Central Green Co. v. United States

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Timothy Jones (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
David C. Frederick (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
99-859
Petitioner: 
Central Green Co.
Respondent: 
United States
Opinion: 
531 U.S. 425 (2001)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Central Green Co. v. United States , 531 U.S. 425 (2001)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_859)
Facts of the Case: 

The Madera Canal, a federal facility leased to the Madera Irrigation District (MID), flows through Central Green Co.'s 1,000 acres of pistachio orchards in California. Central Green filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and the MID alleging that their negligence in the canal's design, construction, and maintenance caused subsurface flooding resulting in damage to the orchards and increased operating costs. The Federal Government moved for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity granted by the Flood Control Act of 1928, which states that "no liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place." The complaint was then dismissed because the canal was a part of the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, whose purpose was flood control. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that although the canal serves no flood control purpose, immunity is attached solely because it is a branch of the larger project.

Question: 

Do the words "floods or flood waters" encompass all the water that flows through federal facilities, such that the Federal Government has immunity under the Flood Control Act of 1928 for damages such water may cause?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that in determining whether, under the Flood Control Act of 1928, immunity attaches, courts should consider the character of the waters that caused the relevant damage and the purposes behind their release rather than the relation between that damage and a flood control project. Thus, the Federal Government's immunity from liability for flood damage required a determination of whether actual flows through the Federal Government's canal constituted flood waters, regardless of the canal's flood control purpose.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Central Green Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 33 U.S.C. 702

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens