43 U.S.C. § 491
Authority of Secretary to operate works
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to use the reclamation fund for the operation and maintenance of all reservoirs and irrigation works constructed under the provisions of this Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1929–2013 · leading case: San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013).
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013). “4 The Farmers’ last “operation” claim is based on section 6 of the Reclamation Act, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 491 . Section 491 “authorize^] and direct[s]” the Secretary of the Interior “to use the reclamation fund for the operation and maintenance of all reservoirs and irrigation…”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “Plaintiffs do not explain how 43 U.S.C. § 491 or any subsequent act of Congress relevant to the Unit dictates the San Luis Unit shall operate at maximum capacity.”
United States v. Pioneer Irrigation Dist., 157 P.3d 600 (Idaho 2007). “43 U.S.C. §§ 491 , 498. While “[t]he history of the relationship between the Federal Government and the States in the reclamation of the arid lands of the Western States is both long and involved .”
Malone v. El Paso Cnty. Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 20 S.W.2d 815 (Tex. App. 1929). “Section 6 of said act, article 4232, Barnes’ Federal Code 1919 (43 USCA §§ 491, 498) provides: “That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to use the reclamation fund for the operation and maintenance of all reservoirs and irrigation works constructed…”
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2, 59 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1932). “, in each case was in the United States, and section 6 of the Federal Reclamation Act (43 USCA §§ 491, 498) applies to eaeh. The findings, supported by the evidence, are conclusive that appellee had not succeeded to the management, operation, or control; and that is the decisive…”
Molokai Homesteaders Coop. Ass'n v. Morton, 356 F. Supp. 148 (D. Haw. 1973). “For example, 43 U.S.C. § 491 is directly contrary to 43 U.”
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2, 49 F.2d 632 (D. Idaho 1931). “389 , § 6 (43 USCA §§ 491, 498). In a recent ease decided by the Supreme Court of Texas, where an action was brought against an irrigation district which had entered into a contract with the United States, pursuant to' the provisions of the reclamation laws, it was held that 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.