OCR Text |
Show MARYLAND 373 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts Maryland has no State administrative procedures designed for the express purpose of resolving conflicts between water users. Definition of individual water rights and resolution of water use conflicts and disputes have been matters of judicial decision in litigation arising between individuals over the rght to use water or to dispose of excess water. 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities a. WATER QUALITY CONTROL In 1970, old statutes relating to water pollution were repealed. A new act was adopted in order to comply with the Federal water pollu- tion control program.8 The act expressly preserves the existing rights of riparian owners to suppress nuisances or to abate pollution in equity or under the common or statutory law.9 Authority to admin- ister the pollution control program is in the Department of Water Eesources. The act makes it unlawful to pollute "waters of the State" or to discharge wastes which violate effluent or water quality stand- ards which the Department is authorized to promulgate. "Waters of the State" are defined in the same way as in the water permit statutes.10 Acts constituting pollution are expressly declared to be public nuisances. Public hearings are required before water quality or effluent stand- ards are issued for specific watercourses. When the water quality standards are violated, the department may issue a complaint, and has several options in connection with enforcement: (1) It may issue an order requiring that necessary corrective action be taken within prescribed time, and the alleged violator may request a hearing; (2) the violator may be required to file a written report relating to the alleged violation; (3) the violator may be required to appear before the Department to answer charges outlined in the complaint; and (4) the violator may be required both to file a report and to appear before the Department. Any order of the Department may be re- viewed by the board of review of the Department. There is a provi- sion for judicial review. Where alleged violations are found to have occurred, the State Attorney General may either institute criminal proceedings or sue for an injunction to abate the pollution, or both. The criminal penal- ties are severe. The violators may be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for 1 year, or both. Each day of a continuing violation is a separate offense. In injunctive proceedings, any finding of fact made by the Department is prima facie evidence, and it is unnecessary to show the lack of an adequate remedy at law. The provisions of the act are applicable to the State or its agencies and to municipalties as well as private citizens. The act contains no provision for citizen suits to enforce effluent or quality standards. Special provisions were recently enacted to deal with oil spillage. 8 Art. 9 6A, sees. 23 to 29D. 8 Sec. 28B. 10 Note 9, supra. |