Permanent changes of the shoreline configuration result in similar alterations of the boundaries of waters of the United States. Gradual changes which are due to natural causes and are perceptible only over some period of time constitute changes in the bed of a waterway which also change the boundaries of the waters of the United States. For example, changing sea levels or subsidence of land may cause some areas to become waters of the United States while siltation or a change in drainage may remove an area from waters of the United States. Man-made changes may affect the limits of waters of the United States; however, permanent changes should not be presumed until the particular circumstances have been examined and verified by the district engineer. Verification of changes to the lateral limits of jurisdiction may be obtained from the district engineer.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009).
“33 C.F.R. § 328.5 . But if land was dry upland at the time the CWA was enacted, it will not be considered part of the waters of the United States unless the waters actually overtake the land, even if it at one point had been submerged before the CWA was enacted or if there have…”
Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 896 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1990).
“See 33 C.F.R. §§ 328.5 , 329.8. The Corps also defines at least one of the features listed in section 328.”
San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency (N.D. Cal. 2020).
“33 C.F. R. § 328.5. But if land was dry upland at the time the CWA was enacted, it will not be considered part of the waters 5 of the United States unless the waters actually overtake the land, even if it at one point had been submerged before the CWA was 6 enacted or if there…”
San Francisco Baykeeper v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency (N.D. Cal. 2020).
“33 C.F. R. § 328.5. But if land was dry upland at the time the CWA was enacted, it will not be considered part of the waters 5 of the United States unless the waters actually overtake the land, even if it at one point had been submerged before the CWA was 6 enacted or if there…”
United States v. Nicholson (9th Cir. 2009).
“33 C.F.R. § 328.5 . But if land was dry upland at the time the CWA was enacted, it will not be con- sidered part of the waters of the United States unless the waters actually overtake the land, even if it at one point had been submerged before the CWA was enacted or if there…”
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.