33 U.S.C. § 407

Deposit of refuse in navigable waters generally

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

It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States, or into any tributary of any navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed into such navigable water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited material of any kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the operations in connection with the improvement of navigable waters or construction of public works, considered necessary and proper by the United States officers supervising such improvement or public work: And provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material above mentioned in navigable waters, within limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him, provided application is made to him prior to depositing such material; and whenever any permit is so granted the conditions thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any violation thereof shall be unlawful.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 256 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1928–2023 · leading case: United States v. Ward

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ward (1980) scotus · cites it 4× “In this regard, respondent contends that § 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. § 407 , makes criminal the precise conduct penalized in the present case.”

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “§§ 1311 (a) and 1319(c)(1); the Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 407 and 411; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.”

Guthrie v. Alabama By-Products Company (1971) alnd · cites it 17× “intiffs (a) strike two of the original plaintiffs and add fourteen new plaintiffs, (b) add three defendants, (c) assert jurisdiction under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (d) urge pendent jurisdiction of their non-federal claims, and (e) divide their…”

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2001) scotus · cites it 2× “1152 , as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 407 , Congress had assigned to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) the mission of regulating discharges into certain waters in order to protect their use as highways for the transportation of interstate and foreign commerce; the scope of the…”

Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (1992) ill · cites it 2× “The complaint alleged that, because OMC was not authorized by permit to discharge PCBs into these bodies of water, OMC's conduct violated the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ( 33 U.S.C. § 407 (1988)) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 33 U.”

Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. (1981) scotus · cites it 2× “[6] Respondents based claims on the FWPCA; the MPRSA; federal common law; § 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. § 407 ; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.”

Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Company, Inc. (1972) ca2 · cites it 5× “DAVIS, Judge: This is the eighth recorded attempt in the last year or two by environmentalists to have a federal court hold that private persons may sue in qui tam for fines under §§ 13 and 16 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 407 , 411, even though the…”

Sackett v. EPA (2023) scotus · cites it 2× “1152 (codifed, as amended, at 33 U. S. C. § 407 ). Section 13 also prohibits depositing material “on the bank of any navigable water, or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be Page Proof Pending Publication washed into such…”

United States v. Standard Oil Co. (1966) scotus · cites it 6× “" 33 U. S. C. § 407 (1964 ed.). The indictment charged appellee, Standard Oil (Kentucky), with violating § 13 by allowing to be discharged into the St.”

Township of Long Beach v. City of New York (1978) njd · cites it 6× “Plaintiff also charges the City with a violation of Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 407 , in that the City has discharged refuse other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into the Hudson River and the…”

United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp. (1973) scotus · cites it 4× “1152 , 33 U. S. C. § 407 . Two questions are presented.”

United States v. United States Steel Corporation (1973) ca7 · cites it 6× “This criminal prosecution was based upon a 2-count information alleging violations of Sections 13 and 16 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ( 33 U.S.C. §§ 407 and 411). Count I alleged that defendant discharged refuse matter from a drainpipe into the east branch of the Grand…”

Show all 256 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.