pollutants into [the lake] without an NPDES permit, and because [the companies] are likely to violate their umbrella NPDES permit at other construction sites.” Id. at 355. This court rejected the lake association’s argument, stating: The answer to this contention is that these issues are not proper subjects of the lawsuit because Comfort Lake’s notice of intent to sue referenced only the alleged permit violations discussed in MPCA’s December 20, 199k, warning letter, violations relating to the Wal-Mart store construction. A citizen suit is limited to violations that are closely-related to and of the same type as the violations specified in the notice of intent to sue. Id. (emphasis added); see also Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 526, 529-31 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). HCHC heavily relies on Sierra Club v.
holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave recognizing that developments subsequent to the filing of a citizen suit may moot the citizens ease and holding that environmental organizations claims for injunctive relief in cwa citizen enforcement action alleging that city of dallas failed to develop and implement effective program to monitor and reduce its discharge of storm water pollutants into river were mooted by resolution of epas enforcement action holding that the cwa authorizes citizen suits for the enforcement of all conditions of npdes permits including those imposed by georgia law holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief