C.F.R. » Title 33 » CHAPTER II—CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE › PART 326—ENFORCEMENT

33 C.F.R. § 326.1

Purpose

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

This part prescribes enforcement policies (§ 326.2) and procedures applicable to activities performed without required Department of the Army permits (§ 326.3) and to activities not in compliance with the terms and conditions of issued Department of the Army permits (§ 326.4). Procedures for initiating legal actions are prescribed in § 326.5. Nothing contained in this part shall establish a non-discretionary duty on the part of district engineers nor shall deviation from these procedures give rise to a private right of action against a district engineer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Tew v. United States, 86 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tew v. United States, 86 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 1996). “” 33 C.F.R. § 326.1 (1991). Sections 409, 414, and 415, along with sections 411 and 412, are collectively known as the Wreck Act.”
Sartori v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 263 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. §§ 326.1 , 326.3, 326.5 (2004).”
Parkview Corp. v. Dep't of Army, Etc., 490 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “” 33 C.F.R. 326.1. Sections 326.2 and 326.3 contain the essential prescription for the COE’s action in this situation: “§ 326.”
Orange Env't, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 923 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “” 33 C.F.R. §§ 326.1 , 326.2. The EPA, with the consent of the Corps and acting as the lead agency, decided that a Compliance Order for off-site mitigation was the most effective way of dealing with enforcement.”
Duarte Nursery, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2014). “11 Conversely, if the CDO were simply a “notification” to plaintiffs, then it should have said so, rather than clothing itself as an “order” which carried with it the authority to “prohibit” plaintiffs from continuing their activities.”
Phillips v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (D. Utah 2022). “First, 33 C.F.R. § 326.1 states that an unauthorized activity finding does not establish non-discretionary duties or give rise to a private right of action against a district engineer.”
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.