AN ACT CONCERNING ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ACT.

AN ACT CONCERNING ENHANCEMENTS TO THE INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ACT.

This bill declares it state public policy to preserve inland wetlands and watercourses and prevent them from being spoiled or destroyed. It requires an inland-wetlands agency to consider all substantial evidence brought before it when considering whether to issue a permit to conduct a regulated activity in a wetlands or watercourse.

Current law, recognizing that preserving and protecting wetlands and watercourses is in the public interest and essential to the health, welfare, and safety of Connecticut residents, declares that the purpose of the Inland-Wetlands and Watercourses Act (CGS §§ 22a-36 to 22a-45) is to balance economic growth while protecting these resources for the benefit of state residents and their descendants. The bill specifically declares it state public policy to preserve inland wetlands and watercourses and prevent them from being spoiled and destroyed.

It specifically requires municipalities to regulate activities affecting inland wetlands and watercourses to preserve them and prevent them from being spoiled and destroyed.

By law, a person seeking to conduct an activity that involves removing from or depositing material on, or obstructing, building in, altering, or polluting a wetlands or watercourse (regulated activity), must obtain a permit from a municipal inland-wetlands agency. Current law requires the agency to consider the proposed application's impact on the environment, feasible and prudent alternatives that would have less environmental impact, and several other factors (see BACKGROUND).

The bill requires the agency also to consider all substantial evidence brought before it or its agent by any person or entity, including:

1. scientific evidence and expert opinion;

2. direct observations of the proposed regulated activity;

3. environmental reviews, policy letters, and guidance documents provided by, or on behalf of, an environmental review team or the Department of Environmental Protection; and

4. written comments or oral testimony submitted by the public health commissioner or, by or on behalf of, a water company responding to written notice it received according to law.

1. the environmental impact of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses;

2. the purpose of the proposed activity and whether any prudent and feasible alternatives would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses;

3. the relationship between the short-term and long-term impact of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of such wetlands or watercourses;

4. irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetland or watercourse resources that would be caused by the proposed regulated activity, including the extent to which the activity would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance, or restore these resources, and any mitigation measures that may be considered as a condition of issuing a permit for such activity, including measures to (a) prevent or minimize pollution or other environmental damage, (b) maintain or enhance existing environmental quality, or (c) in the following order of priority: restore, enhance, and create productive wetland or watercourse resources;

5. the character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health, or the reasonable use of property caused or threatened by the proposed regulated activity; and

6. the impact of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with, or reasonably related to, the proposed regulated activity that are made inevitable by the activity and that may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses (CGS § 22a-41).

Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, 1999).

On April 14, the Senate referred the bill (File 465) to the Planning and Development Committee, which favorably reported a substitute bill that (1) eliminates a provision specifying that a person applying for a permit to conduct a regulated activity in a wetlands or watercourse has the legal burden of proving he or she is entitled to it and (2) requires an inland-wetlands agency to consider all substantial, rather than relevant, evidence brought before it.

sHB 5934 (File 492), reported favorably by the Environment Committee, increases protection for natural vegetation near wetlands and watercourses.