Virginia v. Maryland
Headline: Court allows Virginia to withdraw Potomac water and build shore improvements free from Maryland regulation, voiding Maryland’s permit conditions and limiting Maryland’s control over Virginia’s riparian uses.
Holding: Virginia, its local governments, and citizens may withdraw Potomac River water and construct shore appurtenant improvements without Maryland’s permit regulation, and Maryland’s permit conditions on Fairfax County were voided.
- Allows Virginia and local authorities to withdraw Potomac water without Maryland permits.
- Voids Maryland’s flow-restriction condition on Fairfax County’s permit.
- Limits Maryland’s ability to regulate Virginia’s riparian construction rights.
Summary
Background
Virginia asked the Court to declare that the State, its local governments, and its citizens can withdraw water from the Potomac and build wharves or intake structures from the Virginia shore without Maryland permits. The dispute rests on a 1785 compact and an 1877 arbitration award that divided ownership of the riverbed but reserved shore owners’ rights. The immediate fight began after Maryland denied or conditioned permits for a Fairfax County intake.
Reasoning
The Court read Article Seventh of the 1785 Compact and Article Fourth of the Black-Jenkins Award and found they grant Virginia sovereign riparian rights to use the river beyond the low-water mark to enjoy its shoreline and to construct appurtenant improvements. The Court found no clear language giving Maryland regulatory authority over those sovereign rights. It also rejected Maryland’s claim that long permitting practice showed Virginia had acquiesced, noting Virginia’s protests and federal-legislative statements preserving Virginia’s riparian authority.
Real world impact
The ruling lets Virginia, its subdivisions, and its citizens withdraw Potomac water and build shore-connected improvements without Maryland-imposed permits or conditions; the Court voided Maryland’s flow-restrictor condition on the Fairfax County permit. The decision preserves limits against obstructing navigation and federal water-quality law, and future, fact-specific disputes may still test particular regulations.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices dissented, arguing the Compact and Award did not remove Maryland’s sovereign power to regulate the river and that large public withdrawals and similar uses remain subject to the owning State’s police power. They would have sustained Maryland’s objections.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?