Opinion ID: 525000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supreme Court's Interpretation of the Flood Control

Text: Act 8 Section 702c of the FCA provides that [n]o liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damages from or by floods or flood waters at any place. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 702c. The Supreme Court has given this provision broad meaning based on the language and legislative history of the section. United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 604, 106 S.Ct. 3116, 3121, 92 L.Ed.2d 483 (1986). 9 The Court's analysis in James begins with the words of the statute. It notes:  'we assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.'  Id. (quoting from American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 1537, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982)). Interpreting the plain language then, the Court concludes that the terms flood and flood waters extend to all waters contained in or carried through a federal flood control project for purposes of or related to flood control, as well as to waters that such project cannot control. Id. 478 U.S. at 605, 106 S.Ct. at 3121-22. 10 The use of the words any damage is also given a meaning consistent with the ordinary meaning of these words. The Court finds the phrase to include all different kinds of damages. The Court states: 11 Damages 'have historically been awarded both for injury to property and injury to the person--a fact too well-known to have been overlooked by the Congress'.... Moreover, Congress' choice of the language 'any damage' and 'liability of any kind' further undercuts a narrow construction. 12 Id. at 604-05, 106 S.Ct. at 3121 (quoting American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U.S. 446, 450, 67 S.Ct. 847, 850, 91 L.Ed. 1011 (1947)). 4 13 As to the legislative history, the Court  'recognize[s] that where the terms of the statute [are] unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in 'rare and unusual circumstances.'  Id. 478 U.S. at 605, 106 S.Ct. at 3122 (citation omitted). The Court goes on, however, to find that the legislative history supports the Court's interpretation that the terms in Sec. 702c should be given their ordinary meaning. 14 The Court points out that the FCA was enacted in response to the Mississippi River Valley Flood in 1927 and that the Act called for the largest public works project of its time. The FCA enacted 'a comprehensive ten-year program for the entire [Mississippi River] valley, embodying a general bank protection scheme, channel stabilization and river regulation, all involving vast expenditures of public funds.'  Id. at 607, 106 S.Ct. at 3122 (quoting United States v. Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. 256, 262, 60 S.Ct. 225, 227, 84 L.Ed. 230 (1939)). In this historical context, the Court observes it is not surprising ... that the legislative history of Sec. 702c shows a consistent concern for limiting the Federal Government's financial liability to expenditures directly necessary for the construction and operation of the various projects. Id. The critical statement of the law controlling this case was the Court's conclusion that Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign immunity would protect the Government from 'any' liability associated with flood control. Id. 478 U.S. at 608, 106 S.Ct. at 3123. 15 James involved two consolidated cases arising out of the injuries of recreational users of federal flood control lakes. The claims arose from strong water currents caused by the flood control projects. The individuals were swept through flood gates and either injured or drowned. The Court found the claims to involve flood waters so that dismissal by the district court in both cases was appropriate under the absolute immunity provisions of the FCA. 16