This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1917, the United States (D) and Copco (D) entered into an agreement to construct a Dam and then convey it to the United States (D). In return, Copco (D) and the United States (D) entered into a fifty-year contract (1917-1967) that gave Copco (D) the right to operate the Dam. The Contract was renewed in 1956 for an additional fifty years (1956-2006). The United States (D) and Copco (D) are the only named parties to the Contract. P are irrigators that used the Dam. The parties do not dispute that the Dam was built to help the United States (D) satisfy its contractual obligations to water users in the basin, including P. The project also served other federal purposes, such as impounding water to flood the adjacent wildlife refuges. Copco's (D) interest was in controlling the flow of water to the Copco (D) -owned hydroelectric facilities downstream from the Dam. The United States (D) initiated a public process to establish a new operating plan for the Dam. In 1997, P brought suit as a third-party beneficiary for breach of contract because the 1997 plan was circumvented because of an agreement made between parties wherein P was not included. D was granted its motion for summary judgment and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.