43 U.S.C. § 485
Declaration of policy
For the purpose of providing for United States reclamation projects a feasible and comprehensive plan for an economical and equitable treatment of repayment problems and for variable payments of construction charges which can be met regularly and fully from year to year during periods of decline in agricultural income and unsatisfactory conditions of agriculture as well as during periods of prosperity and good prices for agricultural products, and which will protect adequately the financial interest of the United States in said projects, obligations to pay construction charges may be revised or undertaken pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1950–2013 · leading case: Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 177 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 177 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “1187 (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 485 -485k (2006)), “to provide a feasible and comprehensive plan for the variable payment of construction charges on United States reclamation projects,” id.”
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003). “The MRGP Plan included “fish and wildlife features” and further provided: In general, any contract between the district and the United States should be in pursuance of the Federal reclamation laws as modified by specific direction of the Congress in pursuance of the provisions…”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella, 935 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1997). “43 U.S.C. §§ 485 , 485b, 485g. YTID reads the trial court's language regarding reclassification as somehow allowing BOR to unilaterally reclassify YTID's acreage without regard to the statutory requirements for undergoing such a reclassification under 43 U.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella, 131 Wash. 2d 746 (Wash. 1997). “43 U.S.C. §§ 485 , 485b, 485g. YTID reads the trial court’s language regarding reclassification as somehow allowing BOR to unilaterally reclassify YTID’s acreage without regard to the statutory requirements for undergoing such a reclassification under 43 U.”
Rank v. (Krug) United States, 142 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Cal. 1956). “1187, 43 U.S.C.A. § 485 . All of the contracts with the Irrigation Districts are, from the "evidence, made under Section 9(e) of said Act, 43 U.”
Rank v. Krug, 90 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. Cal. 1950). “” ( 43 U.S.C.A. § 485 .) “Sec. 7 * * * (c) The Secretary from time to time shall report to the Congress on any proposed contracts negotiated pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) or (b) (1) of this section, and he may execute any such contract on behalf of the United…”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “See 43 U.S.C. § 485 . To that end, the 1939 Act addressed the Secretary’s contracting authority in two respects that are of particular relevance to this appeal.”
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 688 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “1187 , 43 U.S.C. § 485 et seq., and the Columbia Basin Project Act, 16 U.”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (E.D. Wash. 2008). “Section 9(e) contracts are contracts between the ASGW Irrigators and the Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 485 (e). 2 . The district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the claims court for actions not exceeding $10,000.”
North Star Steel Co. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “4, 1939) (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. §§ 485 , et seq.). Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act required that the rates charged to power customers must be set at a level high enough to recover the full costs of purchasing, transmitting, and selling power generated by…”
Missouri v. Andrews, 787 F.2d 270 (8th Cir. 1986). “of 1939, 43 U.S.C. § 485 (h) (1982); The Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.”
United States v. Tex-La Elec. Coop., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 409 (E.D. La. 1981). “, the *420 Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. § 485 et seq. and the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, 43 U.”
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.