| OCR Text |
Show MARYLAND 377 to quantity limitations and other conditions specified in the permits.26 If the water is not being used, or is not needed, the permits shall be "corrected." This type of program is not uncommon in many other States which are attempting to "firm up" outstanding permits. No procedure is specified for the correction or modification process. The permit is required to specify the time within which the appropriation is to be made (not more than 2 years) or the construction commenced (not more than 5 years). The Department in its discretion may extend these periods "for good cause." b. RIPARIAN RIGHTS As already noted, riparian rights still exist in Maryland if they were in use on January 1, 1934. These rights exist, of course, as an incident to ownership of land which is contiguous to a stream, and such ownership was a condition precedent to applying water to a valid use prior to 1934. However, it would seem that these riparian rights which were in use prior to 1934, and which have continued in use, could be acquired at present if the land to which they attach is pur- chased, because the riparian right of water use would pass as an incident to title to the land. 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights a. USE PERMITS The nature of water use permits in Maryland, and the conditions and limitations which apply thereto, were discussed in section 3.1, supra, dealing with the method of acquiring such right. b. RIPARIAN RIGHTS There are relatively few cases in Maryland dealing with riparian rights or privileges. The more important of these cases will be noted, but, in so doing, it is necessary to bear in mind the earlier discussion concerning the effect of the 1934 permit statute on riparian rights. The riparian doctrine was first recognized in 1875 in the case of The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Appold.27 The city, apparently regarded as a riparian owner,28 planned to empty 10 million gallons of water per day into a river on which the plaintiff was a lower riparian. Even though the plaintiff could show no actual damage, the court held that he was entitled to an injunction because the augmentation of the flow of the stream might conceivably cause flooding on his riparian land. The court held that riparians on a natural watercourse have a "common right" to the use of the water. Each may use the water so long as his use does not interfere with the equally benefiial enjoyment of the water by other riparians. The "reasonable use" theory, as distinguished from the "natural flow" theory, thus became firmly entrenched in the Maryland water law at an early date. There is no indication in the cases that domestic users have any special preference over other users. Most of the Maryland cases have dealt with pollution by a riparian owner. Pollution may be enjoined if it impairs the value of the *>Sec. 18A (1971 supp.). **42Md. 442 (1874). K Of. Sax, Water Law, Planning and Policy: Oases and Materials, 203-12 (1968). |
