33 U.S.C. § 1364

Emergency powers

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

(a) Emergency powers

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Administrator upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or combination of sources is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of persons where such endangerment is to the livelihood of such persons, such as inability to market shellfish, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate district court to immediately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the discharge of pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such other action as may be necessary.

(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 96–510, title III, § 304(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2809(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title V, § 504, as added Pub. L. 92–500, § 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 888; amended Pub. L. 95–217, § 69, Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1607; Pub. L. 96–510, title III, § 304(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2809.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–510 struck out subsec. (b) which related to emergency assistance, establishment of an emergency fund, and preparation of a contingency plan for such emergencies.

1977—Pub. L. 95–217 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–510 effective Dec. 11, 1980, see section 9652 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982). · cites it 2× “" 33 U. S. C. § 1364 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. IV).”

AIU Ins. v. Superior Court, 799 P.2d 1253 (Cal. 1990). “§ 6973 (a); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (a); Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.”

United States v. Vertac Chem. Corp., 489 F. Supp. 870 (E.D. Ark. 1980). · cites it 3× “” 33 U.S.C. § 1364 , 42 U.S.C. § 6973 . In order to interpret this language in the context of a preliminary injunction, we must again consult Reserve.”

Maine People's All. & Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2006). “70 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1364 ). In Ethyl Corp., one of the referenced statutes does use the word “may,” but that court did not parse the entire sentence and looked only to the words “imminent and substantial.”

Ethyl Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “33 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp. IV 1974); 42 U.S.”

United States v. Ne. Pharm. & Chem. Co., 579 F. Supp. 823 (W.D. Mo. 1984). “§ 300i(a) (1976); Section 504(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (a) (Supp. IV 1980); Section 303 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”

United States v. Reilly Tar & Chem. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Minnesota 1982). “§ 300i(a) (1976); Section 504(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (a) (Supp. IV 1980); Section 303 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”

United States v. Waste Indus., 556 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 300i (the Safe Drinking Water Act); 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (the Clean Water Act); 42 U.”

Certified Color Mfrs. Ass'n v. F. David Mathews, Sec'y of the Dep't of Hew, 543 F.2d 284 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “§ 454 (c) (“clearly endanger”); 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (“imminent and substantial endangerment”); 7 U.”

United States v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 607 F. Supp. 1052 (W.D.N.Y. 1985). “§ 6973 ; section 504 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1364 ; section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.”

McGinnes Indus. Maint. Corp. v. the Phoenix Ins. Co. & the Travelers Indem. Co., 477 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. 2015). “§ 407 (1976), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 504, 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp. Ill 1979), and the Safe Drinking Water Act § 1431, 42 U.”

Bravos v. Green, 306 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). “33 U.S.C. § 1364 ; Defs.’ Opp’n at 10 n. 7.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.