Connecticut Senate Bill SB00410

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/13
• Refer: 1/23/13

Caption

An Act Studying The Jurisdictional Lines Of The Department Of Energy And Environmental Protection In Approving Seawall Construction.

Impact

The proposed legislation could potentially reshape how coastal development projects are managed within state laws. By focusing on the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the bill intends to address ambiguities that may have hindered efficient oversight in the past. This assessment could lead to updated regulations that enhance the regulatory oversight of seawall constructions, ensuring they meet contemporary standards and adequately protect property and businesses along coastlines.

Summary

SB00410, known as the 'Act Studying The Jurisdictional Lines Of The Department Of Energy And Environmental Protection In Approving Seawall Construction', proposes a thorough examination of the specific jurisdictional boundaries that dictate the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's oversight in seawall construction. This scrutiny aims to clarify and enhance the regulatory framework associated with the construction of seawalls, which are crucial for protecting coastal properties and businesses from environmental hazards such as erosion and flooding. The bill underscores the importance of understanding jurisdiction to ensure effective and adequate protection of these vulnerable areas.

Contention

Despite its intent, SB00410 may face contention regarding the implications of increased oversight and possible regulatory delays. Stakeholders, including construction companies and property owners, may express concerns over bureaucratic constraints that could arise from stricter regulations. Additionally, varying opinions on the role of state oversight versus local control could contribute to debates surrounding the bill. Those in favor of greater state involvement argue that cohesive regulations are necessary for comprehensive environmental protection, while opponents fear that such measures could impede necessary development and mitigate property rights.