It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may require for the protection of life and property, or of operations of the United States in channel improvement, covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department. Such regulations shall be posted, in conspicuous and appropriate places, for the information of the public; and every person and every corporation which shall violate such regulations shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within whose territorial jurisdiction such offense may have been committed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding six months, in the discretion of the court.
Any regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army in pursuance of this section may be enforced as provided in section 413 of this title, the provisions whereof are made applicable to the said regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1929–2024 · leading case:
United States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 9× “§ 460d and 33 U.S.C. § 1 . Section 460d states in pertinent part: The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water resource development projects under…”
Northlight Harbor, LLC v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 4× “§ 1 defines the Army Corps’ regulatory authority and provides in relevant part: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public…”
In re the Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., 194 F. Supp. 3d 766 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
· cites it 5× “]” See 33 U.S.C. § 1 . As the Supreme Court noted in Gaubert , “it ■will most often be true that the general aims and policies of the controlling statute will be evident from its text.”
Hogge v. Ss Yorkmar, 434 F. Supp. 715 (D. Md. 1977).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1 , the Secretary of the Army, on May 2, 1972, duly prescribed Regulations for the use, administration and navigation of the Canal.”
Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646 (D.P.R. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Generally, they commend to the sound judgment of the Secretary decisions on whether navigable waters should be restricted. His judgment is to be founded upon what “the public necessity may require for the protection of life and property.”
United States v. Zenon, 285 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 2003).
· cites it 6× “1470 was improperly promulgated under 33 U.S.C. § 1 , and that it should have been promulgated under 33 U.”
United States v. Zenón-Encarnación, 387 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2004).
· cites it 6× “3d at 35 , since 1993 the authority to promulgate danger zone regulations has resided in both 33 U.S.C. § 1 and 33 U.S.C. § 3 , since 33 C.”
Hix v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 155 F. App'x 121 (5th Cir. 2005).
“In the River and Harbor Act of 1894, 33 U.S.C. § 1 , Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Army the authority to "prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may…”
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.