Connecticut Statutes

§ 22a-17 — Defense. Appointment of master or referee.

Connecticut·Title 22a Environmental Protection·Ch. 439 Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. State Policy
(a)When the plaintiff in any such action has made a prima facie showing that the conduct of the defendant, acting alone, or in combination with others, has, or is reasonably likely unreasonably to pollute, impair or destroy the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state, the defendant may rebut the prima facie showing by the submission of evidence to the contrary. The defendant may also prove, by way of an affirmative defense, that, considering all relevant surrounding circumstances and factors, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the defendant's conduct and that such conduct is consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare. Except as to the aforesaid affirmative defense, nothing in this section shall be constr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Connecticut § 22a-17 (Defense. Appointment of master or referee.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Animal Rights Front v. Rocque No. Pjr Cv 97-0575920s (Apr. 16, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4102 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
1 case citations
City of Waterbury v. Town of Wash., No. X01-Uwy-Cv97-140886 (Feb. 16, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2094 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)

Legislative History

(1971, P.A. 96, S. 4.) Cited. 170 C. 47; 175 C. 483. Because trial court did not apply the statutory burden-shifting test, it did not decide whether plaintiff's prima facie case was sufficiently rebutted; reversal required because court did not follow statute. 184 C. 51. Cited. 192 C. 591; 197 C. 134; 204 C. 38; Id., 212; 212 C. 710; Id., 727; 215 C. 474; 218 C. 580; 220 C. 54; 222 C. 98; 226 C. 205; Id., 579; 234 C. 488; 237 C. 135; 239 C. 786. Cited. 30 CA 204; 41 CA 89; Id., 120. Plaintiff failed to provide requisite proof that the conduct of defendants, alone or in combination with others, very likely caused not merely a de minimis pollution, impairment or destruction of a natural resource, but an unreasonable one. 140 CA 155. Cited. 35 CS 145.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗