The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits 'the discharge of any pollutant by any person,' without a permit, into the 'navigable waters.' The Act directs the Agency either to issue a compliance order or to initiate a civil enforcement action. The Sacketts (P) own a 2/3-acre residential lot in Bonner County, Idaho. Their property lies just north of Priest Lake but is separated from the lake by several lots containing permanent structures. P filled in part of their lot with dirt and rock. Some months later, they received from the EPA (D) a compliance order. Ps were now in violation of the CWA because they did not get a permit to fill in their land. P was ordered immediately to undertake activities to restore the Site, in accordance with a D-created Restoration Work Plan and to provide and/or obtain access to the Site and access to all records and documentation related to the conditions at the Site to D employees and/or their designated representatives. The statute calls for fines of $37,500 per day. P asked for a hearing, but that request was denied. P brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. P brought suit under Chapter 7 of the APA, which provides for judicial review of 'final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.' The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It concluded that the Act 'precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders.' If D took an action against P, then P would be able to state its claim before a court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.