The Riparian Buffers Working Group met to examine whether vegetated riparian buffers should be added to state law and, if so, whether to place protections under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act or in municipal zoning rules.

Attorney Janet Brooks, who summarized relevant Connecticut case law, told the panel the key legal obstacle is the Connecticut Supreme Court's 2004 Riverbend decision and related precedent requiring agencies to demonstrate an "actual adverse impact" before regulating upland activities. Brooks said that, because environmental statutes are remedial and construed broadly, "because of the known ecological benefits to the riparian area from natural vegetative cover, agencies are authorized to impose a condition in a permit or in an enforcement order requiring such natural vegetative cover" within legislatively determined widths — language she proposed to avoid requiring expert proof of adverse impact in every permit proceeding.

Denise Savageau, chair of the Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation and president of the Connecticut Association of Conservation Districts, said wetland agencies typically have the technical expertise to evaluate riparian conditions and to set site-specific requirements. She summarized the ecological functions buffers provide: trapping sediment and debris; supporting soil filtration and nutrient removal; shading streams to reduce temperature increases and algal blooms; slowing surface runoff to improve infiltration; and providing habitat and woody debris important to fish and other species. Savageau recommended using planning tools already developed by "CLEAR" (the watershed assessment and source-water protection tools) to prioritize where protection is most needed.

Fisheries biologist Bill Lucy presented maps and imagery showing impaired waterways and a general rule-of-thumb for nitrogen reduction by buffer width: small vegetated strips (roughly 0–25 feet) can remove a majority of near-surface nitrogen (~60%), 26–50 feet provides substantially more (70%+), and widths beyond 50 feet can approach 80–90% removal in many settings. Lucy stressed that effectiveness varies with slope, soils and groundwater transport and that a single uniform width is unlikely to fit all rivers, reservoirs and urban settings.

Panelists and stakeholders pressed practical implementation questions: whether a non‑dimensional, case-by-case approach within the current Wetlands Act could protect riparian functions without a fixed statutory width; how agricultural exemptions would be handled; whether zoning enforcement capacity (building officials, zoning enforcement officers) could reliably implement buffer standards; and how to avoid duplicated or conflicting permits if both wetlands agencies and zoning commissions regulate vegetation near water.

Brooks argued courts construe zoning restrictions narrowly because they are "in derogation of common-law property rights," so placing detailed buffer rules in zoning could invite more restrictive judicial review and litigation over ambiguous language. Several land-use attorneys and a developer'side attorney interviewed by Brooks said wetlands agencies are accustomed to expert reports and site-specific conditions and thus could be the single permitting venue to avoid overlapping jurisdiction and repeated permit amendments.

Stakeholders raised concerns about access and uses: the Connecticut Marine Trades Association warned against blanket restrictions that could impede waterfront access; the Connecticut Nursery and Landscape Association asked how existing shorter buffers would be grandfathered; municipal representatives noted existing MS4 stormwater requirements and local flood-resiliency projects; agricultural representatives requested that any revision to riparian regulation reconsider the current farm exemptions. Several speakers urged that any statutory change be coordinated with exemptions and statutory cross-references so routine farming, firefighting access, and public-recreation uses are not unintentionally blocked.

The group agreed on several immediate next steps: invite CLEAR to provide a technical briefing on its watershed and source-water tools, and ask DEEP legal staff for their perspectives on statutory drafting and regulatory implementation. During a late-session discussion, several members signaled a working consensus to begin statutory drafting with the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act as the primary vehicle, not zoning, while recognizing that complementary zoning and voluntary programs will remain important.

Members did not adopt final statutory language at this meeting. Panelists recommended options the working group may consider in drafting: statutory legislative findings that affirm ecological benefits of natural vegetative cover; a tiered approach that varies buffer width by watercourse class, designated use (drinking water supply, cold-water fisheries, coastal/watershed priorities), or urban/rural context; explicit handling of agricultural and municipal exemptions; and procedural language allowing wetlands agencies to impose site-specific larger buffers where the administrative record contains ecological support.

Next steps agreed by the group include inviting CLEAR and DEEP legal staff to the next meeting, drafting possible legislative language that could (a) create minimum buffer categories and (b) preserve wetlands-agency discretion for site-specific conditions. The working group scheduled its next meeting for Nov. 21 and adjourned by voice vote.