The commissioner shall periodically investigate and review those sources of discharge which are operating pursuant to any order, permit, directive, registration or decision issued by the water resources commission or the commissioner before or after May 1, 1967, and, if he determines that there has been any substantial change in the manner, nature or volume of such discharge which will cause or threaten pollution to any of the waters of the state, or if he finds that the system treating such discharge, or the operation thereof, no longer insures or adequately protects against pollution of the waters of the state, the commissioner may issue an order to abate such pollution to such person or municipality. Such order shall include a time schedule for the accomplishment of the necessary steps leading to the abatement of the pollution. The commissioner may issue an order to the person or municipality responsible for such source of discharge requiring submission to him of information that he deems necessary describing the manner, nature and volume of such discharge.
(1967, P.A. 57, S. 10; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 86; P.A. 73-665, S. 11, 17; P.A. 76-435, S. 37, 82; P.A. 82-472, S. 100, 183; P.A. 84-219, S. 3, 4; P.A. 87-235, S. 3.)
History: 1971 act replaced references to water resources commission with references to environmental protection commissioner, retaining reference to past actions of commission; P.A. 73-665 made commissioner's issuance of abatement orders discretionary rather than mandatory, substituting “may” for “shall”; P.A. 76-435 deleted reference to water resources commission; P.A. 82-472 included investigation of discharges operating pursuant to orders of water resources commission; Sec. 25-54j transferred to Sec. 22a-431 in 1983; P.A. 84-219 added provision authorizing the commissioner to issue orders requiring submission of information describing a discharge; P.A. 87-235 extended the commissioners' authority to investigate registered discharges.
Forfeiture provision of Sec. 22a-438 applies to violations of orders to abate pollution issued pursuant to this section. 21 CA 91.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1987–2003 · leading case:
Pac v. Upjohn Co., 571 A.2d 160 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
Pac v. Upjohn Co., 571 A.2d 160 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 31× “ms that the court erred because (1) the effluent parameters set forth in the commission’s order were meant to serve as goals or estimates, and not as enforceable *93 effluent limitations, and (2) General Statutes § 22a-438, the forfeiture provision in Connecticut’s Water…”
Connecticut Fund for the Env't, Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 660 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Conn. 1987).
· cites it 6× “It argues that the Permit was modified pursuant to § 22a-431, see Permit Order March 10, 1983 at 1, and that that section specifically authorizes DEP to or *1410 der a polluter to stop unlawful pollution discharge and in such an order set a “time schedule for the accomplishment”…”
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 836 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2003).
““(c) The permits issued pursuant to this section shaE be for a period not to exceed five years, except that any such permit shaE be subject to the provisions of section 22a-431. Such permits: (1) ShaE specify the manner, nature and volume of discharge; (2) shaE require proper…”
Fish Unlimited v. Ne. Utils. Serv. Co., 756 A.2d 262 (Conn. 2000).
“” General Statutes § 22a-430 (c) provides: “The permits issued pursuant to this section shall be for a period not to exceed five years, except that any such permit shall be subject to the provisions of section 22a-431. Such permits: (1) Shall specify the manner, nature and…”
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.