43 U.S.C. § 620f

Powerplant operations

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

The hydroelectric powerplants and transmission lines authorized by this chapter to be constructed, operated, and maintained by the Secretary shall be operated in conjunction with other Federal powerplants, present and potential, so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates, but in the exercise of the authority hereby granted he shall not affect or interfere with the operation of the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act [43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.], the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act [43 U.S.C. 618 et seq.], and any contract lawfully entered into under said Compacts and Acts. Subject to the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, neither the impounding nor the use of water for the generation of power and energy at the plants of the Colorado River storage project shall preclude or impair the appropriation of water for domestic or agricultural purposes pursuant to applicable State law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1958–2009 · leading case: Bd. of the Cnty. Commissioners v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325 (Colo. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of the Cnty. Commissioners v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 620f (1994)(emphasis added). Arapahoe also argues that, in addition to the statute's plain language, CRSPA's legislative history supports Arapahoe's contentions.”

Arizona Power Auth. v. Morton, 549 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 620f. The second guideline is referred to in Section 4 of the Act: absent exculpatory provisions, CRSP plants are to be operated in conformity with federal reclamation law.”

United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 165 F. Supp. 806 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “109 (1956), 43 U.S. C.A. § 620f (Supp. IV 1957). * Now West’s Ann.”

Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D. Ariz. 2009). “” 43 U.S.C. § 620f. These broadly-worded provisions impose on the Secretary of the Interior an obligation to balance many different interests in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam.”

Badoni v. Higginson, 455 F. Supp. 641 (D. Utah 1977). “The officials of the Bureau of Reclamation who are charged with the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead have so operated the Dams, and this is correct. There was included a specific admonition by Congress to them that the power generation facilities be operated at their…”

Salt Lake City v. W. Area Power Admin., 926 F.2d 974 (10th Cir. 1991). “The Act does provide, however, that CRSP projects “shall be operated in conjunction with other Federal power plants, present and potential, so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates_” 43 U.S.C. § 620f.…”

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.