Connecticut working group weighs riparian buffer policy as DEEP flags staffing, training limits

A state working group on riparian buffers heard Thursday that the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection does not have extra staff to absorb broad, new responsibilities for establishing and enforcing riparian buffers along watercourses.

Brian Thompson, director of the Land and Water Resources Division at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told the panel that DEEP "does not have extra staff" and that many programs that touch watercourses are already operating "at maximum capacity." He said the agency implements permitting under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act and Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification for private and infrastructure projects and often must coordinate with fisheries, wildlife and the Department of Transportation on impacts.

The exchange framed the meeting's core question: whether the state or local municipalities should carry new buffer responsibilities. Several working-group members said municipalities are already stretched and that any added duties should be matched with training and outside assistance rather than creating an unfunded or one-size-fits-all mandate.

Why it matters: riparian buffers—vegetated areas next to rivers, streams and some wetlands—reduce nutrient runoff, filter stormwater, provide habitat and can lower flood risk. Panelists said the science supporting buffers has advanced beyond the level of guidance that many municipal commissions now rely on.

Discussion highlights

- Training and capacity. Thompson acknowledged DEEP's online training has returned after an outage but said a comprehensive overhaul would be a "big lift" and require additional resources. Multiple participants urged DEEP to allow or sanction outside trainers and partners, and to update course material specific to riparian science and field skills.

- Municipal implementation and legal clarity. Several speakers said placing authority with local inland wetlands agencies is workable if the statute is clarified to remove ambiguity. Representative Dubinsky and others warned against making required training so onerous that volunteer commissions cannot be staffed. Attorney Brooks, a former wetlands-practice facilitator in the Attorney General's Office, said the statutory framework can work if commissions use outside experts and if DEEP sanctions a broader set of approved trainers.

- Minimum buffers vs. flexible standards. Some participants pushed for simple, minimum vegetated-buffer standards enforceable with a tape measure; others warned that fixed minima can ossify into insufficient defaults and urged flexibility keyed to watershed and site conditions. Panelists pointed to models in New England (for example, Massachusetts and New Hampshire laws) that combine baseline rules, municipal programs and state review.

- Urban and watershed-scale concerns. Speakers from cities and regional councils emphasized that upstream development and impervious cover increase downstream flood risk and water-quality problems in urban centers. Several urged that any change avoid becoming an unfunded mandate for municipalities and that implementation consider watershed-scale effects.

Actions requested and next steps

Panel members asked DEEP to (1) consider allowing and accrediting external trainers (universities, conservation districts, nonprofits) to expand capacity; (2) update municipal guidance and online training with a riparian-specific module; and (3) provide clearer statutory language so inland wetlands commissions have explicit authority to protect vegetated upland buffers adjacent to watercourses.

The working group agreed to invite the Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR) or a comparable research/extension group to present the scientific and mapping materials at the next meeting so members have a common baseline of the relevant science and mapping tools.

Votes at a glance: The only formal recorded vote during the meeting was procedural. The working group adjourned on a voice vote. Alicia made the motion to adjourn; Frank seconded; the chair called the voice vote and members responded "aye." The motion carried.

Ending note

Members scheduled the next meeting for November 5 at 1 p.m. and asked staff to invite CLEAR (or equivalent) to give a 20-minute briefing on impervious-cover, nutrient-loading and flood-risk mapping to align the group's technical understanding before drafting statutory language or model municipal provisions.