33 U.S.C. § 1296

Determination of priority of projects

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

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the determination of the priority to be given each category of projects for construction of publicly owned treatment works within each State shall be made solely by that State, except that if the Administrator, after a public hearing, determines that a specific project will not result in compliance with the enforceable requirements of this chapter, such project shall be removed from the State’s priority list and such State shall submit a revised priority list. These categories shall include, but not be limited to (A) secondary treatment, (B) more stringent treatment, (C) infiltration-in-flow correction, (D) major sewer system rehabilitation, (E) new collector sewers and appurtenances, (F) new interceptors and appurtenances, and (G) correction of combined sewer overflows. Not less than 25 per centum of funds allocated to a State in any fiscal year under this subchapter for construction of publicly owned treatment works in such State shall be obligated for those types of projects referred to in clauses (D), (E), (F), and (G) of this section, if such projects are on such State’s priority list for that year and are otherwise eligible for funding in that fiscal year. It is the policy of Congress that projects for wastewater treatment and management undertaken with Federal financial assistance under this chapter by any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency shall be projects which, in the estimation of the State, are designed to achieve optimum water quality management, consistent with the public health and water quality goals and requirements of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–1991 · leading case: City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 437 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Morton v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 437 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C.A. § 1296 ; 40 C.F.R. §§ 35.912 , .”

Chesapeake Bay Vill., Inc. v. Costle, 502 F. Supp. 213 (D. Maryland 1980). “§ 1288 (planning); 33 U.S.C. § 1296 (designation of priorities), “whether Congress intended additionally that these provisions be enforced through private litigation is a different question.”

People of the State of California v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 689 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Section 216 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1296 , provides in relevant part: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the determination of the priority to be given each category of projects for construction of publicly owned treatment works within each State shall be made…”

Allegheny Cnty. Sanitary Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 732 F.2d 1167 (3rd Cir. 1984). “” 33 U.S.C. § 1296 (Supp. V 1981). . The EPA asserts in its brief that ALCOSAN has no standing because it lacks an interest affected by the actions of which it complains.”

United States v. State of Michigan, 781 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. Mich. 1991). “33 U.S.C. § 1296 , 40 CFR §§ 35.915 (c) and 35.”

Atl. City Mun. Utils. Auth. v. Reg'l Adm'r, 616 F. Supp. 722 (D.N.J. 1985). “If a grant application receives a favorable ranking on a state’s priority list, its fate passes to the EPA Administrator, see 33 U.S.C. § 1296 , who must approve or disapprove the application within forty-five days after the date of its receipt.”

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.