Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425, 2 (2001)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

426

CENTRAL GREEN CO. v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

is part of the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, and flood control is one of the project's purposes. Pp. 428-432.

(b) To characterize every drop of water flowing through the immense Central Valley Project as "flood water" simply because flood control is among its purposes unnecessarily dilutes the statute's language. The statute's text does not include the words "flood control project," but, rather, states that immunity attaches to "any damage from or by floods or flood waters." Pp. 432-434.

(c) Neither the statute's language nor the James holding even arguably supports the Government's conclusion that § 702c immunity must attach to all the water flowing through the canal, even if the water never approached flood stage and the terminus of the canal was parched at the end of the summer. Accordingly, the Court disavows the "related to" portion of James' dicta. Pp. 435-436.

(d) Because the question of immunity was decided on the pleadings, using an incorrect test and without benefit of an evidentiary hearing or further factual development, the case is remanded for further proceedings. Pp. 436-437.

177 F. 3d 834, reversed and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Timothy Jones argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Goldstein, W. Allen Bennett, and Erik S. Jaffe.

David C. Frederick argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Underwood, and Irene M. Solet.*

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

*M. Reed Hopper filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007