U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— RECLAMATION AND IRRIGATION OF LANDS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

43 U.S.C. § 383

Vested rights and State laws unaffected

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary 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 interstate stream or the waters thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1936–2024 · leading case: United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. City of Las Cruces, 289 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “390 (codified in part at 43 U.S.C. § 383 ); see also California v.”
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud, 848 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “On October 1, 2014, the district court issued a Memorandum Decision resolving these motions as follows: (1) the Water Contractors lacked standing to bring their ESA claim; (2) the NEPA claim was moot; (3) the 2013 flow augmentation release did not violate CVPIA § 3411(a) or 43 U.”
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Kenneth Salazar, 730 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “43 U.S.C. § 383 . According to the Conservancy, the United States Secretary of the Interior and subordinate officials responsible for operating the Hatchery (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”) violate section 8 by diverting water from Icicle Creek without a permit required…”
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). · cites it 4× “390 , 43 U. S. C. § 383 , directs the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out his duties under the Act to proceed in accordance with state and territorial laws and declares that nothing in the federal act "shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal…”
United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cnty., 547 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 383 . Although the Reclamation Act of 1902 does disclaim preemption of state law, it is irrelevant to this case, for it applies only to the “control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder.”
Stockton East Water Dist. v. United States, 583 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “gov/projects/ (select "New Melones Unit Project"; then follow "Project History" hyperlink) (last visited Sept.”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 4× “43 U.S.C. § 383 . Permits and licenses issued by California’s State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”), together with relevant SWRCB decisions and orders, define the parameters and conditions under which Reclamation may divert and deliver project water, which is then…”
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (E.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 12× “4700 (1992), and the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. § 383 . Doc. 95, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at ¶¶ 77-91.”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “1 The Farmers rely on section 8 of the Reclamation Act, codified in part at 43 U.S.C. § 383 , and section 1702 of the California Water Code.”
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. United States, 672 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “"Under section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 ( 43 U.S.C. § 383 ), the Bureau is required to comply with state law in acquiring water rights for the diversion and storage of water by the CVP.”
United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 182 Cal. App. 3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “) Under section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 ( 43 U.S.C. § 383 ), the U.S. Bureau is required to comply with state law and to acquire water rights for diversion and storage of water by the CVP.”
United States v. Water Resources Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 43 U.S.C. § 383 ; California v. United States, 438 U.”
Show all 100 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.