33 U.S.C. § 701a

Declaration of policy of 1936 act

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

It is recognized that destructive floods upon the rivers of the United States, upsetting orderly processes and causing loss of life and property, including the erosion of lands, and impairing and obstructing navigation, highways, railroads, and other channels of commerce between the States, constitute a menace to national welfare; that it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with States, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof; that investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways, including watersheds thereof, for flood-control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare; that the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries, including watersheds thereof, for flood-control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise adversely affected.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases, 1940–2003 · leading case: Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980). · cites it 2× “See 33 U. S. C. § 701a (Flood Control Act of 1936); 42 U.”

Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 501 F. Supp. 742 (N.D. Miss. 1980). · cites it 5× “at 924 , and invoked 33 U.S.C. § 701a as a statutory violation.”

Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Robert F. Froehlke, Sec'y of the Army, 473 F.2d 346 (8th Cir. 1972). · cites it 3× “1 Secondary questions are whether the project violates the Water Bank Act of 1970, 2 the Pish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 3 or 33 U.S.C. § 701a. The trial court answered the first question in the affirmative and the latter questions in the negative.”

Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls, by Its Tr. Ad Litem v. Kenneth Grant, as Adm'r, 537 F.2d 29 (3rd Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “566, no substantive provision of the Flood Control Act of 1936 required an administrative official to determine that benefits exceeded costs before proceeding.”

Jacques J. Creppel v. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 670 F.2d 564 (5th Cir. 1982). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 701a (1976). At the time this project was begun, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to allot $1,000,-000 for a flood control project when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work was advisable.”

United States Ex Rel. Chapman v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 345 U.S. 153 (1953). · cites it 2× “1570 , 33 U. S. C. § 701a. In the same Act, the Secretary of War was authorized to continue surveys at a number of localities, including "Reservoirs in Roanoke and Tar Rivers, North Carolina.”

Cape Henry Bird Club v. Laird, 359 F. Supp. 404 (W.D. Va. 1973). · cites it 3× “33 U.S.C. § 701a states that before a flood control project is allowed to proceed, its benefits must exceed its costs.”

Sierra Club v. James M. Sigler, Etc., Pelican Terminal Co. & Galveston Wharves, Intervenors-Appellees, 695 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1983). “At a minimum, the EIS “should at least indicate those considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision.”

Creppel v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 500 F. Supp. 1108 (E.D. La. 1980). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs argue that at the time the Project was initially authorized the Corps made a specific finding, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 701a, that the benefits of the Project exceeded its costs.”

Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “28 Additional support for our conclusion is provided by decisions that have confronted the question whether the courts have jurisdiction to review cost-benefit analyses performed by the Corps pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1936, 33 U.”

Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, 470 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1972). “Plaintiffs also argued that the benefits of the project were less than the estimated costs, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 701a, and that defendants were proceeding without due regard for wildlife conservation, in violation of 33 U.”

State of Ohio Ex Rel. William J. Brown, Attorney Gen. of the State of Ohio v. Howard H. Callaway, Sec'y of the Army, 497 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “1215 (1938), 33 U.S.C. § 701a et seq. Among the reservoirs authorized, are the two challenged in this appeal: the Caesar Creek Lake Project in Warren County, Ohio, and the East Fork Reservoir Project in Clermont County, Ohio.”

Show all 46 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.