43 U.S.C. § 524

Cooperation with irrigation districts, etc., in construction of reservoirs and canals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 43 CasesGoogle Scholar

In carrying out the provisions of the said reclamation Act, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, upon such terms as may be agreed upon, to cooperate with irrigation districts, water-users’ associations, corporations, entrymen, or water users for the construction or use of such reservoirs, canals, or ditches as may be advantageously used by the Government and irrigation districts, water-users’ associations, corporations, entrymen, or water users for impounding, delivering, and carrying water for irrigation purposes: Provided, That the title to and management of the works so constructed shall be subject to the provisions of section 498 of this title: Provided further, That water shall not be furnished from any such reservoir or delivered through any such canal or ditch to any one landowner in excess of an amount sufficient to irrigate one hundred and sixty acres: Provided, That nothing contained in sections 523 to 525 of this title shall be held or construed as enlarging or attempting to enlarge the right of the United States, under existing law, to control the waters of any stream in any State.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1938–2017 · leading case: Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 43 U.S.C. § 524 . Under a 1912 amendment of the Reclamation Act, individual water users served by a reclamation project could acquire a “water-right certificate” *508 by proving that they had cultivated and reclaimed the land to which the certificate applied.”

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “” 43 U.S.C. § 524 . Under a 1912 amendment of the Reclamation Act, individual water users served by a reclamation project could acquire a “water-right certificate” by proving that they had cultivated and reclaimed the land to which the certificate applied.”

Metro. Water Dist. v. Marquardt, 379 P.2d 28 (Cal. 1963). “926, 43 U.S.C. § 524 , which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of the reclamation law, to cooperate with irrigation districts, water-users' associations, corporations, entrymen, or water users for the construction or use of such reservoirs,…”

Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. All Parties & Persons, 306 P.2d 824 (Cal. 1957). “926 (1911), 43 U.S.C.A. §524 ; 37 U.S. Stat. 266 (1912), 43 U.”

United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “926 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 524 (1952); Section 11 of the Act of December 19, 1913, 38 Stat.”

El Paso Cnty. Water Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. City of El Paso, 133 F. Supp. 894 (W.D. Tex. 1955). “926 , 43 U.S.C.A. § 524 ; Act of Aug. 9, 1912, § 3, 37 Stat.”

Verde River Irrigation & Power Dist. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 94 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1938). “” The contract and grant were not, made pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891, but under the authority given in 43 U.S.C.A. § 524 , to the Secretary of the Interior to co-operate by agreement with irrigation districts for the construction or use of reservoirs, canals, or ditches.”

United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 559 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1977). “43 U.S.C. § 524 . The committee was thus being told by the government agency responsible for drafting H.”

Klamath Irrigation v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “” 43 U.S.C. § 524 . In the Klamath Project, water is delivered to Warren Act contractors through works operated by the Klamath Irrigation District and the Van Brimmer Ditch Company, an Oregon business discussed below.”

Goshen Irrigation Dist. v. Pathfinder Irrigation Dist., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Wyo. 1999). “Section 2 of the Warren Act, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 524 , provides for the purchase of different rights.”

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.