On and after December 22, 1944, whenever the Secretary of the Army determines, upon recommendation by the Secretary of the Interior that any dam and reservoir project operated under the direction of the Secretary of the Army may be utilized for irrigation purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain, under the provisions of the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto), such additional works in connection therewith as he may deem necessary for irrigation purposes. Such irrigation works may be undertaken only after a report and findings thereon have been made by the Secretary of the Interior as provided in said Federal reclamation laws and after subsequent specific authorization of the Congress by an authorization Act; and, within the limits of the water users’ repayment ability such report may be predicated on the allocation to irrigation of an appropriate portion of the cost of structures and facilities used for irrigation and other purposes. Dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the Secretary of the Army may be utilized after December 22, 1944, for irrigation purposes only in conformity with the provisions of this section, but the foregoing requirement shall not prejudice lawful uses now existing: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any dam or reservoir heretofore constructed in whole or in part by the Army engineers, which provides conservation storage of water for irrigation purposes. In the case of any reservoir project constructed and operated by the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to allocate water which was allocated in the project purpose for municipal and industrial water supply and which is not under contract for delivery, for such periods as he may deem reasonable, for the interim use for irrigation purposes of such storage until such storage is required for municipal and industrial water supply. No contracts for the interim use of such storage shall be entered into which would significantly affect then-existing uses of such storage.
Notes of Decisions
Nat. Energy Resources Co. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist., 142 P.3d 1265 (Colo. 2006).
“First, the Applicant’s attempt to utilize the Taylor Park Reservoir in the operation of the Union Park Project is a violation of the Water Supply Act of 1954, 43 U.S.C. § 390 (b) which provides that a major operational change in a federal project requires congressional approval.”
ETSI Pipeline Proj. v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495 (1988).
“See 43 U. S. C. §390 (1946 ed.). Ill A In light of these specific provisions, as well as the general background to the Act, it is beyond question that the Interior Secretary does not possess the authority that is claimed in this case: to execute a contract to provide water from…”
Max E. Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist., 360 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1966).
· cites it 2× “891 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 390 . Second, it was alleged that they stored water in Pine Flat reservoir for purposes other than flood control without a permit required by sections 225 and 1252 of the Water Code of California, in violation of section 8 of Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat.”
United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976).
“891 , 43 U.S.C. § 390 . . All of the authorities cited in this portion of the Turner opinion, both as initially filed and as modified, dealt with whether the reclamation laws as such are applicable to the Pine Flat Dam.”
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950).
“” ( 43 U.S.C.A. § 390 .) “Sec. 9. (a) The general comprehensive plans set forth in House Document 475 and Senate Document 191, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, as revised and coordinated by Senate Document 247, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, are hereby approved…”
In Re Tri-State Water Rights Litig., 639 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2009).
“; the Water Supply Act (“WSA”), 43 U.S.C. § 390 et seq.; the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”), 16 U.”
North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“§§ 701-09 (2000), and 43 U.S.C. § 390 (2000)); and the United States Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 ("DOE Organization Act”), Pub.”
North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“§§ 701-09 (2000), 43 U.S.C. § 390 (2000)); and the United States Department of Energy, Organization Act of 1977 ("DOE Organization Act”), Pub.”
Missouri v. Andrews, 787 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1986).
“The amendment limits the applicability of the reclamation laws under section 8 to (1) projects which have by federal statute explicitly been designated, made a part of, or integrated into, a Federal reclamation project; and (2) projects for which the Secretary of the Interior…”
United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 677 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1982).
“887 , 891; 43 U.S.C. § 390 . Among the provisions of the federal reclamation laws is Section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, 44 Stat.”
Bostwick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir. 1990).
“See 43 U.S.C. § 390 . Section 8 also provides that “irrigation works may be undertaken only after a report and findings thereon have been made by the Secretary of the Interior * * * and, within the limits of the water users’ repayment ability such report may be predicated on the…”
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.