16 U.S.C. § 1001
Declaration of policy
Erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States, causing loss of life and damage to property, constitute a menace to the national welfare; and it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should cooperate with States and their political subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local public agencies for the purpose of preventing such damages, of furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and utilization of land and thereby of preserving, protecting, and improving the Nation’s land and water resources and the quality of the environment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1971–2020 · leading case: Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls, by Its Tr. Ad Litem v. Kenneth Grant, as Adm'r, 537 F.2d 29 (3rd Cir. 1976).
Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls, by Its Tr. Ad Litem v. Kenneth Grant, as Adm'r, 537 F.2d 29 (3rd Cir. 1976). “To mitigate the threat posed by the flooding, local governmental authorities and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), acting under authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (P.L. 566),…”
United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 182 Cal. App. 3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “” ( 16 U.S.C. § 1001 .) 36 The remaining statutes prohibit impairment of water rights by the projects, even by condemnation (§ 11461), require repayment for water provided by the projects in excess of water rights (§ 11462) and neutralize watershed or area exchanges (§ 11463).”
Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 501 F. Supp. 742 (N.D. Miss. 1980). “In Grant , the construction of a flood control dam was authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, 16 USC § 1001 , et seq. The plaintiffs were owners of property situated in the area immediately surrounding the proposed dam and alleged that…”
Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls v. Grant, 388 F. Supp. 394 (M.D. Penn. 1975). “, and the Watershed Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Plaintiffs are owners of property in the vicinity of the Buck Hill Creek in the Pocono Mountains region of northeastern Pennsylvania.”
Simmans v. Grant, 370 F. Supp. 5 (S.D. Tex. 1974). “5 The project was to be constructed under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In February, 1971, following the passage of NEPA, the SCS issued Watershed Memorandum-108 (WS-108) entitled “Guidelines for Planning and Review of Channel…”
Montgomery v. Ellis, 364 F. Supp. 517 (N.D. Ala. 1973). “566 ( 16 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.), the statute under which it is claimed to be authorized and which requires, in 16 U.”
Lenoir, 222 Ct. Cl. 499 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “667 , 16 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (1972) et seq. Plaintiff asserts that due to the design and construction of the Porters Creek Watershed Channel, the drainage of Porters Creek is accelerated to the point where the channel banks cannot contain all the water flowing through.”
Custom Contemporary Homes, Inc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 88 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “499 (1979), plaintiff alleged that the United States’ assistance in planning, inspection, and funding of a flood control project pursuant to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, 68 Stat.”
Contractors Ass'n of E. Pennsylvania v. Sec'y of Labor, 442 F.2d 159 (3rd Cir. 1971). “Federal assistance was authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. . Comp.Gen.Op., Letter to Sec.”
Stow v. Us on Behalf of Soil Conservation Serv., 696 F. Supp. 857 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). “Benefit/Cost Ratio Plaintiffs claim that the SCS failed to comply with the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Act), as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., specifically §§ 1003 and 1005, which require that the Secretary of Agriculture make a…”
Contra Costa Cnty. Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 413 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “666 , 16 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.) with plaintiff Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, an agency of California, to fund (in large part) and to supply technical assistance for the construction of a channel improvement project in Marsh Creek within…”
Mardis v. Big Nance Creek Water Mgmt. Dist., 578 F. Supp. 770 (N.D. Ala. 1983). “, and on designated sections of the Watershed Pro *786 tectioñ and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq., namely §§ 1003 and 1005 thereof 5 to challenge the construction of proposed floodwater retarding structure Site No.”
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.