33 U.S.C. § 2201
“Secretary” defined
For purposes of this Act, the term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: City of Providence v. US Dep't of Just., 954 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2020).
City of Providence v. US Dep't of Just., 954 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2020). “1193 , 1246 (to be codified at 33 U.S.C. § 2201 ) (requiring Secretary of the Army to ensure that certain recipients of federal funds for water resources projects "comply with all applicable Federal laws (including regulations) 6 The DOJ implicitly assumes that the Byrne JAG…”
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches, 696 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2012). “The Corps refused to undertake the cost of foreshore protection unless there was local cost participation under the Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Furthermore, the district court noted, the Corps did not prioritize protecting the north shore, because…”
In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., 647 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. La. 2009). “Also, after the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 , et seq., the Corps, for the most part, took the position that there would always need to be local participation in the cost of any study, and consequently, any corrective action to be taken as…”
Raymond Proffitt Found. Lehigh River Stocking Assn. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Debra M. Lewis, Lt. Col., Dist. Commander, 343 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2003). “”); see also 33 U.S.C. § 2201 (defining the "Secretary”).”
Air Liquide Am. Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 359 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2004). “4082 (1986); 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. It contained the following cost-allocation provision: The non-Federal interests [here, the Port] for a [harbor navigation project] shall perform or assure the performance of all relocations of utilities necessary to carry out the project,…”
West Jefferson Levee Dist. v. Coast Quality Const. Corp., 620 So. 2d 319 (La. Ct. App. 1993). “See: 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Following completion of the Corps' final environmental impact study in December, 1986, on April 20, 1987 the Corps approved the Project for funding.”
BG Gulf Coast LNG v. Sabine-Neches, 49 F.4th 420 (5th Cir. 2022). “To make the necessary improvements to the Waterway, the District needed funds.”
Raymond Proffitt Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 128 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Pa. 2000). “Plaintiffs allege violations of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (“WRDA”), as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Westphal, 116 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2000). “In Count I, plaintiffs allege that the Corps’ decision violates the Water Resources Development Acts (“WRDA)” of 1986 and 1996, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. because the Corps has failed to require that the Levee Districts, as the local sponsors of the project, share in the cost of…”
State v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 F. Supp. 2d 739 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “; Water Resources Development Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.; Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011, Pub.”
NOLAN v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2024). “The subsequent passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., as amended, and the resulting Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, prioritized restoring the habitats and ecosystems of threatened and endangered fish and wildlife…”
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches (5th Cir. 2012). “The Corps refused to undertake the cost of foreshore protection unless there was local cost participation under the Water Resources Develop- ment Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Furthermore, the district court noted, the Corps did not prioritize protecting the north shore, because…”
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.