18 C.F.R. § 1304.1

Scope and intent

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 among other things confers on TVA broad authority related to the unified conservation and development of the Tennessee River Valley and surrounding area and directs that property in TVA's custody be used to promote the Act's purposes. In particular, section 26a of the Act requires that TVA's approval be obtained prior to the construction, operation, or maintenance of any dam, appurtenant works, or other obstruction affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands or reservations along or in the Tennessee River or any of its tributaries. By way of example only, such obstructions may include boat docks, piers, boathouses, buoys, floats, boat launching ramps, fills, water intakes, devices for discharging effluent, bridges, aerial cables, culverts, pipelines, fish attractors, shoreline stabilization projects, channel excavations, and floating cabins as described in § 1304.101. Any person considering constructing, operating, or maintaining any such obstruction on a stream in the Tennessee River Watershed should carefully review the regulations in this part and the 26a Applicant's Package before doing so. The regulations also apply to certain activities on TVA-owned land alongside TVA reservoirs and to land subject to TVA flowage easements. TVA uses and permits use of the lands and land rights in its custody alongside and subjacent to TVA reservoirs and exercises its land rights to carry out the purposes and policies of the Act. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., have declared it to be congressional policy that agencies should administer their statutory authorities so as to restore, preserve, and enhance the quality of the environment and should cooperate in the control of pollution. It is the intent of the regulations in this part 1304 to carry out the purposes of the Act and other statutes relating to these purposes, and this part shall be interpreted and applied to that end.

[68 FR 46936, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 83 FR 44472, Aug. 31, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Jones, 692 F. App'x 224 (6th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Jones, 692 F. App'x 224 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “]” 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 . Jones does not dispute that the Hiwassee River is a tributary of the Tennessee River, or that the structures in question were “obstructions” under the Act.”

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Jones, 199 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (E.D. Tenn. 2016). “18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 . “[TVA’s] approval of plans is a condition precedent to the construction of any structures, that construction without approval is prohibited, and [TVA] has the power to enforce this provision.”

John F. Hollingsworth Et Al. v. Bryan Richardson Et Al., 72 So. 3d 1262 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “” 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 (2010). Among those regulations is one directly pertaining to the parties’ situation, which states in part: “If the facility is to be built on private land, the applicant must own the fee interest in the land or have an adequate leasehold or easement…”

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Walcott (N.D. Ala. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 . d. Injunctive relief The Supreme Court has outlined a four-factor test that plaintiffs seeking permanent injunctive relief must satisfy.”

Donna Babb Frinks v. Patricia Eileen Horvath (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “” See 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 (including boat docks in a list of obstruction examples).”

Blackwell v. Tennessee Valley Auth. (W.D. Ky. 2022). “” 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 . It further specifies, “[b]y way of example only,” that “such obstructions may include boat docks….”

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Samples (E.D. Tenn. 2024). “See 18 C.F.R. § 1304.1 , et seq. In any event, Samples’ reliance on any verbal approval could not have been reasonable because TVA notified Samples in writing numerous times after he began construction that his construction project was unauthorized and he needed to proceed…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.