The Connecticut Appellate Court handed down its decision in Purnell v. Inland Wetlands on Jan. 11. There were many issues of fact and law in the appeal, but only one is the focus of our attention: when must an applicant in a wetlands application come forward with feasible and prudent alternatives and what are the agency’s responsibilities for considering those?

The court’s holding dramatically reduces the circumstances in which an applicant must consider alternatives and a wetlands agency must give due consideration to them. A motion to reconsider the decision en banc has been filed. At least as to the feasible and prudent alternatives portion of this decision, the court should reconsider it. The decision as it stands will reduce environmental protection and is inconsistent with the legislative history, common practice, and the most reasonable interpretation of the statute.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]