36 C.F.R. § 327.1

Policy

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

(a) It is the policy of the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to manage the natural, cultural and developed resources of each project in the public interest, providing the public with safe and healthful recreational opportunities while protecting and enhancing these resources.

(b) Unless otherwise indicated in this part, the term “District Commander” shall include the authorized representatives of the District Commander.

(c) The term “project” or “water resources development project” refers to the water areas of any water resources development project administered by the Chief of Engineers, without regard to ownership of underlying land, to all lands owned in fee by the Federal Government and to all facilities therein or thereon of any such water resources development project.

(d) All water resources development projects open for public use shall be available to the public without regard to sex, race, color, creed, age, nationality or place of origin. No lessee, licensee, or concessionaire providing a service to the public shall discriminate against any person because of sex, race, creed, color, age, nationality or place of origin in the conduct of the operations under the lease, license or concession contract.

(e) In addition to the regulations in this part 327, all applicable Federal, state and local laws and regulations remain in full force and effect on project lands or waters which are outgranted by the District Commander by lease, license or other written agreement.

(f) The regulations in this part 327 shall be deemed to apply to those lands and waters which are subject to treaties and Federal laws and regulations concerning the rights of Indian Nations and which lands and waters are incorporated, in whole or in part, within water resources development projects administered by the Chief of Engineers, to the extent that the regulations in this part 327 are not inconsistent with such treaties and Federal laws and regulations.

(g) Any violation of any section of this part 327 shall constitute a separate violation for each calendar day in which it occurs.

(h) For the purposes of this part 327, the operator of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft as described in this part, shall be presumed to be responsible for its use on project property. In the event where an operator cannot be determined, the owner of the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, whether attended or unattended, will be presumed responsible. Unless proven otherwise, such presumption will be sufficient to issue a citation for the violation of regulations applicable to the use of such vehicle, vessel or aircraft as provided for in § 327.25.

(i) For the purposes of this part 327, the registered user of a campsite, picnic area, or other facility shall be presumed to be responsible for its use. Unless proven otherwise, such presumption will be sufficient to issue a citation for the violation of regulations applicable to the use of such facilities as provided for in § 327.25.

[65 FR 6898, Feb. 11, 2000]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Navarette v. United States, 500 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Navarette v. United States, 500 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “He cites 36 C.F.R § 327.1 (1997), which requires the Army Corps to manage the resources entrusted to it so as to "provid[e] the public with safe and healthful recreational opportunities while protecting and enhancing these resources," and the Army Corps' Engineering Manual…”

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993). · cites it 2× “See 36 CFR § 327.1 (a) (1992). The Corps has authority to promulgate regulations "not inconsistent with .”

GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 212 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (N.D. Ga. 2016). “Roughly eighty percent of Defendant Army Corps’ recreation areas are located within fifty miles of an urban area.”

David L. Klepper v. City of Milford, Kansas, & David L. Klepper v. United States of Am., & Third Party & City of Milford, Kansas, Third Party, 825 F.2d 1440 (3rd Cir. 1987). “36 C.F.R. § 327.1 (a) (1978). The regulations further provided that “[sjwimming, snorkling [sic], or scuba diving is permitted, except in those areas of the lake, reservoir, or other body of water designated by the District Engineer and marked by the posting of appropriate signs.”

Daniel A. Boudreau v. United States, 53 F.3d 81 (5th Cir. 1995). “” 36 C.F.R. § 327.1 (a). .The Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard reads in part: 1.”

United States v. Charles J. Paternostro, 966 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1992). “The government relies upon the fact that the governing regulations provide that “[a]ny violation of any section of this part 327 shall constitute a separate violation for each calendar day in which it occurs.”

Scott Bailey v. United States of Am., Dep't of the Army Corps of Engineers, 35 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 1994). “1990) (citing 36 C.F.R. § 327.1 (1988)). . Leigh Anne Bailey also sued for loss of consortium.”

GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2014). “There is evidence in the record that Defendant Army Corps’ facilities “have a high density of use” from a “diverse mixture of visitors with their own lifestyles.”

Dunaway v. United States, 136 F. Supp. 2d 576 (E.D. La. 1999). · cites it 3× “(d) 36 C.F.R. § 327.1 Even less persuasive is Strain’s contention that 36 C.”

Dawson v. United States, 894 F.2d 70 (3rd Cir. 1990). “See 36 C.F.R. § 327.1 (1988). The Somerfield North Recreation Area is operated by the Corps as a swimming beach.”

Young v. Kansas State Park & Resources Auth., 627 P.2d 384 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “36 C.F.R. § 327.1 (1975) provides: “It is the policy of the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers to provide the public with safe and healthful recreational opportunities within all water resource development projects administered by the Chief of Engineers.”

Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Idaho 2014). “” 36 C.F.R. § 327.1 . About 90% of the lakes that support Corps’ projects are located near metropolitan areas.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.