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. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, argued that being part of a federal flood control project was not reason enough for Madera Canal or waters flowing through it to be immune to damage claims. In the Court's opinion, the wordings of the Flood Control Act of 1928 and a previous Supreme Court decision in United States v James (1986) make it clear that immunity is attached to "damage from or by floods...

Hence it was important, in this case, for the courts to determine whether the damage to the petitioner was caused by flood or flood waters. (Ibid., Parts II-IV)
Conclusion:

The Supreme Court in its unanimous decision delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded. It held that in determining whether, under the Flood Control Act of 1928, immunity attaches, "the courts should consider the character of the waters that caused the relevant damage and the purposes behind their release rather than the relation between that damage and a flood control project." (Ibid. V)

Works Cited

Central Green Co. v United States (99-859) 531 U.S. 425 (2001)."

Cornell Law University: Supreme Court Collection. 2001. February 16, 2008. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-859.ZO.html

Case Brief