43 U.S.C. § 419

Contract for irrigation project; notice as to lands irrigable, unit of entry, and construction charges

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

Upon the determination that any irrigation project is practicable, the Secretary of the Interior may cause to be let contracts for the construction of the same, in such portions or sections as it may be practicable to construct and complete as parts of the whole project, providing the necessary funds for such portions or sections are available, and thereupon he shall give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project, and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the lands in question; also of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the said entries, and upon lands in private ownership which may be irrigated by the waters of the said irrigation project, and the number of annual installments in which such charges shall be paid and the time when such payments shall commence: Provided, That in all construction work eight hours shall constitute a day’s work.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1936–2013 · leading case: San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 43 U.S.C. § 419 . The Reclamation Act also states that contacts with irrigation districts for the delivery of irrigation water “shall be .”

Burley Irr. Dist. v. Ickes, 116 F.2d 529 (D.C. Cir. 1940). · cites it 2× “389 , 43 U.S.C. § 419 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 419 ; for payment of these charges by instalments over a long period of time, and for the recovery of such payments into the Reclamation Fund, 32 Stat.”

Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “388 , 389 (current version at 43 U.S.C. §§ 419 , 461). The operation and maintenance costs of the projects, however, were to be the responsibility of the federal government until such time as the construction payments had been made for the major portion of the lands irrigated by…”

In Re Uintah Basin, 2006 UT 19 (Utah 2006). “All monies received thereafter from the sale and disposal of public lands were also to be paid into the fund to the credit of the project on which such lands were located.”

Minidoka Irrigation Dist. v. Dep't of Interior, 406 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2005). “389 (1902) (current version as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 419 , 461 (2000)). 3 . 43 U.”

Strawberry Water Users Ass'n v. Bureau of Reclamation, 133 P.3d 410 (Utah 2006). “See 43 U.S.C. §§ 419 , 461. In this manner, the Reclamation Fund was to be replenished and used in turn to fund new projects.”

United States v. Coachella Valley Cnty. Water Dist., 111 F. Supp. 172 (S.D. Cal. 1953). “388 , 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 419 , 461, provides in part as follows: “That upon the determination by the Secretary of the Interior that any irrigation project is practicable, * * * said charges shall be determined with a view of returning to the reclamation fund the estimated cost of…”

Ickes v. Fox, 85 F.2d 294 (D.C. Cir. 1936). “Secretary Garfield in 1909, pursuant to Reclamation Act 1902, § 4, 43 U.S.C.A. § 419 , made a finding as to the cost of the *299 irrigation system in addition to the purchase price paid the Washington Irrigation Company, and fixed the price at $52 per acre, which sum would…”

Minidoka Irrigation v. Dep't of the Interior (9th Cir. 2005). “389 (1902) (current version as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 419 , 461 (2000)). 3 43 U.S.”

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.