Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 26 — FISHERIES AND GAME · Chapter 490 — Fisheries and Game
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 26-141a (2025)

Standards for flow of water in rivers or streams

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any dam or other structure is maintained in this state which impounds, or diverts, the waters of a river or stream or which dam or other structure affects the flow of water in such a river or stream, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, setting forth standards concerning the flow of such water in accordance with section 26-141b.

(1971, P.A. 229, S. 1; 872, S. 441; P.A. 05-142, S. 1; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)

History: Later 1971 act replaced state board of fisheries and game and water resources commission with commissioner of environmental protection; P.A. 05-142 removed references to stocked rivers or streams and made technical changes; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Commissioner of Environmental Protection” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection”, effective July 1, 2011.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2002–2003 · leading case: City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington, 800 A.2d 1102 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington, 800 A.2d 1102 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 10× “Specifically, Waterbury asserts that the trial court: (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the CEPA claim because the defendants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; (2) improperly declined to apply the minimum flow statute; General Statutes §§ 26-141a…”
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 815 A.2d 1188 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff appealed, contending for the first time on appeal that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the defendants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the so-called minimum flow statutes, General Statutes §§…”
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 836 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “The trial court found for the defendants on their counterclaim. Id., 519. The city appealed, asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the water diversion claim because the defendants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the…”
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.