U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 26— WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

33 U.S.C. § 1256

Grants for pollution control programs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authorization of appropriations for State and interstate programsThere are hereby authorized to be appropriated the following sums, to remain available until expended, to carry out the purpose of this section—(1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; and(2) $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980, $75,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990;for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, including enforcement directly or through appropriate State law enforcement officers or agencies.(b) Allotments

From the sums appropriated in any fiscal year, the Administrator shall make allotments to the several States and interstate agencies in accordance with regulations promulgated by him on the basis of the extent of the pollution problem in the respective States.

(c) Maximum annual paymentsThe Administrator is authorized to pay to each State and interstate agency each fiscal year either—(1) the allotment of such State or agency for such fiscal year under subsection (b), or(2) the reasonable costs as determined by the Administrator of developing and carrying out a pollution program by such State or agency during such fiscal year,which ever amount is the lesser.(d) Limitations

No grant shall be made under this section to any State or interstate agency for any fiscal year when the expenditure of non-Federal funds by such State or interstate agency during such fiscal year for the recurrent expenses of carrying out its pollution control program are less than the expenditure by such State or interstate agency of non-Federal funds for such recurrent program expenses during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.

(e) Grants prohibited to States not establishing water quality monitoring procedures or adequate emergency and contingency plansBeginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any grant under this section to any State which has not provided or is not carrying out as a part of its program—(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to the extent practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report required under section 1315 of this title;(2) authority comparable to that in section 1364 of this title and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.(f) ConditionsGrants shall be made under this section on condition that—(1) Such State (or interstate agency) files with the Administrator within one hundred and twenty days after October 18, 1972:(A) a summary report of the current status of the State pollution control program, including the criteria used by the State in determining priority of treatment works; and(B) such additional information, data, and reports as the Administrator may require.(2) No federally assumed enforcement as defined in section 1319(a)(2) of this title is in effect with respect to such State or interstate agency.(3) Such State (or interstate agency) submits within one hundred and twenty days after October 18, 1972, and before October 1 of each year thereafter for the Administrator’s approval of its program for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution in accordance with purposes and provisions of this chapter in such form and content as the Administrator may prescribe.(g) Reallotment of unpaid allotments

Any sums allotted under subsection (b) in any fiscal year which are not paid shall be reallotted by the Administrator in accordance with regulations promulgated by him.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title I, § 106, as added Pub. L. 92–500, § 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 827; amended Pub. L. 93–592, § 3, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1925; Pub. L. 94–273, § 3(20), Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 377; Pub. L. 95–217, § 4(c), Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 96–483, § 1(b), Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2360; Pub. L. 100–4, title I, § 101(b), Feb. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 9.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1987—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 100–4 inserted “, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990” after “1982”.

1980—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 96–483 inserted authorization of the sum of $75,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 1981 and 1982.

1977—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 95–217 substituted “and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980” for “and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975”.

1976—Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 94–273 substituted “October” for “July”.

1975—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 93–592 substituted “June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975;” for “June 30, 1974;”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1975–2005 · leading case: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. The Ss Zoe Colocotroni, Her Engines, Appurtenances, Etc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. The Ss Zoe Colocotroni, Her Engines, Appurtenances, Etc. (1980) ca1 “Section 106(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (a), provides that EPA may grant funds to states “for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, including enforcement directly or through appropriate State law enforcement officers or…”
McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Weinberger (1988) caed “§ 1254 (a)(5); CWA 106(e)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e)(1). The legislative history of the Clean Water Act also demonstrates that Congress did not intend that discharges to isolated groundwater be subject to permit requirements.”
American Canoe Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) vaed “” 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e)(1). Plaintiffs contend § 106 creates a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty that EPA has violated by making CWA grants to Virginia absent an adequate state program for monitoring and analyzing water quality.”
American Canoe Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) vaed “” 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e)(1). 9 . WQLSs are waters within a state's boundaries that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, the state’s water quality standards even after the imposition of various enumerated controls and treatments.”
Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) mdd “See 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e) (stating that grants for pollution controls prohibited to states not establishing water quality monitoring procedures); 40 C.”
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. United States Steel Corp. (1975) illappct “33 U.S.C.A. § 1256 (a) (1975 Supp.). We find strong concern expressed by Congress for perpetuation and encouragement of the rights of States and municipalities to prevent pollution of the water supply of their citizens in the Federal legislation added in October 1972, upon which…”
Kelley ex rel. Michigan v. United States (1985) miwd “CWA section 106(e)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e)(1). It also directed the EPA to develop and periodically publish the latest scientific criteria for groundwater quality, the effect of its contamination, and information regarding its cleanup.”
Rhode Island v. Narragansett Tribe of Indians (1993) rid “Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that the Tribe met the criteria required for it to be treated as a state under § 106 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1256 — a provision relating to federal grants for pollution control programs.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) ca9 · cites it 2× “18 Because we conclude that approving Arizona’s application is an “au- thorizing” action, and because no party argued that the EPA’s use of some other authority — such as its grant-making authority, see 33 U.S.C. § 1256 , which helped Arizona implement the pollution permitting…”
KELLEY ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE OF STATE OF MICH. v. United States (1985) miwd “CWA section 106(e)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e)(1). It also directed the EPA to develop and periodically publish the latest scientific criteria for groundwater quality, the effect of its contamination, and information regarding its cleanup.”
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (1990) ca10 “Section 106(e) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1256 (e), requires states to conduct water quality monitoring "including classification according to eu-trophic condition” and to annually update moni-' taring data and include the data in 305(b) reports in order to qualify for federal…”
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.