43 U.S.C. § 421
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER RELEASES.
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to install a temperature control curtain as a demonstration project at Shasta Dam, Central Valley project, California, at a cost not to exceed $5,500,000. The purpose of the demonstration project is to determine the effectiveness of the temperature control curtain in controlling the temperature of water releases from Shasta Dam, so as to protect and enhance anadromous fisheries in the Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Estuary[.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1950–1995 · leading case: California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978).
California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978). “Section 7 of the Reclamation Act, now 43 U. S. C. § 421 , authorizes the Secretary to acquire any rights or property *694 by purchase or condemnation under judicial process, and the Attorney General is directed to institute suit at the request of the Secretary.”
Max E. Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist., 360 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1966). “389 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 421 , applicable to the irrigation features of the Pine Flat project.”
United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). “389 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 421 , applicable to the irrigation features of the Pine Flat project.”
Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). “In holding the Ivanhoe contract invalid, the majority opinion invokes the aid of a “trust” theory assertedly based on general state law.”
Rank v. (Krug) United States, 142 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Cal. 1956). “42 Section 7 and Section 8 of the basic Reclamation Act (now 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 421 , 372, and 383) read as follows: “Sec.”
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950). “” 43 U.S.C.A. § 421 . “Sec. 8. That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any…”
State of California, United States of Am. v. Everett G. Rank, 293 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1961). “389 , 43 U.S.C. § 421 : “That where in carrying out the provisions of this Act it becomes necessary to acquire any rights or *355 property, the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to acquire the same for the United States by purchase or by condemnation under judicial…”
Mafrige v. United States, 893 F. Supp. 691 (S.D. Tex. 1995). “43 U.S.C. § 421 (emphasis added). Because there can be no doubt that this section gives the Secretary the authority to purchase an executive interest, i.”
United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 649 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1981). “That the Secretary of the Interi- or is hereby authorized to perform any and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into full force and effect.”
United States v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 169 F. Supp. 735 (D. Wyo. 1959). “) 43 U.S.C.A. § 421 . Pursuant to the Act of Congress of 1864 the Railway Company selected Sec *737 tion 35 as an indemnity selection and on August 20, 1908, the United States issued its patent to the Railway Company conveying Section 35 in fee but failed and neglected to make a…”
United States v. 20.53 Acres of Land in Osborne Cnty., 263 F. Supp. 694 (1967). “43 U.S.C. § 421 relates to acquisition of lands for irrigation projects and provides for purchase or condemnation of any rights of property, by the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of carrying out the authorizations and directions made under the Federal Reclamation Act…”
United States v. 71.22 Acres of Land in Utah Cnty., Utah, 665 F. Supp. 885 (D. Utah 1987). “§ 421 provides: Where, in carrying out the provisions of this Act it becomes necessary to acquire any rights or property, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire the same for the United States by purchase or condemnation under judicial process, and to pay from the…”
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.