After December 5, 1924, no new project or new division of a project shall be approved for construction or estimates submitted therefor by the Secretary until information in detail shall be secured by him concerning the water supply, the engineering features, the cost of construction, land prices, and the probable cost of development, and he shall have made a finding in writing that it is feasible, that it is adaptable for actual settlement and farm homes, and that it will probably return the cost thereof to the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1938–1964 · leading case:
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950).
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950).
· cites it 2× “B, 43 U.S.C.A. § 412 ; *786 Act of August 26, 1937, 50 Stat.”
Smith v. United States, 224 F. Supp. 402 (D. Wyo. 1963).
“Plaintiffs claim that they would not have been injured if the Bureau of Reclamation, its agents, servants, employees and expanders had complied with the law.”
Smith v. United States, 333 F.2d 70 (10th Cir. 1964).
“” There was no compliance with 43 U.S.C. § 412 which provides that no new project or new division of a project shall be approved for construction until the Secretary makes a finding “that it is feasible, that it is adaptable for actual settlement and farm homes, and that it will…”
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.