Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 651 (2026)

Milldams and canals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person may on the person's own land erect and maintain a watermill and dams to raise water for working it, upon and across any stream not navigable; or, for the purpose of propelling mills or machinery, may cut a canal and erect walls and embankments upon the person's own land, not exceeding one mile in length, and thereby divert from its natural channel the water of any stream not navigable, upon the terms and conditions and subject to the regulations hereinafter expressed. [RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. B, §245 (COR).]

SECTION HISTORY

RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. B, §245 (COR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1968–2018 · leading case: MacImage of Maine, LLC v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2012 ME 44 (Me. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacImage of Maine, LLC v. Androscoggin Cnty., 2012 ME 44 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “We reach the following conclusions: the real estate records held by county registries of deeds, along with the indexes to those records, are available to the public pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 651 (2011); 1 reasonable fees for responding to bulk requests for records and indexes, 2…”

Dorey v. Est. of Spicer, 1998 ME 202 (Me. 1998). “See 38 M.R.S.A. § 651; Central Maine Power v.”

Dumont v. Speers, 245 A.2d 151 (Me. 1968). “The first legislative consideration of fishways appears to have been in Chapter 16 of the Public Laws of 1840 wherein the County Commissioners were authorized to require fishways in dams located in streams emptying into rivers in which “Salmon, Shad or Alewives abound.”

Aquafortis Assocs., LLC v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 2× “Exemption via the Mill Act (38 M.R.S. § 651 et seq.) The Water Level Act also exempts any dam that is "operating with a permit setting water levels issued under" several additional named statutes or "any other statute regulating the construction or operation of dams.”

Matteson v. Batchelder (Me. Super. Ct 2008). “" 38 M.R.S.A. § 651 (2008). Historically, a mill was a building with machinery for grinding grain.”

Inhabitants of Town of Pittsfield v. Cianchette, 279 A.2d 527 (Me. 1971). “It becomes unnecessary to discuss this theory which the Plaintiff advances because, as we have demonstrated, the Plaintiff has not acquired any prescriptive rights against the owner of the dam, which is essential if a claim of "reciprocal easements” be successfully asserted.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.