Applying that rationale, the Court held that the power of the Secretary of HHS to oversee state compliance with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, and to withhold funds from a noncompliant state, did not amount to the type of carefully crafted scheme that is sufficient to demonstrate Congress’s intent to foreclose the availability of a § 1983 action. The remedies available under the CWA, federal oversight and withholding of funds from noncompliant states, are very similar to the remedies addressed by the Court in Blessing — so similar that we think the Court’s decision practically compels our conclusion. We therefore hold that the Directors are not entitled to . Eleventh Amendment immunity on this ground. See also Joseph A ex rel. Wolfe v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); cf. Suter, 503 U.S. at 360, 112 S.Ct. 1360
recognizing the ex parte young  exception is narrow it applies only to prospective relief and does not permit judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past holding that the medicaid act provision allowing reduction of funds to noncompliant states is not a detailed remedial scheme sufficient to show congresss intent to preempt an action under ex parte young holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action holding that the medicaid act does not provide the type of detailed remedial scheme that would supplant an ex parte young action holding that existence of a detailed remedial scheme shows congressional intent to prohibit recourse to the ex parte young fiction