33 U.S.C. § 426i

Shore damage prevention or mitigation

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

(a) In general

The Secretary of the Army is authorized to investigate, study, plan, and implement structural and nonstructural measures for the prevention or mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal navigation works and shore damage attributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, if a non-Federal public body agrees to operate and maintain such measures, and, in the case of interests in real property acquired in conjunction with nonstructural measures, to operate and maintain the property for public purposes in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) Cost sharing

The costs of implementing measures, including a study, shall be cost-shared in the same proportion as the cost-sharing provisions applicable to construction of the project causing the shore damage.

No such project shall be initiated without specific authorization by Congress if the Federal first cost exceeds $15,000,000.

(d) CoordinationThe Secretary shall—(1) coordinate the implementation of the measures under this section with other Federal and non-Federal shore protection projects in the same geographic area; and(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitigation projects with other shore protection projects in the same area into a comprehensive regional project.(e) Reimbursement for feasibility studies

Beginning on December 16, 2016, in any case in which the Secretary implements a project under this section, the Secretary shall reimburse or credit the non-Federal interest for any amounts contributed for the study evaluating the damage in excess of the non-Federal share of the costs, as determined under subsection (b).

(Pub. L. 90–483, title I, § 111, Aug. 13, 1968, 82 Stat. 735; Pub. L. 99–662, title IX, §§ 915(f), 940, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4191, 4199; Pub. L. 106–53, title II, § 214, Aug. 17, 1999, 113 Stat. 291; Pub. L. 113–121, title I, § 1030(c), June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1232; Pub. L. 114–322, title I, § 1169, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1671; Pub. L. 115–270, title I, § 1157(c), Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3794; Pub. L. 118–272, div. A, title I, § 1107(h), Jan. 4, 2025, 138 Stat. 3005.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2025—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 118–272 substituted “$15,000,000” for “$12,500,000”.

2018—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 115–270 substituted “$12,500,000” for “$10,000,000”.

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–322, § 1169(1), substituted “measures, including a study, shall be cost-shared in the same proportion as the cost-sharing provisions applicable to construction of the project” for “measures under this section shall be cost-shared in the same proportion as the cost-sharing provisions applicable to the project”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 114–322, § 1169(2), added subsec. (e).

2014—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 113–121 substituted “$10,000,000” for “$5,000,000”.

1999—Pub. L. 106–53 designated first sentence as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and inserted “and shore damage attributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway” after “navigation works”, designated second sentence as subsec. (b) and inserted heading, and designated third sentence as subsec. (c), inserted heading, and substituted “$5,000,000” for “$2,000,000”, and added subsec. (d).

1986—Pub. L. 99–662, § 940, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to investigate, study, and construct projects for the prevention or mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal navigation works. The cost of installing, operating, and maintaining such projects shall be borne entirely by the United States. No such project shall be constructed without specific authorization by Congress if the estimated first cost exceeds $2,000,000.”

Pub. L. 99–662, § 915(f), substituted “$2,000,000” for “$1,000,000”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by section 915(f) of Pub. L. 99–662 not applicable to any project under contract for construction on Nov. 17, 1986, see section 915(i) of Pub. L. 99–662, set out as a note under section 426g of this title.

Coastal Erosion

Pub. L. 115–270, title I, § 1172, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3799, provided that:“(a)In General.—Pursuant to section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), the Secretary [of the Army] shall, to the maximum extent practicable, complete operation and maintenance renourishment to mitigate coastal erosion attributed to Federal project structures in the upper northeast United States.“(b)Project Selection.—In carrying out the work under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—“(1) identify and carry out not more than five projects—“(A) located in any of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New York; and“(B) for which a feasibility study has been completed by December 31, 2019, that includes findings that a Federal project structure is interrupting the natural flow of sediment and causing coastal erosion; and“(2) consult with relevant State agencies in selecting projects.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: State of Louisiana v. United States, 948 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Louisiana v. United States, 948 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “” Specifically, the State contends that under 33 U.S.C. § 426i of the Act, the Corps has a discrete duty to maintain and repair the Waterway within the specified dimensions and to repair shoreline erosion in the White Lake area.”

Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “731 , 735 (1968) (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 426i (2012)). Pursuant to this authority, the Corps proposed a plan to mitigate the erosion caused by the jetties by dumping sand into feeder beaches located to the north of Appellants’ properties.”

Save the Dunes Council v. Clifford L. Alexander, Sec'y of the Army, 584 F.2d 158 (7th Cir. 1978). · cites it 3× “and several individuals (Council) appeal the adverse summary judgment entered by the District Court on May 10, 1977 in their causes for a Writ of Mandamus and a Declaratory Judgment with mandatory injunc-tive relief from the action or non-action of the Secretary of the Army…”

Banks v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 806 (Fed. Cl. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 33 U.S.C. § 426i (1986). The statute provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Secretary of the Army is authorized to investigate, study, plan, and implement structural and nonstructural measures for the prevention or mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal…”

Vill. of Bald Head Island v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 833 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D.N.C. 2011). “§ 403 , and Section 111 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968, 33 U.S.C. § 426i. Plaintiff also alleges two claims for breach of contract and two claims for breach of maritime contract.”

Braden's Folly, LLC v. City of Folly Beach (S.C. 2023). “3 As one witness for Folly Beach explained: Section 111 of the 1968 River and Harbor Act[, 33 U.S.C. § 426i (2018),] provides authority for the [ACOE] to develop and construct projects for prevention or mitigation of damages caused by Federal navigation work, such as jetties.”

— 33 U.S.C. § 426i(a) — 2 cases

Banks v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 806 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “” 33 U.S.C. § 426i (1986). The statute provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Secretary of the Army is authorized to investigate, study, plan, and implement structural and nonstructural measures for the prevention or mitigation of shore damages attributable to Federal…”

State of Louisiana v. United States, 948 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2020). “” Specifically, the State contends that under 33 U.S.C. § 426i of the Act, the Corps has a discrete duty to maintain and repair the Waterway within the specified dimensions and to repair shoreline erosion in the White Lake area.”

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.