43 U.S.C. § 423e

Completion of new projects or new division; execution of contract with district as condition precedent to delivery of water; contents of contract; cooperation of States with United States; limitations on sale of land

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

No water shall be delivered upon the completion of any new project or new division of a project until a contract or contracts in form approved by the Secretary of the Interior shall have been made with an irrigation district or irrigation districts organized under State law providing for payment by the district or districts of the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining the works during the time they are in control of the United States, such cost of constructing to be repaid within such terms of years as the Secretary may find to be necessary, in any event not more than forty years from the date of public notice hereinafter referred to, and the execution of said contract or contracts shall have been confirmed by a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. Prior to or in connection with the settlement and development of each of these projects, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized in his discretion to enter into agreement with the proper authorities of the State or States wherein said projects or divisions are located whereby such State or States shall cooperate with the United States in promoting the settlement of the projects or divisions after completion and in the securing and selecting of settlers. Such contract or contracts with irrigation districts hereinbefore referred to shall further provide that all irrigable land held in private ownership by any one owner in excess of one hundred and sixty irrigable acres shall be appraised in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior and the sale prices thereof fixed by the Secretary on the basis of its actual bona fide value at the date of appraisal without reference to the proposed construction of the irrigation works; and that no such excess lands so held shall receive water from any project or division if the owners thereof shall refuse to execute valid recordable contracts for the sale of such lands under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and at prices not to exceed those fixed by the Secretary of the Interior; and that until one-half the construction charges against said lands shall have been fully paid no sale of any such lands shall carry the right to receive water unless and until the purchase price involved in such sale is approved by the Secretary of the Interior and that upon proof of fraudulent representation as to the true consideration involved in such sales the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cancel the water right attaching to the land involved in such fraudulent sales: Provided, however, That if excess land is acquired by foreclosure or other process of law, by conveyance in satisfaction of mortgages, by inheritance, or by devise, water therefor may be furnished temporarily for a period not exceeding five years from the effective date of such acquisition, delivery of water thereafter ceasing until the transfer thereof to a landowner duly qualified to secure water therefor: Provided further, That the operation and maintenance charges on account of lands in said projects and divisions shall be paid annually in advance not later than March 1. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to give public notice when water is actually available, and the operation and maintenance charges payable to the United States for the first year after such public notice shall be transferred to and paid as a part of the construction payment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2022 · leading case: State of Washington v. Stewart L. Udall, Sec'y of the Interior, 417 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1969).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Washington v. Stewart L. Udall, Sec'y of the Interior, 417 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1969). · cites it 9× “The Government’s Project Manager for the Columbia Basin Project denied delivery of the water to more than 160 irrigable acres because of the “excess land” or “160-aere limitation” imposed by Congress in 43 U.S.C. § 423e upon “all irrigable land held in private ownership by any…”

California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978). · cites it 2× “524 , 43 U. S. C. § 423e. [3] They also contained the *683 40-year payout provisions provided for in § 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 53 Stat.”

United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001). “389 (1902) (making landowner eligible for federal project water if he owned less than 160 acres, but not limiting such water delivery to non-leased lands).”

Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). · cites it 4× “649, 650, 43 U.S.C. § 423e (1946), Federal Reclamation Laws, Ann.”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 43 U.S.C. §§ 423e & 521. As is relevant here, the Bureau contracts with irrigation districts for the delivery of water from the San Luis Unit.”

Stockton East Water Dist. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 321 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 43 U.S.C. § 423e (limiting contracting authority of Reclamation to “irrigation districts orga *350 nized under State law”).”

Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958). · cites it 2× “524 , 43 U. S. C. § 423e. For the applicable California statutes authorizing such procedure, see Cal.”

Victor Bowker v. Rogers C. B. Morton, & Kern Cnty. Water Agency, Intervenors-Appellees, 541 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 423e. The most the district court could order would be a discontinuance of the water supply to the excess lands.”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “649 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. § 423e). Thereafter, the United States contracted exclusively with irrigation districts.”

Orchards v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 601 (Ct. Cl. 1984). · cites it 2× “Second, 43 U.S.C. § 423e (1976) provides that every federal contract for the delivery of water must be made with an irrigation district organized under state law.”

United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “ices not to exceed those fixed by the Secretary of the Interior; and that until one-half the construction charges against said lands shall have been fully paid no sale of any such lands shall carry the right to receive water unless and until the purchase price involved in such…”

Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352 (1980). “(part 2) 649, 43 U. S. C. § 423e, forbade delivery of reclamation project water to any irrigable land held in private ownership by one owner in excess of 160 acres, 8 and required owners to execute recordable contracts for the sale of excess lands before such lands could receive…”

Show all 47 citing cases →

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.