Skip to main content
· 4/30/2001

Kandra v. United States

Citations

  • 145 F. Supp. 2d 1192
  • 52 ERC (BNA) 1929
  • 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6932
  • 2001 WL 668940

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that “[a]n EIS takes at least several months to complete”
  • upholding the BOR’s implementation of conservation measures against challenge by irrigators
  • “Two national wildlife refuges, the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, depend on the [Klamath Reclamation] Project for water and receive large quantities of return irrigation flows and other Project waters.”
  • “As of April 6, 2001, [the Bureau] determined that inflow volume into [Upper Klamath Lake] would be 108,000 acre feet during the period of April through September, the smallest amount of inflow on rec- ord.”
  • purporting to resolve a government contract claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Aiken

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.