The following activities were permitted by NWPs issued on July 19, 1977, and, unless the activities are modified, they do not require further permitting:
(a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States outside the limits of navigable waters of the United States that occurred before the phase-in dates which extended Section 404 jurisdiction to all waters of the United States. The phase-in dates were: After July 25, 1975, discharges into navigable waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands; after September 1, 1976, discharges into navigable waters of the United States and their primary tributaries, including adjacent wetlands, and into natural lakes, greater than 5 acres in surface area; and after July 1, 1977, discharges into all waters of the United States, including wetlands. (section 404)
(b) Structures or work completed before December 18, 1968, or in waterbodies over which the DE had not asserted jurisdiction at the time the activity occurred, provided in both instances, there is no interference with navigation. Activities completed shoreward of applicable Federal Harbor lines before May 27, 1970 do not require specific authorization. (section 10)
Notes of Decisions
Vieux Carre Prop. Owners, Residents & Assocs., Inc. v. Colonel Lloyd Kent Brown, 948 F.2d 1436 (5th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 3× “In Vieux Carre I, as noted earlier, we rejected the Corps’s argument that the Wharf itself was covered by a nationwide permit, explaining that the Wharf could conceivably come within only one nationwide permit, 33 CFR § 330.3 (b), but that it did not because the Wharf’s…”
United States v. Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., 826 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1987).
· cites it 2× “See 33 C.F.R. § 330.3 (b) (1982). An introduction to part 330 stated The nationwide permits are issued to satisfy the requirements of both § 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and § 404 of the Clean Water Act unless otherwise stated.”
Bunge Corp. v. Freeport Marine Repair, Inc., 240 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2001).
“Despite the fact that Freeport established that Bunge did not have the proper permit, the district court found that 33 C.F.R. § 330.3 (b) (the “Grandfather Clause”) absolved Bunge of such a requirement as long as the structure was (1) completed before December 18, 1968, and (2)…”
Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk Cnty., 585 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D.N.Y 2008).
· cites it 5× “(A) The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable, structure or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those…”
Black Warrior River-Keeper, Inc. v. Drummond Co., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (N.D. Ala. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Drummond contends that the Corps' 1991 regulations, 33 C.F.R. § 330.3 (b), "grandfathered" its discharges of fill material into "T1.”
Snoqualmie Valley Pres. All. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 683 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2012).
“1 NWP 3(a) authorizes discharges from *1162 [t]he repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable, structure, or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided that the structure or fill is…”
United States v. Joseph A. Boccanfuso, 882 F.2d 666 (2d Cir. 1989).
“33 C.F.R. § 330.3 (1988). Since the seawall in fill area number 1 was completed prior to December 1968, it was covered by the Nationwide Permit.”
— 33 C.F.R. § 330.3(b) — 1 case
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.