History of Connecticut Stream Flow Regulation Development and Implementation

(Most recent information first)

• DEEP considered the factors required by the regulations and, after consultation with the CT Department of Public Health, has prepared proposed stream flow classifications for the Southeast Coastal, Pawcatuck and Thames Major River Basins.
• DEEP published Public Notice of Proposed Stream Flow Classifications Southeast Coastal, Pawcatuck & Thames Major River Basins - September 18, 2013
• Revised regulations were submitted to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee on November 1, 2011.  The Committee formally approved the regulations with technical corrections on November 29, 2011.  The regulations were filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and became effective on December 13, 2011.
• Revised regulations were submitted to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee on October 4, 2011. The Legislative Commissioner’s office issued a memo on October 13, 2011 which identified several issues in the revised regulations. DEEP requested withdrawal of the proposed regulation from consideration by the Legislative Regulations Review Committee so that the issues could be addressed and to provide an opportunity for stakeholder input on the resultant changes. The changes were made and reviewed by the stakeholder group.

• Documents submitted to the Legislative Regulations Review Committee on November 1, 2011 included:

  Revised Small Business Impact Statement, September 6, 2011 (PDF)

  Revised Fiscal Note, September 6, 2011 (PDF)

  Revised Stream Flow Regulations, November 1, 2011 (PDF)

  Redlined Version of Revised Stream Flow Regulations, November 1, 2011 (PDF)

  Summary of Changes to Stream Flow Regulations, November 1, 2011 (PDF)

• DEEP and stakeholders engaged in extensive negotiations using the December 2010 version of the regulations as the starting point and in consideration of stakeholder comments. Primary topics of discussion included:
  • How to address stream systems that naturally yield a minimal amount of water;
  • More certainty in stream flow classification; and
  • Additional public water supply considerations, compliance options, and flexibility, including protection of safe yield which is the amount of water available to a water utility to serve customers, protection of an adequate margin of safety (MOS) which is a measure of the reliability of the system, impact to infrastructure investment, recognition of potential sources of supply, environmental benefit, and compliance timeframes.
• The DEEP revised the regulations for resubmission to the Legislative Regulation Review Committee on December 7, 2010. The proposed regulations were rejected without prejudice by the Legislative Regulations Review Committee, on December 21, 2010. The Legislative Regulations Review Committee directed the CT DEEP to continue to meet with stakeholders to resolve the remaining issues.
• The revised regulations received sign-off for legal sufficiency by the Attorney General on August 31, 2010 and were submitted to the Legislative Regulation Review Committee for September 7, 2010. The proposed regulations were rejected without prejudice by the Legislative Regulation Review Committee.
• A Notice of Availability of the revised regulation and the hearing report was issued on August 17, 2010. The hearing report contains a statement of the principal reasons in support of the DEEPs action, and the principal considerations in opposition to the DEEP’s intended action as urged in written or oral comments on the proposed regulation and its reasons for rejecting such considerations.
• The DEEP drafted proposed Stream Flow Standards and Regulations; On October 13, 2009, issued a “Public Notice of Intent to Adopt Regulations and to Hold a Public Hearing.”  The DEEP provided numerous public information meetings from October 13, 2009 – January 21, 2010.  A Public hearing was held on January 21, 2010, and the public comment period was held open until February 4, 2010. 68 individuals provided oral testimony and 380 provided written comment. The extensive public comment was taken into consideration, and revisions were made to the proposed regulations.
• 2005-2009:  The Department initiated a stakeholder process through 3 workgroups (Science & Technical Workgroup; Policy & Implementation Workgroup; and Commissioner’s Advisory Group) that developed the framework of the regulations over a 3 ½ year period.