(a)(1) In any administrative, licensing or other proceeding, and in any judicial review thereof made available by law, the Attorney General, any political subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity may intervene as a party on the filing of a verified pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct which has, or which is reasonably likely to have, the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state.

(2) The verified pleading shall contain specific factual allegations setting forth the nature of the alleged unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in air, water or other natural resources of the state and should be sufficient to allow the reviewing authority to determine from the verified pleading whether the intervention implicates an issue within the reviewing authority's jurisdiction. For purposes of this section, “reviewing authority” means the board, commission or other decision-making authority in any administrative, licensing or other proceeding or the court in any judicial review.

(b) In any administrative, licensing or other proceeding, the agency shall consider the alleged unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state and no conduct shall be authorized or approved which does, or is reasonably likely to, have such effect as long as, considering all relevant surrounding circumstances and factors, there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare.

(1971, P.A. 96, S. 6; P.A. 06-196, S. 256; P.A. 13-186, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 06-196 made a technical change in Subsec. (b), effective June 7, 2006; P.A. 13-186 amended Subsec. (a) by designating existing provisions as Subdiv. (1) and adding Subdiv. (2) re verified pleadings.

Could not have been invoked in a manner so as to enable the trial court to determine whether P.U.C. acted illegally or exceeded or abused its powers. 165 C. 687. Cited. 170 C. 47; 175 C. 483; 184 C. 51; 188 C. 141. Statute is not intended to expand jurisdictional authority of an administrative body whenever an intervenor raises environmental issues. 192 C. 247. Cited. Id., 591; 204 C. 38; Id., 212; 209 C. 609; 212 C. 157; Id., 710. Agricultural land is not a natural resource protected under statute. Id., 727. Cited. 215 C. 474; 218 C. 580; 220 C. 54; 222 C. 98; 225 C. 1; 226 C. 205; Id., 579; Id., 792; 231 C. 934; 234 C. 488. Judgment of Appellate Court in 35 CA 646 reversed; case remanded for determination of whether commission properly applied provisions of section. 235 C. 448. Cited. 237 C. 135; 239 C. 124; Id., 786. Legislature intended that, under Sec. 8-30g(c), planning and zoning commission bears burden of proving that public interest cannot be protected by reasonable changes to applicant's proposed development and such burden is not inconsistent with section. 256 C. 674. Section, as well as other provisions of Environmental Protection Act, reveals no language that suggests legislature intended to give environmental intervenors under section the right to appeal from administrative matters not otherwise appealable; section does not create an independent right of appeal, but only allows intervention in an appeal otherwise allowed by statute. 266 C. 338. Section's plain and unambiguous language provides town with right to intervene for environmental protection purposes in the judicial review of decisions of its wetlands agency and zoning commission and does not conflict with Secs. 8-1 and 22a-42, which delegate municipal authority to such agencies. 280 C. 405. Intervenors before inland wetlands commission were entitled to appeal to trial court from commission's decision pursuant to Sec. 22a-43; an intervenor can prevail on appeal not only by proving that proposed development likely would cause harm to wetlands, but also by proving an inland wetlands commission's decision was not based on a determination, supported by substantial evidence, that the development complied with governing statutes and regulations and would not cause such harm. 289 C. 12.

Cited. 12 CA 47; 13 CA 400; 17 CA 320; 23 CA 188; 26 CA 599; Id., 942; 27 CA 479; 30 CA 204; 32 CA 340; 35 CA 646; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 448; 41 CA 89; Id., 120. Statute does not permit a nonparty to appeal if no party from the underlying proceeding is engaged in an appeal. 57 CA 589. Environmental intervenor abdicated right to approve settlement between plaintiff and defendant by failing to attend hearing and present evidence. 127 CA 634. Plaintiff forfeited right to consent to settlement agreement by failing to raise environmental issues as an intervenor at remand hearing. 133 CA 173.

Cited. 35 CS 145; 41 CS 184; 42 CS 57. Nonprofit environmental advocacy corporation that properly filed notice of intervention at a zoning commission hearing in accordance with Subsec. (a) has standing to appeal environmental issues related to zoning commission's decision; the fact that, if as alleged, defendant failed to act on the application to intervene cannot deprive the corporation of right to intervene and the concomitant right thereby to appeal on environmental issues. 48 CS 594.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 206 C. 554; 218 C. 821; 220 C. 476; 233 C. 486. Does not authorize an intervenor to raise environmental issues that are outside jurisdiction of the agency conducting the proceeding into which the party seeks to intervene; intervenor is limited to raising environmental issues that are within jurisdiction of the agency in question; section not intended to expand jurisdictional authority of an administrative body whenever an intervenor raises environmental issues; intervention petitions filed under statute must contain specific factual allegations setting forth the environmental issue intervenor intends to raise. 259 C. 131.

Cited. 26 CA 185; 28 CA 780; 37 CA 166; 40 CA 75; 41 CA 39. Trial court finding re lack of standing reversed because plaintiff who lived down river from proposed wastewater treatment plant filed notice of intervention in accordance with section and therefore had standing. 62 CA 600. Trial court decision striking verified pleading filed by town council as proposed intervenor in matters where zoning commission and inland wetlands and watercourse agency were named defendants reversed; court declines to find exception to citizen intervention provision of Environmental Protection Act, finding no legislative intent that would support a rule barring municipalities from utilizing provisions of Subsec. to intervene in appeals from decisions of their land use agencies. 87 CA 537. Without accurate notice of date the motion to open and modify the stipulated judgment was to be heard, intervenors were deprived of right to file motions to intervene in a pending action; public nature of hearing was not adequate for purposes of section if any person or other legal entity did not have notice that modified judgment was being presented for judicial review. 177 CA 779.

Subsec. (b):

Trial court properly held that dispositive issue before planning and zoning commission was whether the proposal would cause unreasonable impairment of natural resources so as to require commission to consider alternatives; once commission made no finding of unreasonable impairment of natural resources, it no longer had an obligation to consider alternative plans. 73 CA 647. No substantial evidence to support denial of application on grounds that wetlands would be negatively impacted by sediment and siltation, by changes to hydrology of site, total loss of certain wetland or negative impact from acid generation from exposed rock. 130 CA 69.

Cited. 43 CS 386.