Central Green Co. v. United States (531 U.S. 425)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 2001 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 531 U.S. 425 · 121 S. Ct. 1005
- Decided
- February 21, 2001
- Term
- October Term 2000
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. Incident to the authorization of a massive flood control project for the Mississippi River in 1928, Congress enacted an immunity provision which stated that “[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.” 45 Stat. 535, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 702c. At issue in this case is the meaning of the words “floods or flood waters.” The narrow question presented is whether those words encompass all the water that flows through a federal facility that was designed and is operated, at least in part, for flood control purposes. The Ninth Circuit, relying upon a broader construction of §702e than some other federal courts have adopted, concluded that they do. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 529 U. S. 1017 (2000), and now reverse. r — I Petitioner owns 1,000 acres of pistachio orchards in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The Madera Canal, a federal facility that has been leased to the Madera Irrigation District (MID), flows through petitioner’s property. In 1996, petitioner brought this action against respondent United States and the MID alleging that their negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the canal had caused subsurface flooding resulting in damage to the orchards and increased operating costs for…
Excerpt of a 21,512-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.