Did Connecticut need environmental review when transferring surplus state land to a town?

Plain-English summary

Connecticut's budget office asked in 2006 whether selling surplus state land to a municipality required review under the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal gave a three-part answer tied to the planned use and source of authority. If a state agency required or planned a new use, it had to evaluate whether that use could significantly affect the environment. A transfer preserving the current use did not itself trigger review. And when the legislature specifically directed the transfer, the agency's act was ministerial and outside the Act unless the legislation expressly required review.

The opinion separated the environmental effect of changing land use from the paperwork of changing title. It did not say that every sale to a town was exempt, or that every planned change necessarily required a full impact statement. The agency first had to evaluate whether the proposed action met the statute's environmental threshold.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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.

State agencies at the time

The AG said an agency-directed transfer for a different use required an environmental threshold evaluation. He treated a title transfer preserving the current use as having no environmental effect by itself. A transfer specifically directed by statute left the agency no discretion, subject to any express review requirement in that statute.

Municipal purchasers at the time

The opinion tied review to what the state required or planned for the land and whether legislation mandated the transfer. A town's receipt of title alone was not the deciding factor.

Common questions

Q: Did every surplus state land sale to a town require environmental review?
A: No. The 2006 opinion said a sale continuing the property's existing use did not trigger the Act solely because title changed.

Q: What if the state required the town to use the land for a new building or highway?
A: The AG said the transferring agency had to evaluate whether that intended use could significantly affect the environment.

Q: What if the legislature ordered the specific transfer?
A: The AG treated the agency's role as ministerial and outside review, unless the legislation expressly made the transfer subject to the Act.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1b(c) required state agencies to evaluate proposed actions that might significantly affect the environment. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1c defined covered actions and excluded ministerial activity with no agency discretion. The AG applied those provisions to surplus land sales under the general municipal purchase statute and to transfers ordered by specific acts of the legislature.

Citations and references

Statutes cited in the opinion: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1b(c); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1c.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2006-formal-opinions/honorable-robert-genuario-office-of-policy--management-formal-opinion-2006021-attorney-general-state

Original opinion text

Honorable Robert Genuario, Office of Policy & Management, Formal Opinion 2006-021, Attorney General State of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

August 18, 2006

Honorable Robert Genuario

Office of Plicy & Management

450 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Secretary Genuario:

You have asked whether transfers of surplus State property to municipalities, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-14b1, or pursuant to special or public acts of the Connecticut General Assembly directing the disposition of particular parcels of property, implicate the provisions of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (“CEPA”). This opinion addresses only those transfers of property pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-14b or pursuant to public and special acts.

CEPA places an affirmative obligation upon State agencies when they are recommending or initiating an action that may significantly affect the environment. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1b(c) reads, in relevant part:

Each state department, institution or agency responsible for the primary recommendation or initiation of actions which may significantly affect the environment shall in the case of each such proposed action make a detailed written evaluation of its environmental impact before deciding whether to undertake or approve such action. (Emphasis supplied.)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-1c defines “actions which may significantly affect the environment” as:

[I]ndividual activities or a sequence of planned activities proposed to be undertaken by state departments, institutions or agencies, or funded in whole or in part by the state, which could have a major impact on the state’s land, water, air, historic structures and landmarks as defined in section 10-410, existing housing, or other environmental resources, or could serve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. Such actions shall include but not be limited to new projects and programs of state agencies and new projects supported by state contracts and grants, but shall not include (1) emergency measures undertaken in response to an immediate threat to public health or safety; or (2) activities in which state agency participation is ministerial in nature, involving no exercise of discretion on the part of the state department, institution or agency.

Where a state agency transfers land to a municipality with a requirement that the property will be utilized for a specific purpose different than its existing use, such as, for example, construction of a highway or a building, then CEPA applies. In that circumstance, the agency making the transfer must determine whether the intended use of the property may significantly affect the environment. When the State changes the use, a determination must be made under CEPA whether that use “could have a major impact” upon the State’s environmental resources.

On the other hand, when an agency transfers land for continued use in its present purpose, CEPA is not implicated. In those circumstances, the transfer of title to the land is not an action which may significantly affect the environment, as the mere transfer of title alone has no environmental impact.

Finally, when an agency transfers land pursuant to a public or special act directing the transfer, that action does not implicate CEPA, regardless of whether the legislation mandating the transfer requires that the property be utilized for a particular purpose. In that situation, where the legislature explicitly directs the specific transfer, the state agency’s actions transferring the land are entirely ministerial, and therefore not subject to CEPA review. Of course, to the extent that a public or special act might, by its express terms, make a transfer subject to CEPA, then CEPA would apply.

In sum, the transfer of real property to a municipality for a use required or planned by the agency which is different than the property's present use requires an evaluation to determine whether CEPA requirements apply. A transfer which will not change the use of the property does not require CEPA evaluation. Finally, a transfer pursuant to legislation directing the transfer is exempt from CEPA, unless the act authorizing the transfer specifies that CEPA is applicable.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

1 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-14b provides in pertinent part as follows:

Prior to the sale of any parcel of land, or a portion thereof … the state agency, department or institution responsible for the sale of such land shall first notify in writing the chief executive officer or officers of the municipality in which such land is situated of the state’s intention to sell such land …

(a) Within forty-five days after such notice has been so given, such chief executive officer or officers may give written notice to the state of the municipality’s desire to purchase such land and shall have the right to purchase the interest in the land which the state has declared its intent to sell subject to conditions acceptable to the state.