Oxon Hill Recreation Club, Inc. v. Water Resources Administration

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is, in a sense, a companion to that of Oxon Hill Recreation Club, Inc. v. Prince George's County, Maryland, 281 Md. 105 , 375 A. 2d 564 (1977), since it is the vehicle utilized for an attack by Oxon Hill Recreation Club, Inc. (Oxon Hill) on the proposed construction of a new bridge by Prince George’s County (the County) made necessary by the relocation of Tucker Road. The background of the case may be briefly stated. In June, 1975, the County filed with Water Resources Administration, Department of Natural Resources (the Administration) an application for the construction of a new bridge over Henson Creek, approximately 250 feet downstream from the existing bridge.

In November, the application was denied, primarily because the design of the new bridge was such that the stream bed would silt, necessitating constant maintenance, which might have to be performed in the stream bed itself, and could involve the use of heavy equipment in the stream. The County then requested the Administration to reconsider the denial of the permit, because the proposed bridge had been designed some time ago, and a re-design would involve substantial additional expenses, and thereafter agreed to four conditions imposed by the ¹¹² Administration: (i) a reduction of the channelization of the creek from 875 feet to 480 feet; (ii) the assumption by the County of all responsibility for the maintenance of the channel, without the use of heavy equipment in the stream bed; (iii) the development, in concert with the Administration, of new design criteria for future waterway projects, and (iv) compliance, in the future, with the new criteria. In March, 1976, the Administration issued the permit, containing various conditions, including: “The Applicant shall maintain in condition as completed the structure or banks along the stream passing through this construction site after completion of construction. Any undercutting, meandering or degrading of the channel or deposition of material will be corrected by the Applicant as directed or approved by the Administration.

No motor driven construction equipment will be allowed within the stream channels.” Conditions (iii) and (iv), agreed to by the County, were later reduced to writing but have yet to be adopted by the Administration as formal regulations. 1 Oxon Hill, apparently fearful that the construction of the bridge would so alter the flood plain as to lead to flooding and consequent damage to its swimming pool, opposed the issuance of the permit before the Administration and appealed the issuance of the permit to the Board of Review of the Department of Natural Resources. When the Board of Review upheld the issuance of the permit, a further appeal was taken to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, in which the County was permitted to intervene. From an order of that court affirming the action of the Board of Review, Oxon Hill appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. ¹¹³ We granted certiorari before the case came on for hearing in that court. Before us, Oxon Hill posited its case on two arguments: (i) that the Administration exceeded its authority when it issued a conditional permit and (ii) that the Board of Review’s finding that the proposed bridge would not affect “the habitat, flooding, erosion, sedimentation and stability of the Henson Creek stream channel” was not supported by substantial evidence. 2 For practical purposes, these contentions may be considered together.

At the outset, we must point out that our review of actions taken or determinations made by an administrative agency like the Department of Natural Resources is narrowly limited. Our inquiry is almost always limited to whether there was illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action which was taken; Williams v. Public Service Comm’n, 217 Md. 415, 419, 354 A. 2d 437, 439 (1976); Department of