Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act is reasonable and permissible. Congress’s objective in the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” through the elimination of pollutant discharge into those waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Through the Act, Congress designed a comprehensive regulatory scheme that recognized and preserved a primary role for the states in eliminating pollution from our waterways. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b). The power of states under the Act is underlined by their ability to force the development of technology by setting stringent water quality standards that the EPA can enforce against upstream polluters. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(k), 1341, 1342, 1370; Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 106, 112 S.Ct. at 1056-57 (<HOLDING>). In the Clean Water Act, Congress provided the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion (B) holding that the epas requirement that npdes dischargers must comply with downstream states water quality standards was a reasonable exercise of the agencys statutory discretion pursuant to  13411342 (C) holding that the epas explanation in five different documents of its interpretation of a specific statutory provision satisfied the apas basisandpurpose requirement (D) holding that with respect to judicialenforcement provision in clean water act limiting courts to enforcementj of existing standards and orders the authority to enforce an existing requirement is more than the authority to declare that the requirement exists and repeat that it must be followed (E) holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law
Output (English): holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law