ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

16 U.S.C. § 590p–1Limitation on wetlands drainage assistance to aid wildlife preservation; termination of limitation; redetermination of need for assistance upon change of ownership of lands

submitted 91 years ago by Pub. L. 87-732 to r/title-16-CONSERVATION · 286 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

In North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, the Secretary of Agriculture may not provide wetland-drainage assistance when the Interior Secretary finds that drainage would materially harm wildlife preservation and the required finding is timely filed. The restriction ends under specified conditions and must be reconsidered after a change in ownership.

In North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, the Secretary of Agriculture may not make an agreement to provide financial or technical help for draining wetlands on a farm if the Secretary of the Interior finds that the drainage would materially harm wildlife preservation on that farm and that keeping the land undrained would materially help wildlife preservation. The finding must specifically identify the farm and the land involved and must be filed with the Agriculture Secretary within 90 days after the drainage-assistance application is filed. The restriction ends: (1) when the Interior Secretary tells the Agriculture Secretary it should no longer apply; (2) one year after the Interior Secretary filed the adverse finding, unless during that year the Interior Secretary or a State agency has offered to lease or buy the wetland from its owner as a waterfowl resource; or (3) five years after the adverse finding was filed if the owner has not accepted such an offer to lease or buy the wetland. After ownership of the land changes, the land's eligibility for the financial or technical help must be decided again under this section.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

The Secretary of Agriculture shall not enter into an agreement in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota to provide financial or technical assistance for wetland drainage on a farm under authority of this chapter, if the Secretary of the Interior has made a finding that wildlife preservation will be materially harmed on that farm by such drainage and that preservation of such land in its undrained status will materially contribute to wildlife preservation and such finding, identifying specifically the farm and the land on that farm with respect to which the finding was made, has been filed with the Secretary of Agriculture within ninety days after the filing of the application for drainage assistance: Provided, That the limitation against furnishing such financial or technical assistance shall terminate (1) at such time as the Secretary of the Interior notifies the Secretary of Agriculture that such limitation should not be applicable, (2) one year after the date on which the adverse finding of the Secretary of the Interior was filed unless during that time an offer has been made by the Secretary of the Interior or a State government agency to lease or to purchase the wetland area from the owner thereof as a waterfowl resource, or (3) five years after the date on which such adverse finding was filed if such an offer to lease or to purchase such wetland area has not been accepted by the owner thereof: Provided further, That upon any change in the ownership of the land with respect to which such adverse finding was filed, the eligibility of such land for such financial or technical assistance shall be redetermined in accordance with the provisions of this section.

Source credit: (Apr. 27, 1935, ch. 85, § 16A, as added Pub. L. 87–732, Oct. 2, 1962, 76 Stat. 696.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1935Enacted · Pub. L. 87-732 · 76 Stat. 696

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 87-732 on 1935-04-27.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case