In the case of Central Green Co. v. United States, 2000, the U.S Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the federal government could be held liable for damages caused by a flood control project under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The dispute arose when an irrigation district's canal, which was part of a larger federally authorized and supervised flood control project in California, leaked and damaged Central Green Company’s pistachio orchard. The company sued alleging negligence on part of both parties involved - United States Bureau of Reclamation and Madera Irrigation District. The court ruled that while FTCA does waive sovereign immunity for certain types of claims against federal agencies including property damage caused by negligent acts; it also includes an exception protecting the government from lawsuits arising out of 'floods' or 'flood waters'. However, this ‘discretionary function’ exemption did not apply automatically just because damage was related to water flow but required examination if actions were policy-based decisions protected under FTCA. Thus, they remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with their opinion i.e., determining whether specific actions leading to leakage were indeed discretionary functions as per law.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Green Co. v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of the Flood Control Act was too broad and could potentially shield negligent behavior from liability. He contended that Congress intended to protect only decisions related to flood control, not all activities carried out by government entities on projects with any connection to flood control. The justice believed this case involved a simple claim of negligence in maintaining an irrigation canal which should be subject to state law rather than federal immunity under the Flood Control Act as it did not directly involve flood or storm waters management but rather water supply for agriculture purposes.