The Secretary is authorized, in connection with the construction or operation and maintenance of any project, (a) to purchase or condemn suitable lands or interests in lands for relocation of highways, roadways, railroads, telegraph, telephone, or electric transmission lines, or any other properties whatsoever, the relocation of which in the judgment of the Secretary is necessitated by said construction or operation and maintenance, and to perform any or all work involved in said relocations on said lands or interests in lands, other lands or interests in lands owned and held by the United States in connection with the construction or operation and maintenance of said project, or properties not owned by the United States; (b) to enter into contracts with the owners of said properties whereby they undertake to acquire any or all property needed for said relocation, or to perform any or all work involved in said relocations; and (c) for the purpose of effecting completely said relocations, to convey or exchange Government properties acquired or improved under (a) above, with or without improvements, or other properties owned and held by the United States in connection with the construction or operation and maintenance of said project, or to grant perpetual easements therein or thereover. Grants or conveyances hereunder shall be by instruments executed by the Secretary without regard to provisions of law governing the patenting of public lands.
The Secretary is further authorized, for the purpose of orderly and economical construction or operation and maintenance of any project, to enter into such contracts for exchange or replacement of water, water rights, or electric energy or for the adjustment of water rights, as in his judgment are necessary and in the interests of the United States and the project.
Notes of Decisions
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).
· cites it 2× “, 43 U. S. C. §§ 389 , 440. The men who wrote the Project Act were familiar with western water law.”
United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno Cnty., 547 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2008).
“” 43 U.S.C. § 389 . But the "relocation” condition — to the extent it is judicially reviewable at all — does not curtail the Secretary's authorization to condemn land stemming from the other enactments to which we already have referred.”
United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less, 530 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2008).
“” 43 U.S.C. § 389 . But the "relocation” condition — to the extent it is judicially reviewable at all — does not curtail the Secretary’s authorization to condemn land stemming from the other enactments to which we already have referred.”
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950).
“” ( 43 U.S.C.A. § 389 .) *817 18. Act of April 6, 1940, 54 Stat.”
Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy Dist. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (D. Colo. 2008).
· cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 389 (2006). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Secretary violated this provision by entering into the Contract without making findings that the Contract serves the purpose of orderly and economical construction or operation of the Fry-Ark Project, or that it…”
Salt Lake City v. W. Area Power Admin., 926 F.2d 974 (10th Cir. 1991).
“Although WAPA’s purchases of nonfederal power cannot be classified as exchanges of power, the Reclamation Act nonetheless demonstrates that Congress ordinarily does not intend to forbid federal power agencies from interacting with non-federal power sources.”
United States v. Sawyer (9th Cir. 2008).
“” 43 U.S.C. § 389 . But the “relocation” condition—to the extent it is judicially reviewable at all—does not curtail the Secretary’s authorization to condemn land stemming from the other enactments to which we already have referred.”
United States v. Sawyer (9th Cir. 2008).
“” 43 U.S.C. § 389 . But the “relocation” condition—to the extent it is judicially reviewable at all—does not curtail the Secretary’s authorization to condemn land stemming from the other enactments to which we already have referred.”
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.