It shall not be lawful to construct or commence the construction of any bridge, causeway, dam, or dike over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plans for (1) the bridge or causeway shall have been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or (2) the dam or dike shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army. However, such structures may be built under authority of the legislature of a State across rivers and other waterways the navigable portions of which lie wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army before construction is commenced. When plans for any bridge or other structure have been approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army, it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans either before or after completion of the structure unless modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. The approval required by this section of the location and plans or any modification of plans of any bridge or causeway does not apply to any bridge or causeway over waters that are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and that are not used and are not susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Notes of Decisions
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).
· cites it 4× “Congress passed the 1972 Amendments because it recognized that "the national effort to abate and control water pollution has been inadequate in every vital aspect.”
Libby Rod & Gun Club v. John Poteat, 594 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 7× “The Rod and Gun Club argued that the Corps: (1) violated 33 U.S.C. § 401 by proceeding with construction of the reregulating dam without Congressional approval; (2) violated the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.”
Citizens' Comm. for Env't Prot. v. United States Coast Guard, 456 F. Supp. 101 (D.N.J. 1978).
· cites it 8× “Consequently, the project calls into play the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 & 403. 1 In the view of the state and federal defendants, the bridge across the Raritan River required the Coast Guard to issue a…”
Twp. of Long Beach v. City of New York, 445 F. Supp. 1203 (D.N.J. 1978).
· cites it 6× “2d 649 (1971) (sections 9, 10 & 12 of the Refuse Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 , 403 & 406); Neches Canal Co.”
United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 107 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1939).
· cites it 9× “To obtain this injunction the United States filed its complaint on May 6, 1935, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, in which it charged that the erection of the dam would be in violation of sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors…”
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980).
“1151 , 33 U. S. C. § 401 . 4. National Trails System Act, 82 Stat.”
Sierra Club v. Leslie Salt Co., 354 F. Supp. 1099 (N.D. Cal. 1972).
· cites it 9× “Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that defendants constructed these dikes without the prior consent of Congress and without submission to and approval by the United States Army Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army as required by 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 and 403 (Rivers and…”
Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. Gov't of Canada, 133 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.D.C. 2015).
· cites it 3× “” 33 U.S.C. § 401 . Congress also established criminal penalties including fines and prison time for anyone who violated Section 401 and granted the Attorney General authority to institute proceedings to require the removal of any structures that did not have congressional…”
United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 23 F. Supp. 83 (W.D. Va. 1938).
· cites it 9× “of defendant are being performed without the consent of Congress and without any permission or authority of the Secretary, of War and without having obtained any license from the Federal Power Commission and that such acts are in violation of the laws of the United States, and…”
United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U.S. 377 (1941).
· cites it 2× “[7] I think the conclusion reached by the courts below must stand unless the two novel doctrines now announced be thrown into the scale to overcome it.”
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.