U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 36— WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— GENERAL PROVISIONS

33 U.S.C. § 2316

Environmental protection mission

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General rule

The Secretary shall include environmental protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps of Engineers in planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining water resources projects.

(b) LimitationNothing in this section affects—(1) existing Corps of Engineers’ authorities, including its authorities with respect to navigation and flood control;(2) pending Corps of Engineers permit applications or pending lawsuits involving permits or water resources projects; or(3) the application of public interest review procedures for Corps of Engineers permits.(Pub. L. 101–640, title III, § 306, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4635.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries“Secretary” Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 101–640, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: 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 (3d Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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 (3d Cir. 2003). · cites it 11× “” WRDA of 1990 § 306, 33 U.S.C. § 2316 (1994). In 1994, the Corps issued a “Revised Manual” presenting a plan of regulation for the Walter Dam.”
Raymond Proffitt Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 175 F. Supp. 2d 755 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 8× “” 33 U.S.C. § 2316 (West Supp.2001). Plaintiffs contend that the way the Corps releases water from the Walter Dam into the Lehigh River does not protect the environment.”
Raymond Proffitt Found. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 128 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Pa. 2000). · cites it 4× “” 33 U.S.C. § 2316 . First, plaintiffs contend that the way that the Corps is releasing water from the Walter Dam into the Lehigh River does not protect the environment.”
White Oak Realty, L.L.C. v. U.S. Army Corps (5th Cir. 2018). “Third, White Oak’s theory would allow parties to avoid the WRDA’s mitigation requirements by impacting the environment prior to receiving a Corps contract, even when that impact results from a clear intent to sell to the Corps.”
Friends of the River v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 293 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “§ 685 ; responsibility to include environmental protection as one of its primary missions in operating and maintaining water resources projects, 33 U.S.C. § 2316 ; authorization to carry out a program to improve environmental quality when feasible and consistent with the…”
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.