OCR Text |
Show have been erroneously determined nor does it specify wherein the decision may be erroneous in its interpretation of the law. With respect to the first contention, it is sufficient to say that the mere fact that a decision has been rendered on a matter within his jurisdiction by the Director, or one acting in his stead, does not cause the Director to lose jurisdiction of the matter. The Director may, before an appeal is taken to the Secretary, reconsider a previous decision, on his own motion, and correct any errors that may have been made in the former decision. It is only after an appeal has been taken to the Secretary that the matter is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Director and he cannot, while the appeal is pending in the Department, exercise any further jurisdiction in the matter. L.D. Crawford, Halvor P. Holbeck, 6l I. D. 407 (195^). As no appeal had been taken by Mr. Smith from the decision of February 21, 1956, at the time the Acting Director reconsidered the former decision and found it to be erroneous, it is obvious that the matter was still within the jurisdiction of the Acting Director and that he had the authority to vacate the former decision and reject the applications. The land applied for by the appellants has been found to be land which will not, without irrigation, produce agricultural crops. The soil and topography of the land are of such a character as to render the land susceptible to cultivation if water is available for irrigation. According to a field report no surface water is available for the irrigation of the land. However, 111-19 |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |