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

33 C.F.R. § 326.2

Policy

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

Enforcement, as part of the overall regulatory program of the Corps, is based on a policy of regulating the waters of the United States by discouraging activities that have not been properly authorized and by requiring corrective measures, where appropriate, to ensure those waters are not misused and to maintain the integrity of the program. There are several methods discussed in the remainder of this part which can be used either singly or in combination to implement this policy, while making the most effective use of the enforcement resources available. As EPA has independent enforcement authority under the Clean Water Act for unauthorized discharges, the district engineer should normally coordinate with EPA to determine the most effective and efficient manner by which resolution of a section 404 violation can be achieved.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2000 · leading case: Dennis Hurst & Joyce Hurst v. United States of Am. & Don Hight, 882 F.2d 306 (8th Cir. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dennis Hurst & Joyce Hurst v. United States of Am. & Don Hight, 882 F.2d 306 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “33 C.F.R. § 326.2 (a) (1984) (emphasis added).”
Parkview Corp. v. Dep't of Army, Etc., 490 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “As required by 33 C.F.R. § 326.2 , the district engineer asked the city of Neenah to terminate its filling operation pending an investigation by the COE.”
Hurst v. United States, 739 F. Supp. 1377 (D.S.D. 1990). · cites it 2× “The Corps in this case violated 33 C.F.R. § 326.2 which requires the district engineer to issue a prohibitory order if he or she discovers unauthorized activity.”
United States v. Irizarry, 98 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D.P.R. 2000). “Federal agency and Indian tribe applicants for DA permits are responsible for complying with the Coastal Zone Management Act’s directives for assuring that their activities directly affecting the coastal zone are consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state…”
— 33 C.F.R. § 326.2(b)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Irizarry, 98 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D.P.R. 2000). “Federal agency and Indian tribe applicants for DA permits are responsible for complying with the Coastal Zone Management Act’s directives for assuring that their activities directly affecting the coastal zone are consistent to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state…”
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.