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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-427 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 25-54f). Pollution or discharge of wastes prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person or municipality shall cause pollution of any of the waters of the state or maintain a discharge of any treated or untreated wastes in violation of any provision of this chapter.

(1967, P.A. 57, S. 6.)

History: Sec. 25-54f transferred to Sec. 22a-427 in 1983.

Annotations to former section 25-54f:

Cited. 170 C. 31.

Cited. 4 CA 621.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 237 C. 135; 239 C. 786.

Cited. 20 CA 709; 21 CA 91; 41 CA 120.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook, 676 A.2d 795 (Conn. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook, 676 A.2d 795 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 21× “In counts four and six, the complaint alleged that Old Saybrook had *141 violated General Statutes § 22a-427, 5 by causing pollution of the waters of the state as a result of its failure to implement orders 3109, 3110, 3111 and modified order 4116.”
Dingwell v. Town of Litchfield, 496 A.2d 213 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 5× “The trial court further found that the nuisance arose from the town’s violation of environmental protection laws, specifically General Statutes § 22a-427, formerly § 25-54Í, 1 which prohibits a person or municipality from causing pollution to the waters of the state.”
Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2007). · cites it 6× “§ 16-344 , and therefore moves to dismiss the negligence per se claim based on Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-427. Metro-North also joins in the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss.”
Collins v. Olin Corp., 418 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “Although the Court grants Hamden municipal immunity from claims based on negligence, it is worth noting, without resolution of the issue, that with regard to plaintiffs' claim for negligence per se (count 8) Connecticut courts have not consistently held that violations of Conn.…”
Calabrese v. McHugh, 170 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “Defendants also assert that even if this Court were to hold that plaintiff's negligence per se claim is not time-barred, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the Connecticut Water Pollution Control Act ("CWPCA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. §…”
Picco v. Town of Voluntown, 989 A.2d 593 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “and General Statutes § 22a-427. See Keeney v.”
Albahary v. City of Bristol, 886 A.2d 802 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “It also held that the contamination of the plaintiffs’ property was both a public and private nuisance, a trespass, an act of negligence and a violation of General Statutes §§ 22a-427 and 22a-16. It held, however, that the plaintiffs had not proven their claim of inverse…”
Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook, 686 A.2d 991 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 6× “In the original appeal in this case, we held that a municipality violates the Water Pollution Control Act; General Statutes § 22a-427; 1 and the Environmental Protection Act; General Statutes § 22a-14 et seq.”
Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D. Conn. 2008). · cites it 12× “§ 9601 (9) (Count One), nuisance (Count Two) and violations of Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Three-Four); against defendants 375 Fairfield Avenues Associates, LLC, Irving Goldblum, and Murray, David, Charles, Laura, and Maxine Goldblum [collectively “the…”
Martin v. Shell Oil Co., 180 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-427 (2001). There is a split of authority in the lower courts of Connecticut regarding the propriety of negligence per se actions pursuant to CWPCA.”
Albahary v. City & Town of Bristol, Conn., 963 F. Supp. 150 (D. Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “(Count Two), nuisance (Count Three), trespass (Count Four), negligence (Count Five), inverse condemnation (Count Six), strict liability (Count Seven), violations of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-427, prohibiting discharge of waste and pollution (Count Eight), remediation and containment…”
Albahary v. City of Bristol, 853 A.2d 577 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “It also held that the contamination of the plaintiffs’ property was both a public and private nuisance, a trespass, an act of negligence and a violation of General Statutes §§ 22a-427 and 22a-16. It held, however, that the plaintiffs had not proven their claim of inverse…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.