33 U.S.C. § 11

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)In General.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023 to carry out this Act, including for—“(1) acquisition of land and interests in land;“(2) development and implementation of site management plans;“(3) site enhancements to reduce threats or promote stewardship; and“(4) administrative expenses of the Advisory Committee and the Administrator.“(b)Use of Funds.—Amounts made available to the Administrator under this section each fiscal year shall be used by the Administrator after reviewing the recommendations included in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee under section 9.“(c)Authorization of Gifts, Devises, and Bequests for System.—In furtherance of the purpose of this Act, the Administrator may accept and use any gift, devise, or bequest of real or personal property, proceeds therefrom, or interests therein, to carry out this Act. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude, if such terms are considered by the Administrator to be in accordance with law and compatible with the purpose for which acceptance is sought.“(d)Limitation on Administrative Costs.—Of the amount available each fiscal year to carry out this Act, not more than 8 percent may be used for administrative costs.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: United States v. Schmitt, 28 F. App'x 63 (2d Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Schmitt, 28 F. App'x 63 (2d Cir. 2002). “, violated the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 11 et seq., and trespassed on federal waters.”

State v. Ogden (S.D. 2026). · cites it 9× “] As one of its principal sources of jurisdictional authority, the State argues that 33 U.S.C. § 11 “recognizes” South Dakota’s concurrent jurisdiction over boundary waters.”

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.