Did Congress provide the ultimate remedy to federal overreach by releasing and relinquishing the United States' complaint for Clean Water Act environmental violations due to Petitioners following state authority?

Petitioners owned a lot with a slowly failing 1937 bulkhead onshore of the shoreline along Hood Canal, Washington state. Hundreds of properties along Hood Canal use bulkheads to control erosion. The lot has had no continuous surface water connection to any body of water since 1937. In August 2017, with state approval arising from the Coastal Zone Management Act, Petitioners performed routine maintenance of their 1937 bulkhead. In August 2020, the United States filed a Clean Water Act complaint alleging Petitioners caused environmental injuries that incurred an astound ing $323,134,524 of penalties. In November 2020, the state’s lead agency found the permitted activities were complete, in compliance, and closed its permit. Without any violations under state law, Peti tioners received a shoreline variance and permit to build a house on the lot. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the default judgment entered in favor of the United States while disregarding the District Court’s statement, “Although Mr. Bayley obtained approval from Mason County for the project, he too k no steps to comply with federal law.” The questions presented are: 1. Did Congress provide the ultimate remedy to federal overreach by releasing and relinquishing the United States’ complaint for Clean Water Act environ mental violations due to Petitioners following state authority? 2. Did the United States waive the allegations raised in its complaint for Clean Water Act environ mental violations due to its approval of the State of Washington’s environmental program, which resulted ii in legally binding permit decisions that Petitioners relied upon for their bulkhead activities? 3. Is a United States complaint for CWA viola tions moot if Petitioners disputed bulkhead activities obtained required authorizations from state authority under its federally approved environmental program? 4. Is Respondent required to satisfy “cooperative federalism” requirements by Congress detailed in the Coastal Zone Management Act and interpreted in 15 C.F.R. §930 to maintain standing to bring a Clean Water Act enforcement action against a person following state authority? 5. Given the circuit courts of appeals are divided on this issue, should Clean Water Act penalties be treated like injunctive relief claims under the CWA for justiciability purposes?