Laserfiche WebLink
point source discharge of pollutants into state waters . The <br /> WQCD' s NOV seeks enforcement of the terms of such a permit. In <br /> entering into a settlement agreement with MCR, DMG addressed <br /> MCR' s violation of the CSCMRA, regulations adopted pursuant <br /> thereof , and the DMG Permit. In so doing, DMG neither intended <br /> nor had the authority to bar the WQCD' s enforcement of the CDPS <br /> Permit . Therefore, the doctrine must not apply to bar the WQCD' s <br /> action. <br /> B. The WQCD' s NOV and the DMG' s NOV are <br /> not Identical Causes of Action because they <br /> Enforce Different Permits. <br /> The most obvious difference between the two NOVs is the <br /> fact that they enforce different permits. The violation of a <br /> CDPS Permit is, in itself, an injury sought to be addressed by <br /> the WQCD' s NOV. This injury was not addressed in DMG' s settle- <br /> ment agreement. Thus, even if the DMG' s NOV had addressed all <br /> environmental injuries caused by the MCR' s actions, its resolu- <br /> tion would not provide the State relief for the CDPS Permit <br /> violation. **6 <br /> 6** As discussed in CDH' s Opening Brief, the DMG' s NOV does not <br /> address all environmental injuries alleged in the WQCD' s NOV. <br /> See Opening Brief at 28-9 . For example, the DMG' s NOV addresses <br /> fewer days of violation, a fact admitted by MCR in its Answer <br /> Brief . See Answer Brief at 20. The WQCD' s NOV also alleges <br /> violations of iron and biological demand oxygen limitations not <br /> -13- <br />