43 U.S.C. § 372
Water right as appurtenant to land and extent of right
The right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1931–2024 · leading case: California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978).
California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978). “390 , as codified, 43 U. S. C. §§ 372 , 383, rather than comity, requires the United States to apply for the permit.”
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1 (1995). “388 , 43 U. S. C. §§ 372 , 383, which provided that "`the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “43 U.S.C. §§ 372 , 383, 485h-4. A right is a right to the use of water, including any such right of the government, the project operator, or any landowner, appropriator, or user of water, the project beneficiaries.”
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 503 F. Supp. 877 (D. Nev. 1980). “Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. § 372 , states: “The right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act [5 § 485, §§ 372, 373, 381, 383, 391, 392, 411, 416, 419, 421, 431, 432, 439, 461, 491, 498 of this title] shall be appurtenant to the…”
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003). “In resolving this “more hotly contested issue, federal agency discretion,” the court looked both to the authorizing statute, the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. § 372 , the contracts governing BOR’s allocations of water, and case law, in particular a trio of Ninth Circuit cases.”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). “Originally enacted as a proviso to section 8 and now codified at 43 U.S.C. § 372 , the statute provides that “[t]he right to the use of water acquired under [the Reclamation Act] shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and…”
Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. Robertson, 123 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. 2005). “43 U.S.C. § 372 . ¶ 11 Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (“BCPA”), in contrast, authorizes the Secretary to contract for the storage and delivery of water from its projects for irrigation and domestic uses.”
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d 505 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “y of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any…”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella, 935 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1997). “In its Memorandum Opinion Re: Threshold Issues, the trial court acknowledged beneficial use is the measure of a water right under both federal and state law.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella, 131 Wash. 2d 746 (Wash. 1997). “In its Memorandum Opinion Re: Threshold Issues, the trial court acknowledged beneficial use is the measure of a water right under both federal and state law.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Kempthorne, 621 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “43 U.S.C. § 372 (emphasis added). The beneficial use inquiry is “intended to be governed by state law” doctrines concerning beneficial use.”
Neubert v. Yakima-Tieton Irrigation Dist., 814 P.2d 199 (Wash. 1991). “43 U.S.C. §§ 372 , 373. In 1906, plaintiffs' predecessors formed the Tieton Water Users' Association (TWUA) to provide an entity to deliver water from the Tieton River to users within the Yakima Valley.”
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.