33 C.F.R. § 329.7
Intrastate or interstate nature of waterway
A waterbody may be entirely within a state, yet still be capable of carrying interstate commerce. This is especially clear when it physically connects with a generally acknowledged avenue of interstate commerce, such as the ocean or one of the Great Lakes, and is yet wholly within one state. Nor is it necessary that there be a physically navigable connection across a state boundary. Where a waterbody extends through one or more states, but substantial portions, which are capable of bearing interstate commerce, are located in only one of the states, the entirety of the waterway up to the head (upper limit) of navigation is subject to Federal jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1978–1997 · leading case: Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. v. Hoffman, 449 F. Supp. 876 (D. Minnesota 1978).
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. v. Hoffman, 449 F. Supp. 876 (D. Minnesota 1978). “Similarly, the court need not address plaintiffs’ contention that even if the defendants had regulatory jurisdiction over Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek under the RHA, the exercise of such jurisdiction is precluded by defendants’ own regulations at 33 C.F.R. 329.7…”
Atlanta Sch. of Kayaking, Inc. v. Douglasville-Douglas Cnty. Water & Sewer Auth., 981 F. Supp. 1469 (N.D. Ga. 1997). “33 C.F.R. § 329.7 . 12 . In contrast, however, the Court does not conclude that the prohibition on non-county fishing from the lake is illogical or unconstitutional.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Alexander, 613 F.2d 1054 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “(current version at 33 C.F.R. § 329.7 (1978)). 20 Congress reacted to these broader regulations in 1976 by contracting the Corps’ jurisdiction somewhat.”
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.