16 U.S.C. § 473
Revocation, modification, or vacation of orders or proclamations establishing national forests
The President of the United States is authorized and empowered to revoke, modify, or suspend any and all Executive orders and proclamations or any part thereof issued under section 471 1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2023 · leading case: United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978).
United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978). “34 , 16 U. S. C. § 473 et seq. (1976 ed.). In particular, Congress provided: " No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous…”
Ark Initiative v. Thomas Tidwell, 816 F.3d 119 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The Organic Administration Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. §§ 473 et seq., requires the , Service to manage national forests to secure favorable, conditions of water flows and to furnish the nation with a continuous supply of timber, id.”
United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008). “It suspended the President's Executive Order of February 22, 1897; it carefully defined the purposes for which national forests could in the future be reserved; and it provided a charter for forest management and economic uses within the forests.”
United States v. Georgia-Pac. Co., 421 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1970). “34 , 36, 16 U.S.CA. § 473. 23 . 30 Stat. 34 , 36; prefatory statement quoted in historical note to 16 U.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfs, 80 F.4th 943 (9th Cir. 2023). “, 16 U.S.C. § 473 et seq. (Organic Administration Act of 1897); 16 U.”
Joshua Bohmker v. State of Oregon, 903 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2018). “11 , 35–36 (1897), provides that nothing in 16 U.S.C. §§ 473–82 and 551 “shall . . . prohibit any person from entering upon .”
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Wyo. 2003). “11 , 34-36 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 473 ^482, 551). The Organic Act, for the first time, established a limited multiple-use mandate for management of the National Forests.”
United States v. City & Cnty. of Denver Ex Rel. Bd. of Water Commissioners, 656 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982). “They were ultimately denied by the New Mexico Supreme Court on appeal on the basis that such uses were not among the purposes included in the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Organic Act of 1897), pursuant to which the Gila National Forest was created.”
In Re Water of Hallett Creek Stream Sys., 749 P.2d 324 (Cal. 1988). “34 , 16 U.S.C. § 473 et seq. (1976)), which carefully defined the purposes for which national forests could be reserved, and further provided: "All waters within the boundaries of national forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes, under the laws…”
Sierra Club v. Block, 622 F. Supp. 842 (D. Colo. 1985). “34 , 16 U.S.C. §§ 473 et seq.] and its predecessor bills demonstrate that Congress intended national forests to be reserved for only two purposes — “[t]o conserve the water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the people.”
Avondale Irrigation Dist. v. North Idaho Props., Inc., 577 P.2d 9 (Idaho 1978). “11 , 34-36, and is generally codified at *36 16 U.S.C. §§ 473 ^178, 479-482, 551. See 30 Cong.”
United States v. Jenks, 804 F. Supp. 232 (D.N.M. 1992). “Defendant also argues that he has a right of access to his lands under the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, now codified as 16 U.S.C. § 473 et seq. 7 Without undergoing a lengthy analysis of the elements of certain easements and whether such easements are proper against the federal…”
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.