33 U.S.C. § 1298

Cost effectiveness

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

(a) Congressional statement of policy

It is the policy of Congress that a project for waste treatment and management undertaken with Federal financial assistance under this chapter by any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency shall be considered as an overall waste treatment system for waste treatment and management, and shall be that system which constitutes the most economical and cost-effective combination of devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 1281 of this title, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated life of the works, including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extension, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof; elements essential to provide a reliable recycled supply such as standby treatment units and clear well facilities; and any works, including site acquisition of the land that will be an integral part of the treatment process (including land use for the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems prior to land application) or which is used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment; water efficiency measures and devices; and any other method or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, including storm water runoff, or industrial waste, including waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems; to meet the requirements of this chapter.

(b) Determination by Administrator as prerequisite to approval of grant

In accordance with the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section, before the Administrator approves any grant to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of any treatment works the Administrator shall determine that the facilities plan of which such treatment works are a part constitutes the most economical and cost-effective combination of treatment works over the life of the project to meet the requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to, consideration of construction costs, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.

In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall require value engineering review in connection with any treatment works, prior to approval of any grant for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of such treatment works, in any case in which the cost of such erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension is projected to be in excess of $10,000,000. For purposes of this subsection, the term “value engineering review” means a specialized cost control technique which uses a systematic and creative approach to identify and to focus on unnecessarily high cost in a project in order to arrive at a cost saving without sacrificing the reliability or efficiency of the project.

(d) Projects affected

This section applies to projects for waste treatment and management for which no treatment works including a facilities plan for such project have received Federal financial assistance for the preparation of construction plans and specifications under this chapter before December 29, 1981.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title II, § 218, as added Pub. L. 97–117, § 19, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1630.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–1994 · leading case: Atl. City Mun. Utils. Auth. v. Reg'l Adm'r, 616 F. Supp. 722 (D.N.J. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atl. City Mun. Utils. Auth. v. Reg'l Adm'r, 616 F. Supp. 722 (D.N.J. 1985). · cites it 2× “See 33 U.S.C. § 1298 (b). 11 C. The FWPCA “Citizen Suit” Withdraws Tucker Act Jurisdiction Over Nondiscretionary Acts Assuming arguendo that a claim that one has been improperly denied a FWPCA grant would fall within the second noncontractual category of the Claims Court’s…”

Town of Fallsburg v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 633 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “” 33 U.S.C. § 1298 (a). As this court recognized in City of Wheeling, W.”

City of Mount Clemens v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 917 F.2d 908 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 33 U.S.C. § 1298 . In light of environmental and social considerations, the applicant for a federal construction grant must demonstrate that its project is the most economical means of meeting effluent and water quality goals in its specific geographic area.”

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Browner, 866 F. Supp. 249 (D. Maryland 1994). “33 U.S.C. § 1298 . The City was required to comply with the promulgated environmental standards, and, to qualify to receive a grant, it had to comply in the most efficient manner.”

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.