25 U.S.C. § 385c

Appropriation and disposition of power revenues

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

Revenues collected after August 7, 1946, from power operations on each Indian irrigation project and deposited into the Treasury for credit to miscellaneous receipts pursuant to section 4 of the Permanent Appropriation Repeal Act, 1934 (48 Stat. 1227), or pursuant to other provisions of law, are authorized to be appropriated annually, in specific or in indefinite amounts, equal to the collections so credited, for the following purposes in connection with the respective projects from which such revenues are derived: (1) Payment of the expenses of operating and maintaining the power system; (2) creation and maintenance of reserve funds to be available for making repairs and replacements to, defraying emergency expenses for, and insuring continuous operation of the power system, the fund for each project to be maintained at such level, within limits set by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, as may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; (3) amortization, in accordance with the repayment provisions of the applicable statutes or contracts, of construction costs allocated to be returned from power revenues; and (4) payment of other expenses and obligations chargeable to power revenues to the extent required or permitted by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2008 · leading case: San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “urred in the 1970’s and 1980’s resulting in an insufficient estimate; (ii) the historical rate was too low because it did not reflect maintenance costs which had been deferred and would have been necessary even if the overflows had not occurred; (iii) even if cash charges…”

San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 786 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “The Federal Circuit in San Carlos rejected plaintiffs argument, stating that the Repayment Contract “clearly contemplates advance assessment of charges based upon estimates.”

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.