October Term 2000 · Docket 99-859
Does the government owe compensation for water damage from a dual-purpose canal?
Farmers claim the government must pay for crop damage caused by leaking irrigation water.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case Timothy Jones stated his property suffers damage from water leaking out of the Madera Canal.
Jones described the canal as an irrigation facility that passes water to Madera County farmers.
Government advocate Frederick explained that multiple-purpose projects operate like the Friant Division.
Frederick noted the Friant Dam collects water to avert flooding along the San Joaquin River. He added that the project gradually releases water to serve both flood control and irrigation needs.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 5-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether the government must compensate private landowners for water damage. The water originates from a canal serving both flood control and irrigation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 30, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case seeks monetary compensation for property damage caused by leaking canal water.
The government seeks to avoid paying compensation for water released from a dual-purpose project.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the government must pay because the canal is an irrigation facility causing direct damage.
The government argues the project serves multiple purposes, including flood control, which changes liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to clarify his identity during the opening remarks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 5-9
Why it matters
This case defines when the government must pay for water damage from public infrastructure. It sets the standard for liability involving dual-purpose water projects. The outcome determines financial responsibility for farmers affected by canal leaks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 5-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 37-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 37-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-5
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.