U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— INDIAN LANDS OPEN DUMP CLEANUP

25 U.S.C. § 3901

Findings and purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds that—(1) there are at least 600 open dumps on Indian and Alaska Native lands;(2) these dumps threaten the health and safety of residents of Indian and Alaska Native lands and contiguous areas;(3) many of these dumps were established or are used by Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service;(4) these dumps threaten the environment;(5) the United States holds most Indian lands in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes and Indian individuals; and(6) most Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native entities lack the financial and technical resources necessary to close and maintain these dumps in compliance with applicable Federal laws.(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are to—(1) identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands and Alaska Native lands;(2) assess the relative health and environmental hazards posed by such dumps; and(3) provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native entities, either directly or by contract, to close such dumps in compliance with applicable Federal standards and regulations, or standards promulgated by an Indian tribal government or Alaska Native entity, if such standards are more stringent than the Federal standards.(Pub. L. 103–399, § 2, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4164.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 103–399, § 1, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4164, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2022 · leading case: El Paso Natural Gas Company v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
El Paso Natural Gas Company v. United States (2014) cadc “” 25 U.S.C. § 3901 (a)(5). But the statute does not vest in the Government—either expressly as in Mitchell II or by implication as in White Mountain—any responsibility for management or control of Indian property.”
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. United States (2011) dcd · cites it 3× “, the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act (“ILODCA”), 25 U.S.C. § 3901 , et seq., the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States (2021) uscfc · cites it 2× “) ______________________________________ ) OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff White Mountain Apache Tribe’s (“Tribe”) Phase I claim under the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994 (“the Act”), 25…”
El Paso Natural Gas Company v. United States of America (2011) dcd · cites it 2× “, the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act ("ILODCA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 3901 , et seq., the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.”
12 Percent Logistics, Inc. v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board (2019) dcd “Circuit confronted the question whether the Indian Dump Cleanup Act, see 25 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq., contains an implied private right of action.”
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. Haaland (2022) sdd “2011) (rejecting a claim that Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act (“ILODCA”), 25 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq., created a private right of action when the “text of the statute does not suggest any intent by Congress to create a private right of action.”
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.