Task: Text Completion
Input (English): that were built lawfully but subsequently found to violate the RHA. The Corps suggests a broader reading of the RHA, claiming that section 403 makes it unlawful to place or maintain any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any waters except as authorized by the Corps. While the word “maintain” is not found in section 403 itself, the Corps avers that prior decisions have made clear 516, 26 S.Ct. 518, 519, 50 L.Ed. 845 (1906) (preserving government’s right to require the removal or reconstruction of tunnel under Chicago river that had been constructed with permission of Chicago). Finally, the government may be compensated for removing obstructions to navigation when their owners refuse to remove them. See United States v. Perma Paving Co., 332 F.2d 754, 758 (2nd Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Illinois Terminal R.R. Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insured could recover the costs of defending a declaratory judgment action brought by the injured party to compel the insurer to defend but could not recover the costs associated with prosecuting crossclaims against the insurer (B) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand (C) holding that government was entitled to recover costs for removal of shoal in navigable channel (D) holding party not entitled to recover attorneys fees without also recoveringdamages for breach of contract in part because attorney fees are in the nature of costs not damages (E) holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal
Output (English): (C)