U.S. Code » Title 43 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— RECLAMATION AND IRRIGATION OF LANDS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— WATER RIGHT APPLICATIONS AND LAND ENTRIES

43 U.S.C. § 431

Limitation as to amount of water; qualifications of applicant

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

No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one landowner, and no such sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land, and no such right shall permanently attach until all payments therefor are made.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1930–2009 · leading case: Torrez v. Torrez (In Re Torrez), 63 B.R. 751 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Torrez v. Torrez (In Re Torrez), 63 B.R. 751 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “43 U.S.C. § 431 . The Appellants John and Jessie Torrez already owned 160 acres prior to purchasing these additional 120 acres.”
Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). · cites it 2× “389 , 43 U. S. C. § 431—that water deliveries to each user not exceed the quantity required for 160 acres—prevails over state law, not that state law does not generally govern priorities in the use of water from federal reclamation projects under § 8.”
Holguin v. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist., 575 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1977). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 431 (1970). They were attempting to enforce the requirement in that section that water users be residents.”
United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 7× “389 , 43 U.S.C. § 431 . That statute contains an earlier version of acreage limitations on lands receiving water through federal reclamation projects.”
Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958). “389 , 43 U. S. C. § 431 . This provision was substantially re-enacted in § 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926, 44 Stat.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Duvall, 777 F. Supp. 1533 (E.D. Cal. 1991). · cites it 2× “" 43 U.S.C. § 431 . 3 . Delivery was restricted to “an actual bona fide resident on such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land.”
Victor Bowker v. Rogers C. B. Morton, & Kern Cnty. Water Agency, Intervenors-Appellees, 541 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1976). “The residency requirement, whatever its scope may be, appears in 43 U.S.C. § 431 . 2 . This implies that we do not have before us the question of plaintiffs’ standing on the basis of the allegation that the failure to apply federal reclamation law in the operation of the state…”
Max E. Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist., 360 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1966). · cites it 2× “389 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 431 , and of section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of May 25, 1926, 44 Stat.”
United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 535 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). “389 , 43 U.S.C. § 431 . . The private landowner was also required by regulation to reclaim at least half of the irrigable land in his tract.”
Metro. Water Dist. v. Marquardt, 379 P.2d 28 (Cal. 1963). “389, 43 U.S.C. § 431 , and acts amendatory and supplementary thereto.”
Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). “389, 43 U.S.C.A. §431 .) Subsequent enactments contain similar provisions making specific reference to lands in private ownership.”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “” 43 U.S.C. § 431 . Congress later directed that project water would be withheld from any lands in excess of 160 acres in single ownership unless the owner executed a recordable contract to sell excess land at a discount price that did not reflect the appreciation in value…”
Show all 28 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.