Connecticut House Bill HB05693

Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/15
• Refer: 1/21/15
• Refer: 2/18/15

Caption

An Act Requiring Notice And Contingency Plans Prior To The State Draw Down Of Lakes And Ponds.

Impact

This bill affects state laws concerning water management and property rights by ensuring that individuals who could be impacted by water level changes are informed in advance. By instituting a process for notifying property owners and creating contingency plans, the bill aims to mitigate adverse effects that might arise from state actions related to water resources. Moreover, it establishes a structured communication protocol between the state and affected individuals, fostering greater transparency in governmental procedures regarding environmental management.

Summary

House Bill 05693, titled 'An Act Requiring Notice And Contingency Plans Prior To The State Draw Down Of Lakes And Ponds,' mandates that the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection provide at least thirty days' notice to property owners with wells potentially affected by state water level draw downs. The notification must include information about the water body, the reasons for the draw down, timelines, potential impacts on well water, and contact details for further assistance. The requirement aims to safeguard property owners' access to water in such situations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 05693 appears largely supportive, particularly among property owners and environmental advocates who appreciate proactive measures designed to protect well water access during draw downs. Proponents argue that it obligates the state to act responsibly and communicate effectively with citizens whose livelihoods and property depend on reliable water supply. Nevertheless, there may be some concerns regarding the administrative burden this requirement could place on the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, which could potentially slow down processes related to water management.

Contention

Key points of contention regarding this bill may revolve around the balance between environmental management and property rights. While the intent is to protect property owners, critics might argue about the necessity of such regulations and whether they could lead to bureaucratic delays in state water management practices. The bill’s implementation could also prompt discussions on the adequacy and responsiveness of the contingency plans established to ensure that affected property owners have alternative water supplies during periodical draw downs.