33 U.S.C. § 491

Approval of and deviation from plans; exemptions

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

When, after March 23, 1906, authority is granted by Congress to any persons to construct and maintain a bridge across or over any of the navigable waters of the United States, such bridge shall not be built or commenced until the plans and specifications for its construction, together with such drawings of the proposed construction and such map of the proposed location as may be required for a full understanding of the subject, have been submitted to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating for the Secretary’s approval, nor until the Secretary shall have approved such plans and specifications and the location of such bridge and accessory works; and when the plans for any bridge to be constructed under the provisions of sections 491 to 494 and 495 to 498 of this title, have been approved by the Secretary it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans, either before or after completion of the structure, unless the modification of such plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Secretary. This section shall not apply to any bridge over waters which are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and which 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

Cited in 47 cases, 1930–2014 · leading case: Intracoastal Transportation, Inc., and Anderson Marine Construction, Inc. v. Decatur County, Georgia, Department of Tran

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Intracoastal Transportation, Inc., and Anderson Marine Construction, Inc. v. Decatur County, Georgia, Department of Tran (1973) ca5 · cites it 5× “The appellees have placed in proper focus the issue before this court: The sole issue before this Court is one of jurisdiction. It is Defendant’s [Georgia’s] contention that this Court has no jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity.”

In Re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation (1974) wvsd · cites it 8× “5 The Bridge Act of 1906 (currently codified with modifications as 33 U.S.C. § 491 et seq., however, requires, inter alia, congressional consent to construction of any bridge over navigable waters of the United States.”

Detroit International Bridge Company v. Government of Canada (2014) dcd · cites it 2× “84 (1906) (now codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 491 - 498). The 1906 Bridge Act established uniform rules regarding the construction and operation of congressionally-authorized bridges over navigable waters.”

Janet Karpovs, Individually and as Personal Representative of Juris A. Karpovs, Deceased v. State of Mississippi (1981) ca5 “1968), apparently reasoning that Congress has abrogated Mississippi’s immunity through enactment of the Bridge Act of 1906, 33 U.S.C. §§ 491 et seq., and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act, 33 U.”

Ohio Midland, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Transportation (2008) ca6 “§ 1983 ; that ODOT employees Proctor and Spain were being sued in their individual capacities; and that Proctor and Spain violated 33 U.S.C. § 491 by deviating from the approved bridge plans without permission from the United States Secretary of Transportation.”

Presidio Bridge Co. v. Secretary of United States (1978) txwd · cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 491 . Obviously, one mandatory provision was to obtain “authority” from Congress to build a bridge in the first place.”

Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. STEUDLE (2011) mied · cites it 2× “This Act of Congress required DIBC to comply with the Bridge Act of 1906, 33 U.S.C. § 491 et seq., which mandates that bridge operators obtain the approval of the United States Secretary of Transportation for “plans and specifications and the location of such bridge and…”

City of Laredo v. Webb County (2007) texapp “” See 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 491 , 497 (2001). More specifically, in the International Bridge Act, Congress has granted its consent “to the construction, maintenance, and operation of any bridge and approaches thereto, which will connect the United States with any foreign country .”

Folkstone Maritime, Ltd. v. CSX Corp. (1995) ca7 · cites it 2× “§ 512 ; see 33 U.S.C. § 491 ; 33 C.F.R. Pt. 117. Specifically, 33 U.”

United States v. Columbia River-Longview Bridge Co. (1938) ca9 · cites it 3× “84 , 33 U.S.C.A. § 491 et seq.) relating to bridges over navigable waters of the United States provided in § 2, 33 U.”

Trice v. State (1986) texapp “§ 403 (prohibiting the building of certain structures in the navigable waters of the United States except on the recommendation and authorization of the Department of the Army); 33 U.S.C.A. § 491 (granting the consent of Congress for any person to erect a bridge across the…”

Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. (1938) ca8 “Section 1 of the latter Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 491 , provided that when after March 23, 1906, authority is granted by Congress to any persons to construct a bridge over navigable waters of the United States the plans, specifications and location of the bridge must be approved by the…”

Show all 47 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.