33 C.F.R. § 326.4

Supervision of authorized activities

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

(a) Inspections. District engineers will, at their discretion, take reasonable measures to inspect permitted activities, as required, to ensure that these activities comply with specified terms and conditions. To supplement inspections by their enforcement personnel, district engineers should encourage their other personnel; members of the public; and interested state, local, and other Federal agency representatives to report suspected violations of Corps permits. To facilitate inspections, district engineers will, in appropriate cases, require that copies of ENG Form 4336 be posted conspicuously at the sites of authorized activities and will make available to all interested persons information on the terms and conditions of issued permits. The U.S. Coast Guard will inspect permitted ocean dumping activities pursuant to section 107(c) of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended.

(b) Inspection limitations. Section 326.4 does not establish a non-discretionary duty to inspect permitted activities for safety, sound engineering practices, or interference with other permitted or unpermitted structures or uses in the area. Further, the regulations implementing the Corps regulatory program do not establish a non-discretionary duty to inspect permitted activities for any other purpose.

(c) Inspection expenses. The expenses incurred in connection with the inspection of permitted activities will normally be paid by the Federal Government unless daily supervision or other unusual expenses are involved. In such unusual cases, the district engineer may condition permits to require permittees to pay inspection expenses pursuant to the authority contained in section 9701 of Pub L. 97-258 (33 U.S.C. 9701). The collection and disposition of inspection expense funds obtained from applicants will be administered in accordance with the relevant Corps regulations governing such funds.

(d) Non-compliance. If a district engineer determines that a permittee has violated the terms or conditions of the permit and that the violation is sufficiently serious to require an enforcement action, then he should, unless at his discretion he deems it inappropriate: (1) First contact the permittee;

(2) Request corrected plans reflecting actual work, if needed; and

(3) Attempt to resolve the violation. Resolution of the violation may take the form of the permitted project being voluntarily brought into compliance or of a permit modification (33 CFR 325.7(b)). If a mutually agreeable solution cannot be reached, a written order requiring compliance should normally be issued and delivered by personal service. Issuance of an order is not, however, a prerequisite to legal action. If an order is issued, it will specify a time period of not more than 30 days for bringing the permitted project into compliance, and a copy will be sent to the appropriate state official pursuant to section 404(s)(2) of the Clean Water Act. If the permittee fails to comply with the order within the specified period of time, the district engineer may consider using the suspension/revocation procedures in 33 CFR 325.7(c) and/or he may recommend legal action in accordance with § 326.5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: United States v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., 826 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., 826 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Under the subsection entitled “Acceptance of an after-the-fact application,” 33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (c), the regulations clearly require that remedial work be completed before the Corps will accept an after-the-fact permit application.”

United States v. San Juan Bay Marina, 239 F.3d 400 (1st Cir. 2001). “2d at 1163 (Corps acted well within its authority under 33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (c)(4) in denying after-the-fact application).”

Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 916 F. Supp. 1557 (N.D. Ga. 1995). “33 C.F.R. §§ 326.4 -.5. This fact adds significant force to the MOA, and strongly militates against an argument that the Corps’ decision relating to the historical sites was arbitrary and capricious.”

Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n v. Kovich, 820 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ind. 2011). “” 33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (d). To make sure that the Corps knows immediately who to hold accountable for permit violations, the Corps requires applications to identify the name, address and telephone number of the prospective permit-tee.”

Parkview Corp. v. Dep't of Army, Etc., 490 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (c). It is undisputed that in the instant case, the COE followed the procedure mandated by 33 C.”

Osprey Ship Mgmt Inc v. Jackson Cnty. Port, 387 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2010). “33 C.F.R. § 326.4 . The district court held that this was the regulation that applied.”

Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 310 F. Supp. 3d 707 (M.D. La. 2018). “7 or enforcement procedures like those contained in 33 C.F.R. 326.4 and 326.5. The Corps maintains that both EAs respond to Plaintiffs' comments regarding possible spoil bank impacts.”

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 729 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1984). “33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (e) (1982) (current version as amended at 33 C.”

United States of Am. v. Woods Mgmt. Enter., LLC (E.D. Okla. 2025). “§ 1344 (s)(1) and 33 C.F.R. § 326.4 (d)(3) was issued. Id. Defendant neither responded to the Compliance Order nor completed the required Mitigation.”

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.