U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— FLOOD CONTROL

33 U.S.C. § 701e

Effect of act June 22, 1936, on provisions for Mississippi River and other projects

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

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or amending any provision of sections 702a, 702b to 702d, 702e to 702g, 702h, 702i, 702j, 702k, 702l, 702m, and 704 of this title. The authority conferred by this Act and any funds appropriated pursuant thereto for expenditure are supplemental to all other authority and appropriations relating to the departments or agencies concerned, and nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or retard any department or agency in carrying out similar and related activities heretofore or hereafter authorized, or to limit the exercise of powers conferred on any department or agency by other provisions of law is 11 So in original. Probably should be “in”. carrying out similar and related activities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1954–1984 · leading case: Solon B. Clark, Jr., & Geraldine A. Clark, Husband & Wife, & Related Cases v. United States, 218 F.2d 446 (9th Cir. 1954).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Solon B. Clark, Jr., & Geraldine A. Clark, Husband & Wife, & Related Cases v. United States, 218 F.2d 446 (9th Cir. 1954). “33 U.S.C.A. § 701e. We find no merit in appellants’ contention that the Tort Claims Act repealed this provision by implication.”
Morici Corp. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Cal. 1980). ““Nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or amending any provisions of the Act entitled ‘An Act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes’, approved May 15,1928, or any provision of law amendatory thereof.”
Callaway v. United States, 568 F.2d 684 (10th Cir. 1978). “§ 702c, and was reaffirmed in the Flood Control Act of 1936, § 8, 33 U.S.C. § 701e. Its scope and purpose were noted by the Eighth Circuit in National Mfg.”
Nat'l Mfg. Co. v. United States, 210 F.2d 263 (8th Cir. 1954). “” 33 U.S.C.A. § 701e. Thus it appears on inspection of the two flood control Acts referred to that when Congress entered upon flood control on the great scale contemplated by the Acts it safeguarded the United States against liability of any kind for damage from or by floods or…”
James v. United States, 740 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1984). “e such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel, and lands in such stretch of the river are subjected to overflow and damage which are not overflowed or damaged by reason of the construction of levees…”
Mearl C. Tillman & Emily P. Tillman, Husband & Wife v. United States of Am., (& Related Cases), 232 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1956). “33 U.S.C.A. § 701e. We find no merit in appellants’ contention that the Tort Claims Act repealed this provision by implication.”
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.