U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— FEDERAL REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF POWER › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— REGULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER AND RESOURCES

16 U.S.C. § 821

State laws and water rights unaffected

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for municipal or other uses, or any vested right acquired therein.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1930–2022 · leading case: Jeff Simmons v. Sabine River Auth., et, 732 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jeff Simmons v. Sabine River Auth., et, 732 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “Finally, Section 27 of the Act is a savings clause: Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water…”
City of Tacoma v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “FERC rejected the Tribe’s argument, noting that Tacoma had applied for additional water rights and that section 27 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 821 , deprived FERC of authority to adjudicate issues related to state water rights.”
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2012). “National Grid’s reliance on section 27 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 821 , is similarly misguided.”
Ruspi v. Glatz, 69 A.3d 680 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “Section 821, State Laws and Water Rights Unaffected, provides as follows: Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective States relating to the control, appropriation, use, or…”
Charles R. Otwell, Sr. v. Alabama Power Co., 747 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “In addition, Appellants argue that 16 U.S.C. § 821 expressly preserves state common law property rights and allows them to pursue their claims.”
State of Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2002). “The Court in FERC rejected the State's construction of the Federal Power Act’s (FPA) saving clause, 16 U.S.C. § 821 . That section reads: Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the…”
Pud No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). “1077 , 16 U. S. C. § 821 . [1] The Government, appearing as amicus curiae "supporting affirmance," instead approaches the question presented by assuming, arguendo, that petitioners' construction of § 401 is correct: "Even if a condition imposed under Section 401(d) were valid…”
Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984). “The Commission is expressly forbidden to adjudicate water rights, 16 U. S. C. § 821 , and the license applicant must submit satisfactory evidence that he has obtained sufficient water rights to operate the project authorized in the license, 16 U.”
Town of Springfield, Vermont v. McCarren, 549 F. Supp. 1134 (D. Vt. 1982). · cites it 2× “§§ 372 , 383. Notwithstanding some similarity in the wording of the statutes, they serve different objectives, and relate to federal actions fundamentally dissimilar in nature.”
Hackett v. J.L.G. Props., LLC, 940 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 821 , provides that: "Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intending to affect or in any way to interfere with the laws of the respective [s]tates relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or for…”
California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 495 U.S. 490 (1990). “” 16 U. S. C. §821 (1982 ed.). Were this a case of first impression, petitioner’s argument based on the statute’s language could be said to present a close question.”
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435 (1955). · cites it 2× “as a condition precedent to securing a federal license for the same project under the Federal Power Act would vest in the Executive Council of Iowa a veto power over the federal project.”
Show all 55 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.