In carrying out the purposes of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto and known as the reclamation law, the Secretary of the Interior may enter into contract with any legally organized irrigation district whereby such irrigation district shall agree to pay the moneys required to be paid to the United States, and in such event water-right applications on the part of landowners and entrymen, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, may be dispensed with. In the event of such contract being made with an irrigation district, the Secretary of the Interior, in his discretion, may contract that the payments, both for the construction of irrigation works and for operation and maintenance, on the part of the district shall be made upon such dates as will best conform to the district and taxation laws of the respective States under which such irrigation districts shall be formed, and if he deem it advisable he may contract for such penalties or interest charges in case of delinquency in payments as he may deem proper and consistent with such State laws, notwithstanding the provisions of sections 471, 472, 475, 478 to 481, 492, 493, 494 to 497 and 499 of this title. The Secretary of the Interior may accept a partial payment of the amount due from any district to the United States, providing such acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of the balance remaining due nor the interest or penalties, if any, accruing upon said balance: Provided, That no contract with an irrigation district under this section and sections 512 and 513 of this title shall be binding on the United States until the proceedings on the part of the district for the authorization of the execution of the contract with the United States shall have been confirmed by decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, or pending appellate action if ground for appeal be laid.
Notes of Decisions
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 153 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
· cites it 2× “, 43 U.S.C. § 511 (2001). As the owner of CVP water rights, the United States has contractual authority and administrative discretion over how it provides water service among the CVP’s water and power-users, and how it fixes priorities among them.”
Bryant v. Yellen, 447 U.S. 352 (1980).
“541 , 43 U. S. C. § 511 , authorized the Secretary to contract with irrigation districts but provided that no contract under the section “shall be binding on the United States until the proceedings on the part of the district for the authorization of the execution of the…”
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“541 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 511 ). In the event of such a district contract, the United States was authorized to release liens against individual landowners, provided that the landowners agreed to be subject to “assessment and levy for the collection of all moneys due and to…”
Del Puerto Water Dist. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 271 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2003).
“Parties who receive water do not file appropriation permits with the California DWR, as is normally required to perfect priority of the right to take water from a California water source, see *1248 Cal.”
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
“541 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 511 ). In the event of such a district contract, the United States was authorized to release liens against individual landowners, provided that the landowners agreed to be subject to “assessment and levy for the collection of all moneys due and to…”
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 637 F. Supp. 2d 777 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Westlands and the Authority’s other member agencies have standing to sue in their own right under the Reclamation Act, see 43 U.S.C. § 511 . The interests the Authority seeks to protect in this lawsuit are germane to the organization’s stated purpose, namely to preserve and…”
Orchards v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 601 (Ct. Cl. 1984).
“Title 43 U.S.C. §§ 511 and 523 (1976) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with such legally authorized irrigation districts for the impounding, storage, distribution and delivery of water to such districts in return for payments by the districts for the…”
United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 322 F. Supp. 11 (S.D. Cal. 1971).
· cites it 2× “…the contract could simply have been made pursuant to § 5 of the Project Act and § 1 of the 1922 Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. § 511 . 11 The mere existence of § 511 forecloses the argument that § 46 of the 1926 Act provided the only means of contracting for repayment in 1932…”
Yellen v. Hickel, 352 F. Supp. 1300 (S.D. Cal. 1972).
· cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 511 6 gives the state courts the power to confirm “proceedings on the part of the district for the authorization of the execution of the contract with the United States.”
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.