Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 22a — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION · Chapter 446k — Water Pollution Control
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-422 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 25-54a). Declaration of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is found and declared that the pollution of the waters of the state is inimical to the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state, is a public nuisance and is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses of water, and that the use of public funds and the granting of tax exemptions for the purpose of controlling and eliminating such pollution is a public use and purpose for which public moneys may be expended and tax exemptions granted, and the necessity and public interest for the enactment of this chapter and the elimination of pollution is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination.

(1967, P.A. 57, S. 1.)

History: Sec. 25-54a transferred to Sec. 22a-422 in 1983.

Annotation to former section 25-54a:

Cited. 170 C. 31.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 216 C. 436; 226 C. 358; Id., 737; 237 C. 135; 241 C. 466.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1990–2015 · leading case: Starr v. Comm'r of Env't Prot., 627 A.2d 1296 (Conn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Starr v. Comm'r of Env't Prot., 627 A.2d 1296 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 8× “19 The legislative sentiment regarding the importance of the act crystallized in the act’s declaration of policy, currently set forth in General Statutes § 22a-422, which provides that: “It is found and declared that the pollution of the waters of the state is inimical to the…”
Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook, 676 A.2d 795 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 22a-422; see Starr v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, supra, 382.”
Rocque v. Ne. Utils. Serv. Co., 755 A.2d 196 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 4× “* *** 6 Fish Unlim *84 ited contends that the trial court undermined this public policy and abused its discretion by approving a stipulation that, in its view, is essentially a “sham agreement” the benefits of which devolve solely upon the defendants.”
BEC Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 119 A.L.R. 5th 673 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “The common law, and particularly the law of public nuisance at the time of the passage of [the act], figured prominently in water pollution control and had set the stage for legislation concerning abatement of water pollution.”
Knight v. F. L. Roberts & Co., 696 A.2d 1249 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “egislative sentiment regarding the importance of the [CWPCA] crystallized in the [CWPCA’s] declaration of policy, currently set forth in General Statutes § 22a-422, which provides that: ‘It is found and declared that the pollution of the waters of the state is inimical to the…”
Diamond v. Marcinek, 629 A.2d 350 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 22a-422. In our recent decision in Starr v.”
Cyr v. Town of Coventry, 582 A.2d 452 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 22a-422. Thus, in this instance, § 22a-458 prevails over § 9-3 (e) of the Coventry town charter and does not violate the home rule provision of article tenth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution.”
Caprio v. Upjohn Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D. Conn. 2001). “” Section 22a-427 provides that “[n]o person or municipality shall cause pollution of any of the waters of the state or maintain a discharge of any treated or untreated wastes.”
Comm'r of Env't Prot. v. Underpass Auto Parts Co. (Conn. 2015). · cites it 2× “General Stat- utes § 22a-422, which sets forth the policy underlying the Water Pollution Control Act, provides: ‘‘It is found and declared that the pollution22 of the waters of the state is inimical to the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state, is a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.