43 U.S.C. § 416

REPORT.

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

“Not later than March 1, 1990, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit a report and recommendations to the President and Congress on—“(1) expenditures and accomplishments under this part;“(2) legislative and administrative recommendations for responding to droughts and drought related problems in the Reclamation States; and“(3) structural and non-structural measures to mitigate the effects of droughts.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1938–1976 · leading case: United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “388 , 43 U.S.C. §§ 416 , 434. See H.R.Rep.No.1468, 57th Cong.”

Verde River Irrigation & Power Dist. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 94 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1938). “1093, § 3, 43 U.S.C.A. § 416 , the Secretary of the Interior was directed to “withdraw from public entry the lands required for any irrigation works,” among other things.”

United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 322 F. Supp. 11 (S.D. Cal. 1971). “43 U.S.C. §§ 416 , 432, 434. This statute provides that public lands proposed for irrigation under reclamation projects shall be withdrawn and subject to entry under the homestead laws in tracts of not more than 160 acres.”

Walkeng Mining Co. v. Covey, 352 P.2d 768 (Ariz. 1960). “3, Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C.A. § 416 ) withdrew all of Township 32 North, Range 10 West of the G & SRB & M “excepting any tract title to which has passed out of the United States” from public entry under the first form of withdrawal.”

Foster v. Jensen, 296 F. Supp. 1348 (C.D. Cal. 1966). “388 , on September 10, 1940; 43 U.S.C. § 416 , The Bureau of Land Management records establish that the aforesaid order of withdrawal was never abrogated, revoked, cancelled, or rescinded as to the real property and premises described as aforesaid; On September 1, 1960,…”

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.