43 U.S.C. § 498
Transfer of management and operation of works to water users generally
When the payments required by this Act are made for the major portion of the lands irrigated from the waters of any of the works herein provided for, then the management and operation of such irrigation works shall pass to the owners of the lands irrigated thereby, to be maintained at their expense under such form of organization and under such rules and regulations as may be acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior; Provided, That the title to and the management and operation of the reservoirs and the works necessary for their protection and operation shall remain in the Government until otherwise provided by Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1932–2009 · leading case: Uhlmann v. Wren, 401 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1965).
Uhlmann v. Wren, 401 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1965). “Following the transfer of the operation and management of the irrigation system to the local association in the Salt River reclamation project, Congress passed an amendment to the Act of April 16, 1906, titled the Act of September 18, 1922, c.”
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 503 F. Supp. 877 (D. Nev. 1980). “) Furthermore, 43 U.S.C. § 498 empowers the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the operation and management of irrigation works to project landowners once payments for a major portion of the project lands are made.”
Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 14 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “As is required by 43 U.S.C. § 498 , Contract No. 0-07-10-W0242 incorporates as a part of its Clause No.”
Burley Irr. Dist. v. Ickes, 116 F.2d 529 (D.C. Cir. 1940). “There is of course a dovetailing of federal and state laws in the control of the complicated structure of rights and organization which characterizes the project as a whole. 3 Section 6 of the Reclamation Law provides: “The title to and the management and operation of the…”
Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). “389, 43 U.S.C.A. § 498 .) There is no reason why the parties cannot agree that title to the project works shall remain in the United States after repayment of construction costs.”
Grant Cnty. Black Sands Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “43 U.S.C. § 498 . It soon became clear that the landowners’ repayment obligations far exceeded their ability to pay.”
Hudspeth Cnty. Conservation & Reclamation Dist. No. 1 v. Robbins, 213 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1954). “See 43 U.S.C.A. § 498 . Their operation depends upon the flow of water.”
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2, 59 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1932). “2 a party in interest — the proper party defendant? It is obvious from the findings of fact and the record that not only is title to the system in issue in the United States, but that it has exclusive control and entire supervision of construction and will have until the project…”
N. Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 636 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “at 389 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 498 ). Congress subsequently granted the Secretary of the Interior the authority to enter into contracts with irrigation districts whereby the districts would pay the cost of constructing and operating water projects.”
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.