U.S. Code » Title 16 » Chapter CHAPTER 12D— COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT

16 U.S.C. § 835

Project authorized; laws applicable

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

In addition to the primary purposes for which the Grand Coulee Dam project (hereafter to be known as the Columbia Basin project and herein called the “project”) was authorized under the provisions of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1028), the project is authorized and reauthorized as a project subject to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939; and the provisions of each of those two Acts together with the provisions of this Act shall govern the repayment of expenditures and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the works constructed as a part of the project.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1953–2010 · leading case: Samuel Israel & Samis Land Co. v. Rogers Morton, 549 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Samuel Israel & Samis Land Co. v. Rogers Morton, 549 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “208 , 16 U.S.C. §§ 835 et seq. (1937) (“Project Act”), established a federal reclamation project in conjunction with Grand Coulee Dam.”
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 31 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 2× “14 , codified at 16 U.S.C. § 835 , were nothing more than an idle utterance.”
State of Washington v. Stewart L. Udall, 417 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1969). “3 ; 16 U.S.C. § 835 -¶ [Supp. 1966], 76 Stat.”
Winston Bros. Co. v. United States, 130 F. Supp. 374 (Ct. Cl. 1955). · cites it 2× “14 , 16 U.S.C.A. § 835 et seq. They quote a statement of the House of Representatives Committee on the Interior Department Appropriation Bill of 1949, as follows: "Statement of policy.”
Cassidy v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 1438 (E.D. Wash. 1994). “The legislation that acquired the area in dispute ( 16 U.S.C. §§ 835 et seq.) does not specifically state that the Secretary has regulatory authority over hunting and fishing in the set-aside area, referred to herein as the Reservation Zone.”
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 688 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “, and the Columbia Basin Project Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 835 -835m. Complaint, ¶¶ 20, 82.”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (E.D. Wash. 2008). “In their motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs read the following provisions of the reclamation law as strictly limiting the Bureau’s discretion to enter into short-term contracts: 16 U.S.C. § 835 ; 43 U.S.C. §§ 372 , 390, 390h, 390dd, 390ee, 390hh, 391, 415, 419, 423e, 431,…”
United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (E.D. Wash. 2007). “For example, when Congress passed legislation authorizing the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, 16 U.S.C. § 835 et seq., on portions of reservation and allotted lands within the Spokane and Colville Reservations, 16 U.”
United States v. Douglas, 207 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1953). “14 , Act of March 10, 1943, 16 U.S.C.A. § 835 et seq. 2 . The Act also required such a landowner to dispose of irrigable land in excess of a nominal quarter section.”
Kesinger v. Logan, 756 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “2d 178 (1963); 16 U.S.C. § 835 (Columbia Basin Project); and RCW 87.”
East Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 946 F.2d 1550 (D.C. Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “14 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 835 -835m (1988)) [hereinafter cited as codified].”
Michel v. Nalber, 174 F. Supp. 546 (E.D. Wash. 1959). “14 ), Title 16 U.S.C.A. § 835 et seq., authorized and reauthorized the Grand Coulee Dam Project, thereafter known as the Columbia Basin Project, as a project subject to the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.”
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.