33 U.S.C. § 565
River and harbor improvement by private or municipal enterprise
Any person or persons, corporations, municipal or private, who desire to improve any navigable river, or any part thereof, at their or its own expense and risk may do so upon the approval of the plans and specifications of said proposed improvement by the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Engineers of the Army. The plan of said improvement must conform with the general plan of the Government improvements, must not impede navigation, and no toll shall be imposed on account thereof, and said improvement shall at all times be under the control and supervision of the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Engineers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1938–2002 · leading case: People of State of Ill. Ex Rel. Scott v. Hoffman, 425 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. Ill. 1977).
People of State of Ill. Ex Rel. Scott v. Hoffman, 425 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. Ill. 1977). “Count IV is based upon the provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 565 , which prohibits any improvement in a navigable stream without the express prior approval of the Secretary of the Army and the Corps, and without the continuing control of the Secretary and the Corps of such construction.”
Coalition for the Env't v. John A. Volpe, Coalition for the Env't v. Linclay Dev. Corp., 504 F.2d 156 (8th Cir. 1974). “More specifically, under 33 U.S.C. §§ 565 and 701 (1970), according to plaintiffs, the Corps is directed to supervise private improvements for flood control purposes to insure that they conform to the Pick-Sloan master plan.”
Indiana Port Comm'n v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 653 F. Supp. 604 (N.D. Ind. 1987). “§ 5 , and the River and Harbor Act of 1902, 33 U.S.C. § 565 ; (3) violates the terms of a 1962 agreement between Bethlehem and IPC because at least one user of the public port (Cargill, Inc.”
United States v. 174.12 Acres of Land, More or Less, in the Cnty. of Pierce, State of Washington, & Tacoma Duck Club, Inc., 671 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1982). “, 33 U.S.C. § 565 . The evidence also demonstrated the practical limitations to the possible development of the property.”
Coalition for Fair & Equitable Reg. of Docks on Lake of the Ozarks v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 297 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2002). “The Coalition also argued that the user fees were a toll, prohibited by 33 U.S.C. § 565 (2000). FERC rejected this characterization, since the money was not collected for navigating the river.”
Rose v. Webster, 625 P.2d 1329 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The permit to construct the original docks issued by the Corps of Engineers does not give defendants any right to perpetual use of plaintiffs’ leasehold.”
Fed. Land Bank of New Orleans v. Lococo, 178 So. 192 (La. Ct. App. 1938). “Act June 13, 1902, § 1, 33 U.S.C.A. § 565 . Defendant attempted to hold the bank responsible for the repair of the derrick which had been erected on the land before he purchased it from the bank.”
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.