Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.2d 1305, 1312-12 (2d Cir.1993) (“The present violation requirement of the Act would be completely undermined if a violation included the mere decomposition of pollutants.”); Brewer v. Ravan, 680 F.Supp. 1176, 1183 (M.D.Tenn.1988) (dismissing citizen suit based on allegations made against a permanently closed manufacturing plant); Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 1333, 1354 (D.N.M.1995) (finding no ongoing discharge from pile of waste rock on surface); Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 33 F.Supp.2d 969, 975-76 (D.Wyo.1998) (concluding “that migration of residual contamination from previous releases does not constitute an ongoing discharge”), factual background stated in 989 F.Supp. 1159 (D.Wyo.1998); Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, 136 F.Supp.2d 81, 120 (E.D.N.Y.2001) . This court is not so easily persuaded,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa
B. holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations
C. holding that the cwa authorizes citizen suits for the enforcement of all conditions of npdes permits including those imposed by georgia law
D. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
E. holding cwa does not allow citizen suit against a past polluter for the ongoing migrating leachate plume
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.