''Central Green Co. v. United States'', 531 U.S. 425 (2001), was a
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
case decided in 2001. The case concerned the meaning of the words "flood or flood waters" within the
Flood Control Act of 1928
The Flood Control Act of 1928 (FCA 1928) ( 70th United States Congress, Sess. 1. Ch. 569, enacted May 15, 1928) authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct projects for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and it ...
. The Court concluded that the law did not always apply to federal flood control facilities.
Background
Central Green Co. owned 1,000 acres of pistachio orchards in California's San Joaquin Valley. The
Madera Canal
The Madera Canal is a -long aqueduct in the U.S. state of California. It is part of the Central Valley Project managed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation to convey water north to augment irrigation capacity in Madera County. It was also t ...
flowed through their property. In 1996, they brought a suit against the United States alleging negligence in the operation and design of the canal. They alleged that it causes subsurface flooding which destroyed some of their crop. In court, the United States argued that the Flood Control Act of 1928 grants them immunity, as it states "
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 District Court dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the United States that this incident would fall in the confines of "flood or flood waters". Central Green Co. appealed and the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It agreed with Central Green that the Madera Canal "serves no flood control purpose", but nevertheless held that immunity attached "solely because it is a branch of the Central Valley Project". Central Green appealed again, this time to the
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
, which
granted review.
Opinion of the Court
Justice
Stevens wrote the decision of the Court, which was unanimous. Stevens began by stating a prior case
bound the Court to a different interpretation of the phrase "floods or flood waters" than the Ninth Circuit. In ''James v. United States (1986)'', the Court found the phrase "floods or flood waters" encompassed waters released for flood control purposes when reservoired waters are at flood stage.
531 U.S. 425
at 431. He went on to write that it was a difficult 'fact-led' question about whether this singular incident would fall within the ''James'' decision. For that reason, the Court would allow the suit to proceed in the District Court, only concluding that it was in error for the Government to receive absolute immunity
Immunity may refer to:
Medicine
* Immunity (medical), resistance of an organism to infection or disease
* ''Immunity'' (journal), a scientific journal published by Cell Press
Biology
* Immune system
Engineering
* Radiofrequence immunity desc ...
in this case. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit was reversed.
See also
* Flood Control Act of 1928
The Flood Control Act of 1928 (FCA 1928) ( 70th United States Congress, Sess. 1. Ch. 569, enacted May 15, 1928) authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct projects for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and it ...
* Legislative intent
References
External links
*
{{DEFAULTSORT:Central Green Co. V. United States
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
2001 in the environment
2001 in United States case law
United States environmental case law