear on the verdict form so as to permit the jury to apportion fault between the nonparty and the negligent tortfeasor holding that while the right to a building permit prior to issuance may be entitled to protection under the due process clause nonissuance of a permit does not destroy the value of the underlying property and thus there is no taking claim