Central Green Co. v. U.S. (02/21/2001)

By: Katy Hunt, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the federal government is immunized under the 1928 Flood Control Act from paying for damage done to Central Green Companys 1,000-acre pistachio farm in Madera County, California by leaks from canals in federally-sponsored irrigation projects.

Brief

The Madera Canal is a federal water management project that irrigates farms -- including the Central Green Co.s 1,000-acre pistachio orchard -- throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The farms property is not located in the San Joaquin River bottom, and the irrigation waters are channeled in via the Madera Canal.

After the integrity of the federally-owned canal gave way, water leakage appeared on the surface of Central Green's pistachio farm, interfering with its farming and harvesting practices. The company noticed the water accumulate slowly for a few months and filed suit against the United States in May 1996.

The suit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, ""alleging that due to negligent planning, design, construction, or maintenance, the Madera Canal is leaking, causing surface and subsurface flooding of Central Greens property. Central Green also alleged that subsurface flooding created a shallow water table, resulting in irreparable harm to its crops and farming equipment.

A federal court found that Central Greens claims were barred by the 1928 Flood Control Act, which conferred immunity on the federal government in the congressionally authorized management of flood waters. The legislation specifically provided 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 court dismissed the claim against the United States for ""lack of subject matter jurisdiction.""

Before a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Central Green argued that the Madera Canal flood waters were held for irrigation purposes and not flood control, and therefore immunity should not apply.

The company claimed that according to a 1986 Supreme Court precedent, which created a two-part test for flood waters, for water to be considered ""flood water,"" it would have to pass through a flood control project and be for the purposes of or related to flood control.

Though the canal is a part of the Central Valley Project, which has flood control as one of its congressionally authorized purposes, flood control is not one of the stated purposes of the canal itself. By defining the Madera Canal as an arm of the federally authorized Central Valley Project, the United States was able to assert immunity.

The 9th Circuit unanimously rejected Central Greens claim, holding that ""even if the project was being operated at the time of the negligence for a purpose other than flood control, the operation that caused the damage was not Ôwholly unrelated to a Congressionally authorized flood control project,"" and therefore immune.

But the opinion, written by Appeals Judge Stephen S. Trott, conceded that the definition of ""flood waters"" has been vigorously debated among the federal circuits.

""We recognize that had this case been instituted in the Fourth, Seventh or Tenth Circuit the government would probably not enjoy flood control immunity,"" Trott wrote. ""In denying certiorari to a case that could have resolved the conflict in circuit opinions in this issue, Justice Stevens suggested that this split in the circuits could be Ôresolved more effectively by Congress,"" Trott wrote, referring to a case that was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992.

The 9th Circuits opinion also included reservations about the fairness of the decision:

""Despite our decision to affirm, we recognize the harsh result of this decision. The Ônot wholly unrelated test applied by this and other circuits reads broadly an already broadly-written grant of immunity. There does not appear to be any set of facts where the government is not immune from damage arising from water that at one time passed through part of the Central Valley or other flood control project.

""Indeed, counsel for the government admitted at oral argument that she could not think of any situation where [the 1928 Federal Control Act] would not confer immunity.""

And as a result, ""Central Green is left without a tort remedy for its crops and farming equipment caused by the governments alleged negligence in constructing and maintaining the Madera Canal,"" Trott wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 20, 2000.

On Feb. 21, 2001, a unanimous Court reversed, holding that the federal government is not immune from liability for the damage caused by leaks from canals in federally-sponsored irrigation projects.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court the scope of the government's immunity is determined ""not by the character of the federal project or the purposes it serves, but by the character of the waters that cause the relevant damage and the purposes behind their release.""

The case was remaded for further proceedings.