Was the University of Connecticut a water company under the watershed land development restrictions?

Plain-English summary

In 2000, Connecticut's Attorney General concluded that the University of Connecticut was not a “water company” for the statute's watershed land development restrictions. The opinion explained that the definition in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32a did not specifically name the State or its agencies and was therefore inapplicable to them. In the opinion's words, the University was “not a ‘water company’ within the narrow definition contained in the statute.”

The opinion distinguished Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32(a), which expressly referred to the State and governed the purity and adequacy of water supplied to students. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal urged UConn to consider the State's watershed conservation policy as its campus development continued, even though the development restrictions did not legally apply to the University under his reading.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did Connecticut's watershed land development limits apply to UConn as a water company?
A: The Attorney General said no under the statutory definition he examined in 2000. He reasoned that the definition did not specifically include the State or its agencies.

Q: Did the opinion exempt UConn from every water-related rule?
A: No. It distinguished a separate provision, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32(a), that expressly referred to the State and applied to the purity and adequacy of water the University supplied to students.

Q: Did the Attorney General encourage watershed conservation despite that legal conclusion?
A: Yes. The opinion urged the University to consider whether its continued development was consistent with the State's watershed and open-space conservation policy.

Background and statutory framework

The question arose during expansion under the UConn 2000 program, which the opinion said involved development of watershed land. The Attorney General applied a rule of statutory construction under which a State agency is not subject to a statutory requirement unless the statute specifically refers to the State or its agencies. He cited State v. Shelton and Charter Communications Entertainment v. University of Connecticut for that rule.

Citations and references

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32a, the water-company definition discussed in the opinion.
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32(a), the separate water quality provision discussed in the opinion.
• State v. Shelton, 47 Conn. 400 (1879).
• Charter Communications Entertainment v. University of Connecticut, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 770.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2000-formal-opinions/philip-e-austin-university-of-connecticut-2000032-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

Philip E. Austin, University of Connecticut, 2000-032 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

November 29, 2000

Philip E. Austin

President

University of Connecticut

352 Mansfield Road

U-48

Storrs, CT 06269

Dear President Austin:

Watershed lands are among Connecticut’s most precious natural resources -- a legacy for future generations that we have a responsibility to preserve and protect. Besides their vital role in protecting the purity of the state’s water supplies, the natural beauty of these lands, undisturbed and tranquil, provides a refuge and respite from development and commercialism. These pristine lands are irreplaceable; once developed they are forever lost.

For these reasons, almost 25 years ago the Connecticut legislature took direct and significant action to stop the loss of these lands, setting forth a primary policy and objective to preserve and conserve watershed land as open space. The State’s policy was embodied in a moratorium on utility company land sales, a land classification system and a requirement of prior notification of proposed land sales to the State, municipalities and private conservation groups, providing them with a first option to purchase such property. Twice, this system was successfully defended against constitutional attack, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The State’s commitment to these lands has been consistently renewed yearly through significant appropriations made by the Connecticut legislature for their purchase and preservation.

As part of the program known as UConn 2000, a vital component of the State’s commitment to higher education, the University of Connecticut has undertaken development and expansion of its campus to increase and enhance the educational opportunities that the University offers. This extremely important program has involved development of watershed land where the University is situated. As a consequence of the continuation of the UConn 2000 program, you have asked the Department of Public Health and this office whether, as a matter of law, the University is a “water company” as that term is defined in the General Statutes, subjecting the University’s watershed land to the statutory protections and restrictions imposed on private utility companies.

According to the plain language of the law, the University is not a “water company” within the narrow definition contained in the statute, that is, for purposes of the State’s watershed land development restrictions. A clear and long settled principle of law provides that the State is not subject to a statutory requirement or responsibility unless there is a specific reference to the State or its agencies in the statute. State v. Shelton, 47 Conn. 400 (1879); Charter Communications Entertainment v. University of Connecticut, 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 770. In this case, the definition of “water company” set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32a does not specifically refer to the State or its agencies and it is, therefore, inapplicable to them. In contradistinction, the State is specifically referenced in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 25-32(a), as amended by Public Act 00-90, subjecting the University to the State’s regulation of the purity and adequacy of the water that it supplies to its students.

While as a legal matter the University is not subject to the panoply of valuable protections established by the State to preserve watershed property, the University should carefully consider whether each step of continuing development at the University is consistent with the State’s long and firmly established statutory policy to conserve and preserve watershed and open space land. I am confident that these significant state policies, designed to further both education and the environment, can be harmonized for the benefit of all Connecticut citizens. Indeed, protecting natural resources -- watershed areas specifically and the environment generally -- can enhance your educational mission by setting a good example of advancing the spirit of the law, as well as complying with its letter.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL