Green V United States Central

¶ … Green v United States

CENTRAL GREEN CO. V. UNITED STATES: (99-859) 531 U.S. 425 (2001)

Facts:

The Madera Canal, a federal facility leased to the Madera Irrigation District (MID), flows through 1,000 acres of pistachio orchards owned by Central Green Co. (the petitioner) in San Joaquin Valley, California. In 1996, Central Green filed suit in the District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and the MID (the defendants) 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 for the Petttioner. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity granted by the Flood Control Act of 1928. ("Central Green Co. v..." Opinion of the Court, Part I)

The District Court, relying on an earlier Ninth Circuit case, which held that if a "project has flood control as one of its purposes, and the events giving rise to the action were not wholly unrelated to the project," dismissed the complaint since the Madera Canal was a part of the Central Valley Project, and flood control was one of the purposes of that project.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. While agreeing with the petitioner that the Madera Canal "serves no flood control purpose," it held that it was "not wholly unrelated to flood control" either; hence the immunity granted by the Flood Control Act of 1928 applied. (Ibid)

Issue (s)

The immunity provision in the Flood Control Act of 1928 states: "[n]o 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." At issue is the meaning of the words "floods or flood waters," i.e., whether the words encompass all the water that flows through a federal facility, designed and operated, at least in part, for flood control purposes?

Analysis

The District Court and the Ninth Circuit, while dismissing the suit and appeal of the petitioner had relied on a broad interpretation of the Flood Control Act. The District Court's decision, for example, was largely based on an earlier Ninth Circuit case, which held that if a "project has flood control as one of its purposes, and the events giving rise to the action were not wholly unrelated to the project," immunity is necessarily attached. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit was of the opinion that even though the water in the Madera Canal was not held for the purpose of flood control, it was 'not wholly unrelated' to flood control. Hence the immunity attached to damage caused by flood waters held in this case.