33 C.F.R. § 328.4
Limits of jurisdiction
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12)
(b) Tidal waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters:
(1) Extends to the high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Non-tidal waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
(1) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or
(2) When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.
(3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012).
Sackett v. Env't Prot. Agency, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012). “4 [The Sacketts’ property] contains wetlands with in the meaning of 33 C. F. R. §328.4 (8)(b); the wet lands meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands in the 1987 ‘Federal Manual for Identifying and Deline ating Jurisdictional Wetlands.”
United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009). “Instead of using the MHW line, the Corps’ regulations define its CWA jurisdiction over tidal waters by reference to the “high tide line,” 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (b)(1), which, in turn, is defined as “the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height…”
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist., 217 P.3d 1220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “3 (a); 33 C.F.R. 328.4(c)(1). 30 . The District adopted regulations in 1974 that provide authority for delineation of floodplain areas and the regulation of activities and uses occurring within such areas.”
United States v. Hubenka, 438 F.3d 1026 (10th Cir. 2006). “§ 1344 (a); 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (c)(1). *1035 On appeal, Hubenka does not dispute that he caused three dikes to be constructed below the ordinary high water mark of the Wind River.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Marina Point Dev. Assocs., 434 F. Supp. 2d 789 (C.D. Cal. 2006). “33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (c). The ACOE’s administrative activity in this case did not and does not limit the Plaintiffs’ right of action; only action by the EPA or the state of California would have that effect.”
United States v. Joseph A. Boccanfuso, 882 F.2d 666 (2d Cir. 1989). “Under that act, the Corps’ jurisdiction extends inland to the “high tide line,” 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (b) (1988), which the district court noted is often referred to as the “extreme high tide.”
United States v. Sargent Cnty. Water Resource Dist., 876 F. Supp. 1081 (D.N.D. 1992). “10 This strained interpretation is more evident when 33 CFR § 328.4 is examined. If the three sloughs are adjacent to the Wild Rice, jurisdiction extends “to the limit of the adjacent wetlands,” rather than just to the wetland itself.”
United States v. RGM Corp., 222 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Va. 2002). “] 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (c). By 2000, the upstream or landward component associated with the OHWM as a basis for Corps jurisdiction either disappeared or was ignored.”
United States v. Bailey, 516 F. Supp. 2d 998 (D. Minnesota 2007). “33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (c)(1). The OHWM is defined as that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial…”
United States v. Schmitt, 734 F. Supp. 1035 (E.D.N.Y 1990). “( 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 [b]; see United States v.”
Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 476 (N.D. Cal. 1989). “” 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (b) provides that the tidal waters of the United States extend to the high tide line.”
Deerfield Plantation Phase II-B Prop. Owners Ass'n v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 801 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D.S.C. 2011). “” 33 C.F.R. § 328.4 (c)(1); see also Rapanos, 547 U.”
— 33 C.F.R. § 328.4(c)(1) — 1 case
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist., 217 P.3d 1220 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “3 (a); 33 C.F.R. 328.4(c)(1). 30 . The District adopted regulations in 1974 that provide authority for delineation of floodplain areas and the regulation of activities and uses occurring within such areas.”
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.