dam
Defined in 7 dictionaries — U.S. Code, Cyclopedic (1922), Bouvier (1914), Black's (1910), Black's (1891), Anderson (1889), Bouvier (1839)
United States Code
33 U.S.C. § 467 — in this subchapter (11 versions over time)
The term "dam"—
(A) means any artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material, for the purpose of storage or control of water, that—
(i) is 25 feet or more in height from—
(I) the natural bed of the stream channel or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the barrier; or
(II) if the barrier is not across a stream channel or watercourse, from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of the barrier;
to the maximum water storage elevation; or
(ii) has an impounding capacity for maximum storage elevation of 50 acre-feet or more; but
(B) does not include—
(i) a levee; or
(ii) a barrier described in subparagraph (A) that—
(I) is 6 feet or less in height regardless of storage capacity; or
(II) has a storage capacity at the maximum water storage elevation that is 15 acre-feet or less regardless of height;
unless the barrier, because of the location of the barrier or another physical characteristic of the barrier, is likely to pose a significant threat to human life or property if the barrier fails (as determined by the Administrator).
The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary
Walter A. Shumaker and George Foster Longsdorf; ed. James C. Cahill · 1922
A construction of wood, stone, or other materials, made across a stream of water for the purpose of confining it; a mole.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia
John Bouvier; revised by Francis Rawle · 1914
A construction of wood, stone, or other materials, made across a stream of water for the purpose of confining it; a mole. See People v. Gaige, 23 Mich. 93; Colwell v. Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245. It is an instrument for turning the water of a stream to the use of a mill; Burnham v. Kempton, 44 N. H. 78. The word is sometimes used for the Rond formed by the obstruction; Colwell v. Water Power Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 245; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334; Hutchinson v. Ry. Co., 37 Wis. 5S2; and it is held to be synonymous with dyke; Com. v. Tolman, 14!) Mass. 229, 21 N. E. 377, 3 L. R. A. 747, 14 Am. St. Rep. 414. The water collected by a dam is not properly termed a reservoir, as its object is not storage of water; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 Pac. 112, 35 Pac. 334. The construction of dams in floatable streams to facilitate their use is in some states authorized by statute; Brooks v. River Imp. Co., 82 Me. 17, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. R. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459; Kretzschmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 77 N. W. 41; Field v. Log Driving Co., 67 Wis. 569, 31 N. W. 17; Mc Laughlin v. Mfg. Co.. L03 N. C. 100, 9 S. E. 307; and incidental injuries to land of riparian proprietors thereby damaged are held to be consequential injuries incident to their proprietorship; Brooks v. River Imp. Co., S2 Me. IT, 19 Atl. 87, 7 L. K. A. 460, 17 Am. St. Rep. 459. See Logs; Riparian Rights. thereby materially impair the rights of the proprietors above or below I ■ of the water in its:> ed (low; Gould, Waters 110, n.; Tyler v. Wilkinson, 1 Maa 401, Fed. Cas. No. 14,312; Vandenburgb v. V: gen, L3 Johns. (N. ST.) 212; B< mlngs, 20 Johns. iX. Y.i '.">. 11 An.. Dec 249; Boynton v. Rees,:> Pick. (Mass.) 528: Wi worth v. Tillotson, IB Conn.:;<:•;. •';'.> Am. i •■ 391; Betrich v. Deachler, 6 Pa. 32; Shrunk v. Xav. Co., 14 S. & It. (Pa.) 71; Scott v. Willson, 3 X. II. 321; Daniels v. Saw In 127 Mass. 534; Voter v. Bobbs, 69 Ma 19; Banna v. Clarke, 31 Graft i Va.) 36; D Woolen Mill Co. v. Greer, 49 la. 490; Am. L. Reg. 147, n. He may even detain the water for the purposes of a mill, for a reasonable time, to the injury of an older mill. — the reasonableness of the detention in each particular case being a question for the jury; Ilartzall v. Sill, 12 Pa. 248; Thomas v. Brackney, 17 Barb. (X. Y.i 654; Snow v. Parsons, 28 Vt. 459, 67 Am. Dec. 723; Parker v. Ilotchkiss, 25 Conn. 321; Phillips v. Sherman, 04 Me. 171; Drake v. Woolen Co., 99 Mass. 574; Hoxsie v. Iloxsie. 38 Mich. 77; Ilolden v. Lake Co., 53 N. II. 552. But he must not unreasonably detain the water; Dllllng v. Murray, 6 Ind. 324, 63 Am. Dec. 385; and the jury may find the constant use of the water by night and a detention of it by day to be an unreasonable use, though there be no design to injure others; Barrett v. Parsons, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 367; see Bullard v. Mfg. Co.. 77 X. Y. 525. Xor has such owner the right to raise bis dam so high as to cause the stream to flow back upon the land of supra-riparian proprietors; 1 B. «fc Aid. 258; Cowles v. Kidder, 24 N. H. 364, 57 Am. Dec. 2S7; L'nion Canal Co. v. Keiser, 19 Pa. 134; Pitman v. Poor, 38 Me. 237; Ellington v. Bennett, 59 Ga. 286; Drew v. Inhabitants of Westfield, 124 Mass. 461. And see BACK- Wateb. These rights may, of course, be modified by contract or prescription. An owner maintaining a dam acr< floatable stream is entitled to an Injunction against the operation of a splash dam by an upper riparian owner in such manner as to Interfere materially with the continuity of his power and to fill his pond and race with dirt; Trullinger v. Bowe, 53 Or. 219, '.'7 Pac. 54S, 99 Pac. 880, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 545. A mill proprietor may erect and maintain dams in a floatable stream, but he must keep open, for the use of those that wish, a convenient and considerable.passageway for Logs through or by bis dam; Lancey v. Clifford, 54 Me. 187, 92 Am. Dec. 561; Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. Olcott Falls Co., 65
Black's Law Dictionary
Henry Campbell Black, M.A. · 1910
A Dictionary of Law
Henry Campbell Black · 1891
A construction of wood, stons, or other materials, made across a stream for the purpose of penning back the waters, ‘This word is used in two different senses. It properly means the work or structure, raised to obstruct the flow of the waterina river; but, bya well-settled usage, it is often applied to designate the pond of water created by this obstruction. 19 N. J. Eq. 248. See, also, 44 N. H. 72.
A Dictionary of Law
William C. Anderson · 1889
The work or structure raised to obstruct the flow of water in a stream; also, 1 Acti 26 May, 1876: P. L. Sll. 'See Bispham, Eq. § 130 (1888); 1 Col. Law T. 8-14 (1887), cases. = See Loring v. Marsh, 6 Wall. 337 (1867); Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465 (1860); Fontain v. Eavenel, 17 id. 360 (1854); Vidal v. Girard, 8 id. 187 (1844); Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 588 (1867). See generally 38 Ala. 305; 22 Conn. 54; 30 id. 113; 4 Ga. 404; 25 id. 420; 16 111; 881; 35 Ind. 198; 46 id. 1?2; 18 B. Mon. 635; 49 Me. 303; 50 Mo. 167; 33 N. H. 296; 20
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
John Bouvier · 1839
A construction of wood, stone, or other materials made across a stream of water for the purpose of confining it; a mole. The owner of a stream, not navigable, may erect a dam across it, and employ the water in any reasonable manner, either for his use or pleasure, so as not to destroy or render useless, materially diminish or affect the application of the water by the proprietors below on the stream. He must not shut the gates of his dams and detain the water unreasonably, or let it off in unusual quantities to the annoyance of his neighbours. 4 Dall. 211; 3 Caines, 207; 13 Mass. 420; 3 Pick. 268; 2 N. H. Rep. 532; 17 John. 306; 3 John. Ch. Rep. 282; 3 Rawle, 256; 2 Conn. Rep. 584; 5 Pick. 199; 20 John. 90; 1 Pick. 180; 4 Ib. 460; 2 Binn. 475; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 71; Ib. 9; 13 John. 212; 1 M'Cord, 580; 3 N. H. Rep. 321; 1 Halst. R. 1; 3 Kent, Com. 354. When one side of the stream is owned by one person and the other by another, neither, without the consent of the other, can build a dam which extends beyond the thread of the river, without committing a trespass. Cro. Eliz. 269; 12 Mass. 211; Ang. on W. C. 14, 104, 141; vide Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 3, s. 1, a. 3; Poth. Traite du Contrat de Societe, second app. 236; Hill. Ab. Index, h. t.