This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Timothy Jones, petitioner Central Green Co. alleges that its property is being damaged by water leaking from the Madera Canal.
According to Timothy Jones, the Canal is part of the Central Valley project, and all water in the canal is considered flood water under the Flood Control Act of 1928.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday, October 30, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.
Justice asked whether the United States conceded that the canal served no flood‑control purpose, and the answer was that they did not concede this.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Central Green Co.)
According to Timothy Jones, the petitioner argues that all water in the Madera Canal constitutes flood water under the Flood Control Act, which is relevant to its claim of immunity.
Respondent (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The oral argument took place before the Supreme Court on October 30, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.
Justice O'Connor asked, “So where do we focus?” during the argument.
Justice asked whether the United States conceded that the canal served no flood‑control purpose, and the answer was that they did not concede this.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- cf868d572cd3b7e45390-r1-3e20830b065196f4.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.