In this case, the plaintiff is a group of pistachio producers whose crops have been destroyed by the subsurface flooding of the canal which flowed through their property.

The plaintiff brought a suit against the federal State alleging negligence in the construction and the operation of the canal, which was a federal property. The District Court dismissed the claim of the producers and considered the United States of America not to be liable because of the Flood Control Act of 1928 states that no liability shall fall on the United States for any damage from floods or flood waters. The plaintiff appealed the decision in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The  Court of Appeal considered that despite the fact that the part of the canal which was flew through the pistachio’s producers land was not designated to control flood, the immunity of the USA was valid because the canal was part of a bigger flood control project.

The plaintiff sought an appeal in front of the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal as it considered that the immunity of the Flood Control Act only applies to water release for flood control purpose when reservoired water are at flood stage, which was not the case here.