43 U.S.C. § 391

Establishment of “reclamation fund”

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

All moneys received from the sale and disposal of public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, including the surplus of fees and commissions in excess of allowances to officers designated by the Secretary of the Interior, and excepting the 5 per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands in the above States set aside by law for educational and other purposes, shall be, and the same are, reserved, set aside, and appropriated as a special fund in the Treasury to be known as the “reclamation fund”, to be used in the examination and survey for and the construction and maintenance of irrigation works for the storage, diversion, and development of waters for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the said States and Territories, and for the payment of all other expenditures provided for in this Act.

The provisions of the Act entitled “An Act appropriating the receipts from the sale and disposal of public lands in certain States and Territories to the construction of irrigation works for the reclamation of arid lands,” approved June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, be, and the same are hereby, extended so as to include and apply to the State of Texas, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands..11 So in original.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1941–2013 · leading case: Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609 (1981). · cites it 2× “388 , 43 U. S. C. § 391 ; and the remaining 10% to be deposited in the Treasury under "miscellaneous receipts.”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “, 43 U.S.C. §§ 391 , 491, have nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries.”

California v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 495 U.S. 490 (1990). “388 , as codified, 43 U. S. C. §§391 , 411 (1982 ed.), and California v.”

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 43 U.S.C. §§ 391 , 419, 423e, 423f, 461, 485a, 485b-l, 492-93.”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). “” Section 491 does not require the Bureau to take any particular action in its management of its reclamation projects.”

Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). “388, 43 U.S.C. § 391 ) is the basic federal enactment on that subject.”

Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “43 U.S.C. §§ 391 , 411. It was expected that the owners of the newly irrigated lands would repay their share of the construction costs of the reclamation projects over a 10-year period.”

In Re Uintah Basin, 2006 UT 19 (Utah 2006). “, 43 U.S.C. § 391 ; Twin Falls Canal Co. v.”

Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Morton, 420 F. Supp. 1037 (D. Mont. 1976). “887 , and the Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. § 391 , et seq., as amended. 1.”

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 688 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “388 , 43 U.S.C. § 391 et seq., the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 53 Stat.”

Wackerman Dairy, Inc. v. Wilson, 7 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1993). “The Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C. § 391 et seq., empowers the federal government to acquire water rights for the reclamation and irrigation of land like that served by Stony Creek.”

North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “388 (June 17,1902) (codified, as amended in relevant part at 43 U.S.C. § 391 ) (“Reclamation Act”), to establish a Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of Interior to finance “reclaiming” dry land in the western United States through irrigation projects that would…”

Show all 22 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.