[p421] OPINION
HALL, Circuit Judge:
This dispute is a citizen enforcement action brought pursuant to the citizens' suit provision of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Plaintiffs-Appellees filed suit against Defendants-Appellants, the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") and its director, James Van Loben Sels, claiming that Caltrans was not in compliance with a Clean Water Act permit that required it to control polluted stormwater runoff from roadways and maintenance yards in Southern California.
The defendants submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction claiming that the case was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The district court dismissed all claims against Caltrans because, as an arm of the state, Caltrans is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. In addition, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Van Loben Sels for civil penalties and declaratory relief, because they too were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the court proceeded to trial on plaintiffs' claims for prospective injunctive relief against Van Loben Sels individually. District Court's Order of 11/02/94 (Excerpts of Record ("ER") Exhibit 7).
After a ten-day trial, the district court found that Van Loben Sels had violated the Clean Water Act. Subsequently, the court entered a permanent injunction against Van Loben Sels, requiring a number of specific actions in order to comply with the Clean Water Act permit in the future. (ER Exhibit 13).
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court correctly held that, as a California state official, Van Loben Sels is subject to suit in federal court for violations of the Clean Water Act. We affirm.
I
The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought by private citizens against state governments, without the state's consent. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15, 33 L. Ed. 842, 10 S.C.t. 504 (1890). State immunity extends to state agencies and to state officers, who act on behalf of the state and can therefore assert the state's sovereign immunity. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 113 S.C.t. 684, 687-88, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993); [p422] Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67, 104 S.C.t. 900 (1984). In general, federal court jurisdiction will not be found against a state official when the state is the real party in interest. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101-02; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90, 94 S.C.t. 1683 (1974).
The Supreme Court recognized an important exception to this general rule in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S.C.t. 441 (1908), which held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suit against a state official acting in violation of federal law. Id. at 159-60; Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102-03. The doctrine of Ex parte Young is premised on the notion that a state can not authorize a state officer to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, an action by a state officer that violates federal law is not considered an action of the state and, therefore, is not shielded from suit by the state's sovereign immunity. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60 (The officer is "stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."). Therefore, a plaintiff may bring suit in federal court against a state officer accused of violating federal law. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102.