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

43 U.S.C. § 390cc

New or amended contracts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) GenerallyThe provisions of this subchapter shall be applicable to any district which—(1) enters into a contract with the Secretary subsequent to October 12, 1982;(2) enters into any amendment of its contract with the Secretary subsequent to October 12, 1982, which enables the district to receive supplemental or additional benefits; or(3) which amends its contract for the purpose of conforming to the provisions of this subchapter.(b) Amendment of existing contracts

Any district which has an existing contract with the Secretary as of October 12, 1982, which does not enter into an amendment of such contract as specified in subsection (a) shall be subject to Federal reclamation law in effect immediately prior to October 12, 1982, as that law is amended or supplemented by sections 209 through 230 of this title [43 U.S.C. 390ii—390zz–1, 373a, 422e, 425b, 485h]. Within a district that does not enter into an amendment of its contract with the Secretary within four and one-half years of October 12, 1982, irrigation water may be delivered to lands leased in excess of a landholding of one hundred and sixty acres only if full cost, as defined in section 390bb(3)(A) of this title, is paid for such water as is assignable to those lands leased in excess of such landholding of one hundred and sixty acres: Provided, That the interest rate used in computing full cost under this subsection shall be the same as provided in section 390ee(a)(3) of this title.

(c) Election by qualified or limited recipients in absence of amendment to contract

In the absence of an amendment to a contract, as specified in subsection (a), a qualified recipient or limited recipient may elect to be subject to the provisions of this subchapter by executing an irrevocable election in a form approved by the Secretary to comply with this subchapter. The district shall thereupon deliver irrigation water to and collect from such recipient, for the credit of the United States, the additional charges required by this subchapter and assignable to the recipient making the election.

(d) Consent of non-Federal party

Amendments to contracts which are not required by the provisions of this subchapter shall not be made without the consent of the non-Federal party.

(Pub. L. 97–293, title II, § 203, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1264.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Federal reclamation law, referred to in subsec. (b), is defined in section 390aa of this title.

Sections 209 through 230 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), are sections 209 through 230 of title II of Pub. L. 97–293, which enacted sections 390ii through 390zz–1 of this title, amended sections 373a, 422e, 425b, and 485h of this title, and repealed section 383 of Title 25, Indians.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1986–2009 · leading case: United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “In the 1982 RRA, Congress also added the so-called “hammer clause,” section 203(b), codified at 43 U.S.C. § 390cc (2000), in conference committee, 17 which gave districts with water contracts predating the effective date of the RRA a choice to either voluntarily and irrevocably…”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Duvall, 777 F. Supp. 1533 (E.D. Cal. 1991). “The Act contains a “hammer clause,” 43 U.S.C. § 390cc, which provides that any water district that does not conform its contracts to comport with the discretionary provisions of the RRA by April 12, 1987, must pay full costs for water delivered to land holdings in excess of 160…”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “, 43 U.S.C. §§ 390cc(d), 390ee(b). To be sure, both the RRA and pre-1986 excess land laws give rise to legal consequences that depend on the type of contractual arrangement entered into by the parties.”
Orange Cove Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 790 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “43 U.S.C. § 390cc(b) (1982). The proposed amended regulations were issued on November 7, 1986.”
Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 899 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “§ 390ee] during the period that they have been given to dispose of their excess lands pursuant to their existing recordable contracts, unless they take action to bring themselves within those provisions in the manner provided in RRA § 203 [43 U.S.C. § 390cc], As I have already…”
United States v. Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 649 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a). Districts with contracts entered into before October, 1982 still are subject to the provisions of the 1902 Reclamation Act except that such districts are subject to certain provisions of the new law not applicable herein.”
Peterson v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “” 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a) and (b). 14 Section 203(b) gives the Water Districts the option of amending pre-existing contracts to conform to the RRA’s new provisions, the most important of which are: the increased 960-acre limitation and the decreased subsidy for reclamation water.”
Madera Irrigation Dist. v. Hancock, 985 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1993). “See 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(d) (1988). This section provides that— Amendments to contracts which are not required by the provisions of this sub- *1406 chapter shall not be made without the consent of the non-Federal party.”
Bostwick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir. 1990). “…prior to October 12, 1982, as that law is amended or supplemented by sections 209 through 230 of this title.” 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(b).”
— 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a) — 2 cases
United States v. Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 649 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. Wash. 1986). “43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a). Districts with contracts entered into before October, 1982 still are subject to the provisions of the 1902 Reclamation Act except that such districts are subject to certain provisions of the new law not applicable herein.”
Peterson v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990). “” 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a) and (b). 14 Section 203(b) gives the Water Districts the option of amending pre-existing contracts to conform to the RRA’s new provisions, the most important of which are: the increased 960-acre limitation and the decreased subsidy for reclamation water.”
— 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(b) — 6 cases
United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001). “In the 1982 RRA, Congress also added the so-called “hammer clause,” section 203(b), codified at 43 U.S.C. § 390cc (2000), in conference committee, 17 which gave districts with water contracts predating the effective date of the RRA a choice to either voluntarily and irrevocably…”
Orange Cove Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 790 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “43 U.S.C. § 390cc(b) (1982). The proposed amended regulations were issued on November 7, 1986.”
Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 899 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990). “§ 390ee] during the period that they have been given to dispose of their excess lands pursuant to their existing recordable contracts, unless they take action to bring themselves within those provisions in the manner provided in RRA § 203 [43 U.S.C. § 390cc], As I have already…”
United States v. Quincy-Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 649 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. Wash. 1986). “43 U.S.C. § 390cc(a). Districts with contracts entered into before October, 1982 still are subject to the provisions of the 1902 Reclamation Act except that such districts are subject to certain provisions of the new law not applicable herein.”
Bostwick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 900 F.2d 1285 (8th Cir. 1990). “…prior to October 12, 1982, as that law is amended or supplemented by sections 209 through 230 of this title.” 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(b).”
— 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(c) — 1 case
Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 899 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990). “§ 390ee] during the period that they have been given to dispose of their excess lands pursuant to their existing recordable contracts, unless they take action to bring themselves within those provisions in the manner provided in RRA § 203 [43 U.S.C. § 390cc], As I have already…”
— 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(d) — 2 cases
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “, 43 U.S.C. §§ 390cc(d), 390ee(b). To be sure, both the RRA and pre-1986 excess land laws give rise to legal consequences that depend on the type of contractual arrangement entered into by the parties.”
Madera Irrigation Dist. v. Hancock, 985 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1993). “See 43 U.S.C. § 390cc(d) (1988). This section provides that— Amendments to contracts which are not required by the provisions of this sub- *1406 chapter shall not be made without the consent of the non-Federal party.”
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.