OCR Text |
Show 378 MARYLAND stream "for the ordinary purposes of life," unless, of course, the pollutor has acquired a prescriptive easement.29 It is not a defense that the plaintiff himself was polluting the stream or that others in addition to the defendant were also contributing to the pollution.30 Multiple polluters are jointly and severally liable and may be joined as defendants even though they were acting independently of each other.31 A riparian owner apparently may not divert water for use on non- riparian land.32 In determining whether an injunction should issue, the court may balance the equities and. consider "the relative gravity of the harm which the complainant will suffer if it is refused.33 The defendant in that case-a city-was given a reasonable time within which to abate the private nuisance. 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers There are very few cases dealing with changes or transfers of water rights in Maryland, but one case has held that one owning land whereon springs arise may sell to another the right to use water from the springs, and that the right obtained by the purchaser is in the nature of an easement.34 There apparently are no cases dealing with the transfer of riparian water rights in surface watercourses, but such transfers probably would be governed by the traditional rules of the riparian doctrine, so that rights could not be transferred for use on nonriparian lands, but would be transferred with the sale or transfer of riparian lands. Water rights after 1934 are controlled by the permit system dis- cussed in the preceding sections of this chapter. The statutes dealing with the permit system do not in any way discuss transfers of per- mits. Presumably, unless restrictions against transfer are contained within the permit itself, it would seem that the permit is a property right which could be transferred or sold subject to the same limita- tions and qualifications that are attached to the original grant of the permit. Since there is no provision for administrative procedures to govern transfers, the Water Eesources Department may have no con- trol over the sale or transfer of the permit rights, but a transfer could not authorize any change in water use or construction specifications, because those matters would be within the jurisdiction of the Department.35 3.4 Loss of Rights The implementation of the permit system apparently caused all riparian rights not in use on January 1, 1934 (or uses then in exist- ence but abandoned after that date), to be lost, and any future use must be based on the permit system.36 No specific provision is made 2° Baltimore v. Warren Mfg. Oo., 59 Md. 96 (1882) ; cf. Oaretti v. Broring Bldg. Co., 150 Md. 198, 132 Atl. 619 (1926). s° West Arlington Imp. Go. v. Mount Hope Retreat, 97 Md. 191, 54 Atl. 982 (1903). aJe88up & Moore Paper Oo., v. Zeitler, 180 Md. 395, 24 A. 2d 788 (1942). ^ Kelly v. Nagle, 150 Md. 125, 132 Atl. 587 (1926). MIAvezey v. Town of Bel Air, 174 Md. 568, 199 Atl. 838, 843 (1938). See also Taylor v. Baltimore, 130 Md. 133, 99 Atl. 900 (1917). 84 National Real Estate Development Corporation v. Lavale Water Company. 167 Md 191. 173 Atl. 52 (1934). 85 Sees. 11,12, and 18A. 86 Sec. 11. |