43 U.S.C. § 392a

Payment into reclamation fund of receipts from irrigation projects; transfer of power revenues to General Treasury after repayment of construction costs

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

All moneys received by the United States in connection with any irrigation projects, including the incidental power features thereof, constructed by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation, and financed in whole or in part with moneys heretofore or hereafter appropriated or allocated therefor by the Federal Government, shall be covered into the reclamation fund, except in cases where provision has been made by law or contract for the use of such revenues for the benefit of users of water from such project: Provided, That after the net revenues derived from the sale of power developed in connection with any of said projects shall have repaid those construction costs of such project allocated to power to be repaid by power revenues therefrom and shall no longer be required to meet the contractual obligations of the United States, then said net revenues derived from the sale of power developed in connection with such project shall, after the close of each fiscal year, be transferred to and covered into the General Treasury as “miscellaneous receipts”: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), as amended [43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.], or to apply to irrigation projects of the Office of Indian Affairs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2009 · leading case: Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 269 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 269 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Consequently, Congress enacted 43 U.S.C. § 392a, known as the Hayden-O’Mahoney Amendment to the Interior Department Appropriations Act of 1939 (the Amendment or Hayden-O’Mahoney).”

North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “WAPA was to receive and meet financing requirements from the Reclamation Fund, however, two pre-existing laws governed the revenues that WAPA received from the sale of power: the Hayden-O’Mahoney Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 392a, and Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act, 43 U.”

N. Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 636 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 4× “291, 322 (May 9, 1938) (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 392a). It contends that the Interior Department Appropriation Act of 1938 “did not expressly authorize the sharing of [flederal revenues derived from a [federally owned facility” and “cannot be read as impliedly authorizing sharing…”

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.