Whenever in carrying out the provisions of the reclamation law, storage or carrying capacity has been or may be provided in excess of the requirements of the lands to be irrigated under any project, the Secretary of the Interior, preserving a first right to lands and entrymen under the project, is authorized, upon such terms as he may determine to be just and equitable, to contract for the impounding, storage, and carriage of water to an extent not exceeding such excess capacity with irrigation systems operating under section 641 of this title, and individuals, corporations, associations, and irrigation districts organized for or engaged in furnishing or in distributing water for irrigation. Water so impounded, stored, or carried under any such contract shall be for the purpose of distribution to individual water users by the party with whom the contract is made: Provided, however, That water so impounded, stored, or carried shall not be used otherwise than as prescribed by law as to lands held in private ownership within Government reclamation projects. In fixing the charges under any such contract for impounding, storing, or carrying water for any irrigation system, corporation, association, district, or individual, as herein provided, the Secretary shall take into consideration the cost of construction and maintenance of the reservoir by which such water is to be impounded or stored and the canal by which it is to be carried, and such charges shall be just and equitable as to water users under the Government project. No irrigation system, district, association, corporation, or individual so contracting shall make any charge for the storage, carriage, or delivery of such water in excess of the charge paid to the United States except to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to cover cost of carriage and delivery of such water through their works.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case:
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1 (1995).
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1 (1995).
· cites it 3× “, (c) promotes inefficiency and waste of water contrary to federal and state law, (d) violates the contract rights of the North Platte Project Irrigation Districts and violates the provisions of the Warren Act, 43 U. S. C. § 523 , . . . and (e) exceeds the limitations in the…”
Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“925 (codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 523–25 (2012)). Baley, 134 Fed.”
Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 677 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
“925 , codified at 43 U.S.C. § 523 , which permits the Secretary to contract for Project water to the extent that it has excess storage or carrying capacity.”
Ronald Miller v. Robert W. Jennings, 243 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1957).
“Of these controversies the first is as to the effect of and priorities under the laws of Texas relating to appropriative water rights; the second relates to rights in drainage waters; the third raises the question as to whether methods of financing of facilities can affect water…”
Texas v. New Mexico, 592 U.S. 98 (2020).
“, at 68a; see also Warren Act, 43 U. S. C. §523 . In light of these facts, the relevance of Texas’s request for storage and New Mexico’s agreement with that request is unclear.”
United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977).
“” 43 U.S.C. § 523 . Furthermore, the Warren Act, while not including a divestiture provision such as the one in Section 46, does provide that landowners cannot receive water in excess of an amount sufficient to irrigate 160 acres.”
Goshen Irrigation Dist. v. Pathfinder Irrigation Dist., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Wyo. 1999).
· cites it 5× “43 U.S.C. § 523 . However, the Warren Act required that in such a sale the Secretary of the Interior must preserve “a first right to lands and entrymen under the project.”
United States v. Klamath Drainage Dist. (9th Cir. 2025).
“In 1943, Reclamation and KDD executed a contract (the “Contract”) for delivery of excess water from the Project pursuant to Reclamation’s authority under the Warren Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 523–525. 1. The Contract’s terms authorize Reclamation to control KDD’s appropriation of water…”
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.