OLR RESEARCH REPORT
January 30, 2008
2008-R-0079
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CONNECTICUT
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
By: Paul Frisman, Principal Analyst
You asked for the legislative history of the Connecticut Environmental
Policy Act (CEPA). We provide the history both of the original 1973
public act (PA 73-562) and of revisions made in 2002 (PA 02-121). You
also asked several specific questions about CEPA, which we answer
separately below.
SUMMARY
CEPA (CGS §§ 22a-1 through 22a-1h and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 22a1a-1 through 22a-1a-12) is meant to ensure that state agencies consider
environmental factors when deciding whether to take an action that may
significantly affect the environment. It requires them to evaluate, in
writing, the impact the proposed action would have on the environment.
Among other things, these environmental impact evaluations, or EIEs,
must examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
consequences of the proposed action, and any reasonable alternatives to
it (CGS § 22a-1b(c)). The Office of Policy and Management (OPM) reviews
EIEs, determining, among other things, if the agency has taken all
practicable steps to avoid or minimize environmental harm. However,
findings of adverse impact do not necessarily stop a project from
proceeding.
The legislature approved CEPA (PA 73-562) in 1973, one year after
Governor Meskill vetoed PA 72-153, a similar bill. The governor said PA
72-153 would overlap existing federal and state requirements, be too
Mary M. Janicki, Director
Phone (860) 240-8400
FAX (860) 240-8881
http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr
Connecticut General Assembly
Office of Legislative Research
Room 5300
Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106-1591
Olr@cga.ct.gov
costly, and be onerous to administer. Meskill later in 1972 issued an
executive order (Executive Order 16) to achieve the vetoed act’s “essential
purposes.” PA 73-562 was similar to Executive Order 16, with the added
provision that the public have access to, and the ability to comment on,
state agency proposals.
In 2002, the legislature adopted PA 02-121, which adds a “scoping”
process that allows the public to comment on a proposed action before
an agency begins the formal EIE process.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PA 73-562 (SB 2069) AAC The Adoption of a Connecticut
Environmental Policy Act
Senator Costello, Environment Committee co-chair, summarized the
history and rationale for PA 73-562 before the Senate on May 10, 1973.
Costello called the bill one of the session’s most important pieces of
environmental legislation. He noted that the legislature had in the
previous session overwhelmingly adopted a state environmental policy
act (PA 72-153). Such acts, he said, are “designed to give the public
protection against actions of state agencies which sometimes in their zeal
to carry out their mandates of construction projects…overlook the impact
on the environment which is so precious to us all” (1973 Senate
Proceedings, May 10, 1973, p. 3260).
But Governor Meskill vetoed PA 72-153, saying it overlapped with
existing federal and state requirements, would be too costly, and would
be administratively onerous (Governor’s veto message, May 19, 1972).
The governor instead issued an executive order (Executive Order 16),
partially implementing the concept of state agency environmental impact
statements.
Senator Costello said SB 2069 was “basically the governor’s executive
order” with the additional provision that the public have access to and
the ability to comment on state agency proposals. He said the Senate
should adopt it because of legal advice that an “executive order is
unenforceable and there is no way that we can truly know that our state
agencies will carry out the important responsibility of evaluating the
environmental impact of their projects” (1973 Senate Proceedings, May
10, 1973, p. 3262).
Costello acknowledged that the bill, while supported by many
environmentalists, was weaker than many people wished. “I think from
the testimony at our hearings and from the mail I received that most who
January 30, 2008
Page 2 of 8
2008-R-0079
are actively involved in the protection of the environment would seek a
stronger act…It is not as strong as I personally would wish, but I think it
is essential that we have a statement of environmental policy on our
statute books.” Senator Murphy, who spoke in favor of SB 2069, also
described it as weak. Murphy called the vetoed PA 72-153 a “superior”
bill (1973 Senate Proceedings, May 10, 1073, pp. 3261-3263).
Representative Harlow brought the bill out in the House on May 17,
1973, calling it a “significant piece of legislation” that would put state
agencies on the same footing as private industry. Representatives Ciampi
and Pearson spoke in favor of SB 2069, although both legislators
described it as weak. Representative Ratchford also spoke in favor of the
bill (1973 House Proceedings, May 17, 1973, pp. 7182-7189).
The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 34 to 0 on May 10, 1973. It
passed the House on May 17, 1973 by a vote of 137 to 0. The governor
signed it on June 22, 1973.
PA 02-121, AAC Revisions to the Connecticut Environmental Policy
Act
PA 02-121 (SB 5708) established an early CEPA “scoping” process,
required a public scoping meeting if 25 people request one, and required
sponsoring agencies to address substantive issues raised at such
meetings in their EIEs.
Representative Stratton, in introducing the bill on the House floor,
said it would make the CEPA process more efficient and more effective.
“One of the concerns of many has been that the CEPA process has,
sometimes out of frustration, ending up bogging a process down…It is
my sincere hope that with this legislation we will no longer see any
agency be tempted…to exempt a state project from what we require
everyone else to do” (House Transcript, May 6, 2002, pp. 5015-16).
Among those testifying on the bill at an Environment Committee
public hearing were Deputy Environmental Protection (DEP)
Commissioner Jane Stahl, who said the scoping process and other
provisions would “strengthen the utility of CEPA as a planning and
environmental protection tool” (Environment Committee Hearing
transcript, March 11, 2002, p. 1144).
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Executive Director Karl
Wagener acknowledged at the hearing that CEPA “does need some work,”
and said his agency generally supported the bill (Environment Committee
hearing transcript, p. 1165). OPM Undersecretary Brian Mattiello said
January 30, 2008
Page 3 of 8
2008-R-0079
CEPA needed to be modernized, and said the proposed bill was a good
beginning. But Mattiello expressed some concern about the proposal
committing agencies to a course of action too soon.
Representatives of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, the
Connecticut Fund for the Environment, and the Connecticut Association
of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, among others, spoke
in favor of the raised bill. Environmental attorney Earl Phillips and Eric
Brown, of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, spoke
against the bill, calling it incomplete.
The House amended SB 5708 on May 6, 2002, and approved it by a
vote of 145 to 0. The Senate approved the amended bill on consent on
May 7, 2002. Gov. Rowland signed it June 7, 2002. Among other
things, the amendment (LCO 5125):
1. eliminated a requirement that a sponsoring agency develop a
mitigation plan, and that OPM and DEP jointly enforce it;
2. eliminated a requirement that OPM and DEP investigate
complaints concerning improper implementation of any such
mitigation plan;
3. revised the public scoping process and timetable;
4. eliminated references under the law to environmental assessments
and findings of no significant impact;
5. made the public scoping hearing discretionary, unless requested
by 25 people or an association of 25 members; and
6. eliminated a requirement that certain environmental statements
prepared after July 8, 1975 be submitted for agency review.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF A SPONSORING AGENCY?
The agency responsible for the primary recommendation or initiation
of actions is considered a sponsoring agency for the purpose of preparing
environmental classification documents, EIEs, and findings of no
significant impact. When more than one agency is involved in the
primary recommendation or initiation of an action, one of those agencies
must act as the sponsoring agency. The other agency must share the
responsibility for the scope and content of documents prepared according
to state regulations.
January 30, 2008
Page 4 of 8
2008-R-0079
The determination of which agency is considered the sponsoring
agency is based on:
1. the magnitude of its involvement;
2. its authority to approve or disapprove the activity;
3. its expertise concerning the action's environmental effects;
4. the duration of its involvement; and
5. the sequence of the agency's involvement (Conn. Agency Regs. §
22a – 1a-2).
The following summary of the sponsoring agency’s role is taken from
the OPM website, at OPM: Overview of Connecticut Environmental Policy
Act. The sponsoring agency’s responsibilities also are summarized in
OLR Report 2004-R-0610 (attached).
According to OPM, sponsoring agencies consult their Environmental
Classification Document to determine whether a CEPA study of a
proposed action may be required. If an agency feels that the potential
exists for significant impact, it should solicit comments from the public
and other state agencies to determine whether there are any special
issues or concerns regarding that project. This scoping process should
be performed at a very early point in project planning to help ensure that
it considers relevant environmental concerns in an adequate and timely
manner.
If, after putting the proposed project through scoping, the agency
determines that the potential for significant environmental impact exists,
it prepares an EIE.
The sponsoring agency circulates the EIE to OPM, DEP, CEQ, the
Historical Commission, other appropriate state agencies and the town
clerk in the community where the action will occur. The sponsoring
agency publishes notice of the EIE in the Environmental Monitor and in
publications of general circulation.
Any interested party may comment in writing to the sponsoring
agency. The public notice period must remain open for at least 45 days
but may be longer at the discretion of the sponsoring agency. The
sponsoring agency may hold a public hearing if it wishes or if one is
requested in accordance with statutes and regulations.
January 30, 2008
Page 5 of 8
2008-R-0079
At the close of the EIE comment period, the sponsoring agency
reviews all comments and prepares a response to the substantive issues
raised or modifies the proposal. The agency then prepares a Record of
Decision.
OPM reviews the sponsoring agency's submittal of the EIE, all
comments, responses, appropriate reports, supporting documentation
and the Record of Decision. It then determines the adequacy of the EIE
and of the process and advises the agency of its decision.
If the document is determined to be inadequate, OPM recommends
changes or requests additional information. If OPM finds the document
is adequate, the sponsoring agency may proceed with the project.
CAN A PRIVATE DEVELOPER CONDUCT A CEPA STUDY?
The regulations do not refer specifically to developers. However, a
private contractor may conduct an EIE or finding of no significant impact
if the contractor has no financial interest in the study’s outcome. By
regulation, a sponsoring agency may delegate the task of preparing EIEs
and findings of no significant impact. When these documents are
prepared under contract, the contractor must execute a disclosure
statement specifying that it does not have a financial interest in the
outcome of the action. If an environmental document is prepared by
contract, the sponsoring agency and other participating agencies must
provide guidance, participate in its preparation, and independently
evaluate the document before it is generally circulated (Conn. Agency
Reg. § 22a-1a-2(c)).
HOW ARE SECONDARY IMPACTS DEFINED?
CEPA regulations do not refer to secondary impacts, but refer instead
to indirect effects, which they define as secondary consequences on local
or regional, social, economic, or natural conditions or resources that
could result from additional activities induced or stimulated by the
proposed action, both in the short- and long-term (Conn. Agency Regs. §
22a-1a-3(a)).
Among the direct and indirect effects on the environment to be
considered are the proposed action’s:
1. impact on air or water quality, or on ambient noise levels;
2. impact on a public water supply system or serious effects on
groundwater, flooding, erosion, or sedimentation;
January 30, 2008
Page 6 of 8
2008-R-0079
3. effect on natural land resources and formations, including coastal
and inland wetlands, and the maintenance of in-stream flows;
4. disruption or alteration of an historic, archeological, cultural, or
recreational building, object, district, site or its surroundings;
5. effect on natural communities and upon critical species of animals
or plants and their habitats; interference with the movement of
any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species;
6. use of pesticides, toxic or hazardous materials or any other
substance in such quantities as to create extensive detrimental
environmental impact;
7. substantial aesthetic or visual effects;
8. inconsistency with the written or mapped policies of the Statewide
Plan of Conservation and Development and such other plans and
policies developed or coordinated by OPM or other agency;
9. disruption or division of an established community or
inconsistency with adopted municipal and regional plans;
10. displacement or addition of substantial numbers of people;
11. substantial increase in congestion (traffic, recreational, or other);
12. a substantial increase in the type or rate of energy use as a direct
or indirect result of the action;
13. the creation of a hazard to human health or safety; and
14. any other substantial impact on natural, cultural, recreational or
scenic resources (Conn. Agency Reg. § 22a-1a-3(a)).
MORE INFORMATION
More information on CEPA can found in OLR Report 2004-R-0610
(attached), and on the following state websites:
Council on Environmental Quality:
http://www.ct.gov/ceq/cwp/view.asp?a=987&Q=249024&ceqNav=%7C
Department of Environmental Protection:
http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2709&q=324144&depNav_GID
=1511
January 30, 2008
Page 7 of 8
2008-R-0079
Office of Policy and Management:
http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=383206
OTHER STATES CEPA PROGRAMS
The National Conference of State Legislature reports that 17 states
(including the neighboring states of Massachusetts and New York), the
District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have environmental
planning requirements similar to the National Environmental Policy Act.
The list of these states and the citations to their appropriate laws, can be
found here:
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/states/states.cfm.
In addition, a 2000 study by the Montana Environmental Quality
Council summarized and compared environmental policy acts in 15
states. We have attached the portion of the study summarizing and
comparing these acts. The chapter also can be found on-line at
http://leg.mt.gov/content/publications/lepo/mepa_report/chapter5.pdf.
Links to the Massachusetts and New York programs can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/index.htm and
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html.
PF:dw
January 30, 2008
Page 8 of 8
2008-R-0079