Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Riparian working group to focus on rivers and streams, seeks state minimum protections

October 10, 2025 | Environment, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Riparian working group to focus on rivers and streams, seeks state minimum protections
HARTFORD — Lawmakers, state agency staff and conservation and land‑use stakeholders meeting as the Environment Committee’s Riparian Working Group agreed Tuesday to begin by developing recommendations that protect vegetated strips along rivers and streams and to gather state and municipal guidance before drafting any statewide minimums.

The working group was created by the Environment Committee to “see if we can come up with recommendations for legislation for riparian buffers,” Representative Mary Mushynski, the panel’s chair, told attendees at the group’s first meeting. The group includes legislators, municipal planners, soil and water district representatives, foresters, farmers and members of conservation organizations.

Members said the first step will be compiling existing state and local practices and technical resources — including an Office of Legislative Research report comparing New England buffer approaches — then returning with concrete options. “All of the surrounding states have laws regulating buffers in some capacity,” David Dickerson, author of the OLR report, told the group. That review helped prompt the working group, members said.

Discussion and key points

Members debated the scope and legal framing of protection. Several speakers argued for separating “riparian” protections from Connecticut’s wetlands regime, which is determined by soil type and administered by municipal inland wetlands agencies. Attorney Janet Brooks summarized a prior municipal survey and legal review, noting substantial municipal variation: she reported contacting 85 municipal wetlands agencies in 2013 and found that a large share use a 100‑foot upland review area; two towns had no upland review area at all. Charles Vidic and the Western Connecticut Council of Governments and other participants offered regional studies and examples from New England.

The group generally coalesced around the idea that protections should prioritize watercourses rather than attempt a single, statewide, one‑size‑fits‑all buffer that would automatically apply around every soil‑mapped wetland. “There’s sort of a consensus developing here on one thing, which is we’re gonna concentrate on rivers and streams,” Mushynski said. Members emphasized the need for flexibility: stream classification, differing municipal conditions, agricultural operations and existing uses mean buffer widths and allowed activities may need to vary by context.

Exemptions and implementation

Participants listed categories that would likely need clear exemptions or tailored treatment: agricultural operations and farm roads, driveways, docks and marinas, utilities and security fencing, fire protection access, and preexisting shoreline uses and views. Several speakers noted these types of exemptions already exist in practice under Connecticut’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses framework, but they urged clarity so local enforcement and landowners understand what is allowed.

Technical and incentive approaches also drew attention. Several members urged the working group to consider impervious‑cover limits, low‑impact development practices and MS4 (municipal stormwater) program incentives as complementary tools for protecting water quality while allowing waterfront access and economic uses.

Next steps and meeting logistics

The group asked staff to assemble relevant materials — including the OLR report, DEEP guidance and municipal studies — and to post resources on the Environment Committee’s website. Members agreed to provide candidate field‑trip sites that show contrasting conditions (protected and unprotected stream corridors). The working group scheduled its next meeting for October 22 at 10 a.m.; that session will review DEEP resources and the current Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act and definitions.

Action items and formal outcomes recorded at the meeting were procedural: the group set the next meeting date, requested resources and agreed by consensus to concentrate initial policy work on rivers and streams rather than soil‑mapped wetlands. The meeting adjourned by a voice vote.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Connecticut articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI