33 U.S.C. § 11

Authority for compact between Middle Northwest States as to jurisdiction of offenses committed on boundary waters

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

The consent of the Congress is given to the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska, or any two or more of them, by such agreement or compact as they may deem desirable or necessary, or as may be evidenced by legislative acts enacted by any two or more of said States, not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or any law thereof, to determine and settle the jurisdiction to be exercised by said States, respectively, over offenses arising out of the violation of the laws of any of said States upon any of the waters forming the boundary lines between any two or more of said States, or waters through which such boundary line extends, and that the consent of the Congress be, and the same is, given to the concurrent jurisdiction agreed to by the States of Minnesota and South Dakota, as evidenced by the act of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota approved April 20, 1917, and the act of the Legislature of the State of South Dakota approved February 13, 1917.

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).
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, 2026 S.D. 40 (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.